Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Rosemount Woods EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning Commission Meeting: January 28, 2020 Tentative City Council Meeting: February 18, 2020 AGENDA ITEM: 19-50-AMD Request by Equity Lifestyle Properties for a Major Amendment to the Rosemount Woods PUD to Develop an Additional thirty-nine (39) home sites within the boundaries of the Rosemount Woods Mobile Home Park. (Continued from the December 16, 2019 meeting) AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a. ATTACHMENTS: Excerpt from the December 16, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes; Updated landscape plan with renderings; Traffic Analysis Report; City Engineer’s Memo Dated January 28, 2020; City Attorney’s Memorandum Dated January 22, 2020; Police Chief’s Memo Dated January 21, 2020; Police Department Call Data; Police Department Call Level Map APPROVED BY: KL RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend that the City Council approve a Major Amendment to the Rosemount Woods PUD to Develop an additional thirty-nine (39) home sites within the boundaries of the Rosemount Woods Mobile Home Park, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of a landscape surety in the amount of $53,460. 2. Compliance with all the conditions and standards within the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated January 28, 2019. 3. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easement over the public sanitary sewer line that will be relocated along Burgundy Avenue. 4. Applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement with the City for the proposed, private infiltration basin. 5. The applicant shall expand the storm shelter to comply with the structural requirements as determined by FEMA as well as the state building code. Shelter size, in total, should be based upon the number of units approved for the Mobile Home Park times 2.8 (on average the number of households per person in the city). 6. Conservation easements are required over the wetland and buffers. Signage for conservation easements shall be provided by the developer. 2 SUMMARY The Planning Commission is being asked to review a request from Equity Lifestyle Properties for a major amendment to the Rosemount Woods Planned Unit Development Agreement to develop an additional thirty-nine home sites within the existing boundaries of the Rosemount Woods mobile home park located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Connemara Trail and Highway 3/South Robert Trail. No new parcels or outlots are being proposed with this request. Staff finds the proposed expansion within Rosemount Woods complies with the standards of the Rosemount Woods PUD as approved in 1981, the R2-Moderate Density Residential zoning district, and the provisions of section 12-2-19: Manufactured Home Park Requirements. Staff recommends approval of the request. Applicant: Equity Lifestyle Properties Location: East of South Robert Trail and South of Connemara Trail Acres: 49.65 Acres Proposed Home Sites: 39 (182 existing, 221 total) Wetlands: One wetland is located in the northeast corner of the overall site. Net Density: 5.31 units/acre Existing Comp Plan Designation: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Zoning: R2 – Moderate Density Residential Proposed Zoning No Change Proposed DECEMBER 16, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting on December 16, 2019. At that meeting the Planning Commission received several public comments relating to concerns about traffic, crime, and landscaping. The Planning Commission’s motion to approve the request failed due to the same concerns as well as the proposed side yard setbacks in the expansion area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the hearing in order to allow the applicant and staff an opportunity to gather information to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. The applicant has provided additional information related to traffic as well as an updated landscaping plan that includes 3D renderings. Additionally, City staff has received information from the Police Department relating to crime and police calls in the Rosemount Woods community. This report is an update provides the updated information. All other aspects of the project remain as reviewed at the December meeting. Staff recommends approval of the request, subject to the conditions listed above. Landscaping The Planning Commission received several comments from the public relating to landscaping on the site, particularly regarding the views of the expansion area from the south. Members of the public also had concerns about the proximity of the southernmost home sites to the Glenrose neighborhood immediately south of Rosemount Woods. Some Commissioners also had questions about the level of landscaping provided in the northwest corner of the site and how the subject area would appear when viewed from Highway 3/South Robert Trail. Since the meeting in December, the applicant has provided an updated landscaping plan that shows additional trees along the southern boundary of the site as well as additional coniferous trees in the northwestern corner of the site near Highway 3. Specifically, ten coniferous trees have been added in the northwest corner of the site, and seven additional deciduous trees are shown along the southern bank of the infiltration basin near the Glenrose neighborhood. Along with a revised landscape plan, the applicant has submitted rendering showing the existing conditions as well as what the site will look like after planting. The rendering of the view from 140th shows additional trees in that area, but the trees shown do not match those listed on the planting schedule. Additionally, staff will continue to work with the applicant to provide a more natural landscaping along the southern site boundary through the use of shrubbery in addition to trees. An updated site plan was also provided that includes the distance between 3 the southernmost home site and the property boundary where Rosemount Woods abuts the Glenrose neighborhood, which is 193.3’. Staff supports the landscaping improvements, and feels the plans address some of the Commission and neighborhood concerns. Traffic A traffic analysis was conducted, and a report submitted to staff for review. The analysis found that overall there will be a minimal impact on the level of service for westbound traffic on Connemara Trail related to the increased units proposed by the project. Traffic engineers compared an analysis of the impact on the level of service without the expansion of Rosemount Woods and with the expansion. Level of Service or LOS is a measurement of the traffic movement and delay at an intersection. It can be described as how “full” the roads are. The modeling showed the LOS stays the same for all intersections and individual legs of each intersection. The City engineer reviewed the report and summarized the conclusions in a memo dated January 28, 2020. City engineering staff will continue working with MnDOT to improve efficiencies at the intersection, and along Hwy 3, through signal optimization. Staff does not believe that the proposed expansion generates a level of traffic impact that would necessitate a denial of the request. Ultimately regulatory authorities need to ensure that only new impacts attributed to the project are discussed and debated. Because the issue of traffic impacts has been raised in several of the recent planning applications, staff requested the City Attorney address this issue from a legal perspective. The City Attorney has written a memo regarding how the Commission and Council should view traffic impacts, especially recognizing that in this case, Hwy 3 is a minor arterial and was constructed to have high traffic volumes. Crime The Planning Commission received a number of comments during the public hearing stating that there is an excessive amount of crime in and around the Rosemount Woods community. The police department provided a count of the number of calls received by the P.D. Those numbers were used to conduct an analysis of how Rosemount Woods compared to other parts of the community using a “calls per 100 dwelling units” calculation. At 86.10 calls per 100 units, Rosemount Woods’ call ratio was higher than the 43.3 calls per 100 units average, but it did not have the highest ratio within Rosemount which was 153.47 calls per 100 units. The data provided by the police department does not show a significant difference between Rosemount Woods mobile home park and many traditional single-family home neighborhoods. Finally, because some of the comments received during the public hearing implied that the proposed expansion would result in an increase in crime in adjacent neighborhoods, it should be noted that the data shows that the residential areas adjacent to Rosemount Woods had some of the lowest ratios of calls per 100 dwelling units in the community. The Chief of Police provided planning staff with a memorandum describing the methods used to compile and analyze the data, and a map was created to provide a visual depiction of how different neighborhoods within Rosemount compare with regard to the ratio of calls per 100 dwelling units. It should be noted that calls related to issues that are not specific to residential uses, such as traffic stops, were pulled out of the analysis, but the call data does include welfare checks and calls related to people experiencing a mental health episode. The memorandum call ratio by neighborhood, and map are included with the attachments. Setbacks The issue of side yard setbacks arose during the meeting on December 16. The applicant is requesting standards related to setbacks that are consistent with the five (5) foot side yard setbacks included in the 1981 PUD approval and left unchanged in the 1991 amendment to the PUD. The Commission’s concern was that the reduced setback resulted in too dense of a development and that a ten (10) foot side yard setback should be maintained in the expansion area. Ten-foot sideyard setbacks would result in a 20’ separation between structures which is greater than many of recent single-family neighborhoods 4 requirements. For reference, in new single-family developments where homes are often larger than 3,000 square feet, a seven and one-half (7 ½) foot side yard setback is now common. Additionally, the 5’ setback standard is consistent with the rest of the Rosemount Woods community, and has not proven to be problematic with regard to access or drainage. The applicant has indicated in conversations with staff that a ten (10) foot side yard setback requirement would be met by implementing restrictions on the width of the homes located within the expansion area. Staff is supportive of allowing the residents of Rosemount Woods a wider variety of home product choices and recommends an approval of the PUD amendment that maintains the current five (5) foot side yard setback standard. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the concerns raised during the public hearing at the December 16, 2020, Planning Commission meeting have been addressed by the applicant and through staff’s review of the evidence. Based on those findings, which are reviewed in this report, staff recommends approval of a Major Amendment to the Rosemount Woods PUD, subject to the conditions contained in the staff recommendation and the attached Engineer’s Memo. 5.b. Request by Equity Lifestyle Properties for a Major Amendment to the Rosemount Woods PUD to Develop an Additional thirty-nine home sites within the boundaries of the Rosemount Woods Mobile Home Park. (19-50-AMD) Planner Nemcek gave a brief summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission. Chair Kenninger inquired if the side yard set backs are similar to other development projects in the City. Nemcek stated that the 5 foot setback would be consistent with the rest of the Rosemount Woods development. Kenninger inquired about the concern for additional traffic within the current development. Nemcek stated that it was reviewed on a first responder stand point and that the development is capable of handling the additional sites. Commissioner Rivera inquired if there is concern over storm shelter availability for the additional sites. Nemcek stated that staff is requesting that they add an additional shelter area for the increased number of home sites. Commissioner Reed inquired if the landscaping needed to be 95 percent coverage. Nemcek stated that the applicant was required to do a tree inventory for the current trees on site. The inventory showed what trees would be removed and what trees would be replaced. They are allowed to remove 25 percent of the trees before they are required to start replacing the trees. The public hearing opened at 6:58 pm. Public Comments: Angela Durbin, 14060 Burma Ave, stated that she is representing the Glenrose of Rosemount homeowners’ association. Ms. Durbin inquired exactly how close to 140th Street would the sites be built. Nemcek stated that the nearest home would be 175 feet to 140th Street. Ms. Durbin stated that a main concern would be that the additional sites would add traffic through their neighborhood. Todd Franz, South Metro Auto Brokers, 13940 South Robert Trail, stated his displeasure for the proposed additional sites. Treston Dudek, 14089 Burgundy Court, stated that he lives in the Glenrose development. He is concerned that they will lose some of their privacy if the home sites are added. Mr. Dudek stated that he is concerned about the potential of added traffic onto Connemara Trail. Mr. Dudek is also concerned about adding low income housing into Rosemount. Nichole Benson, 14038 Burgundy Ave, stated that her property is located right on the corner next to the trailer park. According to the landscape plan she will now look out her window to see the trailer park instead of the trees that she currently looks at. Ms. Benson is also concerned about the added traffic in the area. Teresa Jakubowski, 2960 140th Circle, stated that the current Rosemount Woods development is expensive. Ms. Jakubowski stated that she is concerned about who will be able to afford the new sites. Joe Polaczyk, 14092 Burgundy Court, stated that density in this area is already an issue. The traffic onto Highway 3 is already very busy. Greg Mcelroy, 13898 South Robert Trail, stated that there are other areas in the city that can be developed for high density developments. Jennifer Morrison, 14039 Burgundy Ave, stated that they currently cannot see the trailer park from her home but when Rosemount Woods adds the new sites, she will unfortunately have to see the trailer park. Wayne Rychwalski, 14051 Burma Ave, stated that the foot traffic that will increase from Rosemount High School through their neighborhood going into the trailer park. The added traffic going onto Highway 3 needs to be addressed. Matt Schumacher, Cage Civil Engineering, 3110 Woodcreek Drive, Downers Grove, IL, stated that he worked with staff and altered the layout so that two-thirds of the large trees can be saved. The applicant ended up losing some sites but allowed them to save the larger diameter trees. John Boyce, 14100 Burgundy Court, stated that the traffic and density in this area is his main concern. Joe Langel, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney (counsel for the applicant), 730 2nd Ave S., Suite 300, Minneapolis, stated that the applicant has worked diligently with the City to make sure that the trees are saved so that the buffer is there between the neighborhoods. Mr. Langel stated that he has noticed that no current residents of the mobile home park are at the meeting complaining about the additional sites proposed. He stated that a mobile home park is needed to offer lower income home options. This park has additional space and would like to expand it. Nichole Benson, 14038 Burgundy Ave, stated that she would not have purchased her home in the location that it is in if she would have known additional mobile home sites and now, she can see them from her home. She is concerned about her townhome’s property values. Greg Mcelroy, 13898 South Robert Trail, inquired how many Police Department calls have been made to Rosemount Woods. Thomas Reis, 14105 Burnley Way, stated that the average people per household is very much more than two people. The roads in Rosemount Woods is so crowded that you can barely drive down the streets. Anissa Driscoll, 14093 Burnley Way, stated that this comes down to supply and demand. Has the research been done to see that we need additional home sites? Jamal Abdulahi, 14201 Bayberry Trail, stated that diverse housing is needed. Our cities economy cannot survive on only single-family homes. Jeanne Polaczyk, 14092 Burgundy Court, stated that she understands the need for affordable housing. The trailer park is already in their backyard. Virginia Allatt, 14081 Burgundy Court, stated that she specifically selected her home because of the proximity to Rosemount High School. Ms. Allatt stated that there is high theft coming out of the trailer park. Please provide the police department calls that come for Rosemount Woods trailer park. MOTION by Reed to close the public hearing. Second by VanderWiel. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. The public hearing was closed at 7:57 pm. Additional Comments: Community Development Director Lindquist described the process for this application. The City does not own this property. The property owner has the land and submitted the application. The City takes in applications and reviews them by making sure that they meet the land use and zoning for the property. The City has given the applicant numerous comments and the applicant has revised the plan to the plan that is before us tonight. The City does need affordable housing and diversity of housing. Chair Kenninger stated that the Planning Commission position is to look at the land use and zoning of the applicants request and if the project is a proper use of the land. Community Development Director Lindquist stated that staff has consulted with the Police Department about calls to Rosemount Woods and the Chief stated that calls are consistent with other neighborhoods of this size. Planner Nemcek stated that a 140th Street expansion would be avoided to maintain the separation between the two neighborhoods. Commissioner Rivera stated she has a concern about the traffic down Highway 3. Lindquist stated that Highway 3 is a state road and conversations have been had with MnDOT on numerous occasions. Commissioner Reed stated that he is opposed to the applicant due to the side yard setbacks. The five-foot setback places the homes way too close. Lindquist stated that after listening to the neighbors they would request a condition to add additional landscaping between the two neighborhoods. Chair Kenninger stated that she would agree with adding additional landscape to provide more coverage between the neighborhoods. The traffic that the added sites could potentially create is also a concern. Commissioner VanderWiel stated that her concern is with the landscaping plan. She would be in support if a condition was added for additional landscaping. MOTION by VanderWiel to recommend that the City Council approve a Major Amendment to the Rosemount Woods PUD to Develop an Additional thirty-nine (39) home sites within the boundaries of the Rosemount Woods Mobile Home Park, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of a landscape surety in the amount of $52, 800. 2. Compliance with all the conditions and standards within the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated December 16, 2019. 3. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easement over the public sanitary sewer line that will be relocated along Burgundy Avenue. 4. Applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement with the City for the proposed, private infiltration basin. 5. Applicant shall expand the storm shelter to comply with the structural requirements as determined by FEMA as well as the state building code as it relates to size. 6. Conservation easements are required over the wetland and buffers. Signage for conservation easements shall be provided by the developer. 7. Added: Further review of the landscape plan. Second by Freeman. Ayes: 2. Nays: 3. Motion Fails. Reed, Rivera and Kenninger voted Nay. Reed stated that he denied the motion because of the side yard setbacks. He would like to see at least 10 feet on either side of the property. Lindquist stated that some of our other single-family properties have had a side yard setback of 7.5 feet. Kenninger stated that she has major concerns about the traffic. would like to see the landscape plan before the item moves forward to the City Council. Matt Schumacher questioned if the applicant would to provide a traffic study showing that there would be no major impacts would that help the commission. Kenninger stated that a traffic study would be helpful to better understand the specific intersections outside of Rosemount Woods. MOTION by VanderWiel to continue this item until the January 28, 2020, Planning Commission meeting. Second by Rivera. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes. GMEMACEMGMACEMGMSSSSSSSSSDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDBURGUNDY AVE.UPPER 138TH STREETBUNRATTY AVE.SSSSSW W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSW GMEMACEMGMACEMGMSSSSSSSSSDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDBURGUNDY AVE.UPPER 138TH STREETBUNRATTY AVE.DDDTITLESHEET23217 PLANTINGPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.BYDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEDATEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,XX-XX SHEET TITLE 300 PROJ. NO (no year) XX-XXBR---11/08/19PROJ. NOL-1OVERALLLANDSCAPE PLANPLANTING ENLARGEMENT 1PLANTING ENLARGEMENT 2PLANTING ENLARGEMENT 30SCALE IN FEET3060ROSEMOUNTWOODSPRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLAN1.ALL PAVING (ASPHALT DRIVE AISLES AND PARKING LOT, CONCRETE SIDEWALKS,CURBS, ETC.) PER CIVIL ENGINEER.2.ALL RETAINING WALLS PER CIVIL ENGINEER.GENERAL NOTES:1.LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TOOWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2.PROTECT ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIAL NOT NOTED TO BE REMOVED. IF ANYLANDSCAPE MATERIAL IS DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, REPLACE IN KIND.3.REMOVE ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MATERIALS INJURIOUS TO PLANT GROWTHFROM PLANTING PITS AND BEDS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING WITH PLANTING MIX.4.LAWN AREAS SHALL HAVE 6" MINIMUM DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. TOPSOIL SHALL BECOMPACTED TO 85% MAXIMUM DENSITY AT OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT.5.FIELD STAKE PLANTINGS ACCORDING TO PLAN. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALLAPPROVE ALL PLANT LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. OWNER RESERVES THERIGHT TO REVISE PLANTING LAYOUT AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.6.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE TRUE TO THEIR SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SIZE ASINDICATED IN THE PLANT SCHEDULE.7.IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS DRAWN ON THEPLANTING PLAN AND THE NUMBER OF PLANTS IN THE SCHEDULE, THE PLANTING PLANSHALL GOVERN.8.OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVISE QUANTITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION BUDGETBALANCING. CONTRACTOR'S UNIT BID PRICES SHALL HOLD TRUE FOR ANY CHANGESIN QUANTITIES.9.ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT SPECIES REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL OFTHE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND OWNER.10.ALL PLANT MATERIALS MUST CONFORM TO AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERYSTOCK (A.N.S.I.), LATEST EDITION PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OFNURSERYMEN, WASHINGTON D.C. LARGER SIZED PLANT MATERIALS OF THE SPECIESLISTED MAY BE USED IF THE STOCK CONFORMS TO A.N.S.I.11.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE IN A LIVE AND HEALTHYGROWING CONDITION FOR ONE FULL GROWING SEASON (ONE YEAR) AFTER FINALPROJECT ACCEPTANCE. ALL DEAD DISEASED SHALL BE REPLACED FREE OF CHARGEWITH THE SAME GRADE AND SPECIES.12.SPADED EDGE TO BE PLACED AROUND AROUND ALL PLANTING BEDS THAT ABUT TURFAREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS.13.ANY LANDSCAPE AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION RELATED ACTIVITIES NOTINDICATED ON REMOVAL PLANS SHALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION ATNO COST TO THE OWNER. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO APPROVE ALLREPLACEMENT LANDSCAPING.14.ALL PLANTING BEDS AND TREE RINGS TO RECEIVE 3" DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOODMULCH UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS. MULCH IS INCIDENTAL TO PLANTING.15.CONFIRM PEA ROCK AND 6" TIMBER EDGING PRODUCT TYPE WITH OWNER BEFOREPURCHASING PRODUCT.LANDSCAPING NOTES SSSSDDDDDBURGUNDY AVE.SW W WWWWSSSSDDDDDBURGUNDY AVE.(7) - UPQB - (1)BN - (3)BP - (4)BP - (4)QB - (2)BN - (4)PW - (5)PW - (3)PW - (5)PW - (3)(5) - CP(1) - QBTREESCODEQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTREMARKSBN28River Birch Multi-TrunkBetula nigra2" CALB & BBP37Paper BirchBetula papyrifera2" CALB & BCP15Prairie Sentinel HackberryCeltis occidentalis `Prairie Sentinel`2.5" CALB & BPW25White PinePinus alba2.5" CALB & BQB20Swamp White OakQuercus bicolor2.5" Cal.B & BUP37American ElmUlmus americana `Princeton`2.5" CALB & BPLANT SCHEDULESOD/SEEDQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAME290,500 SFMN-DOT Seed Mix '25-131' - Low Maintenance Turf35,200 SFMN-DOT Seed Mix '33-261' - Stormwater South & WestGROUNDCOVERBSCHEDULETITLESHEET23217 PLANTINGPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.BYDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEDATEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,XX-XX SHEET TITLE 300 PROJ. NO (no year) XX-XXBR---11/08/19PROJ. NO1PLANTING ENLARGEMENT 1PLANTING ENLARGEMENT 20SCALE IN FEET1530PLANTINGENLARGEMENTPLANROSEMOUNTWOODSPRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLAN GMEMACEMGMACEMGMSSSSDDDDBURGUNDY AVE.UPPER 138TH STREETBUNRATTY AVE.SSSSSW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGMEMACEMGMACEMGMSSSSD DDDBURGUNDY AVE.UPPER 138TH STREETBUNRATTY AVE.DDD(6) - BNUP - (15)QB - (3)QB - (1)(1) - QB(5) - BP(2) - QB(1) - BN(6) - BN(2) - BN(1) - CP(1) - UP(5) - BP(4) - UP(5) - UP(5) - UPQB - (1)CP - (2)CP - (2)CP - (1)(2) - CPBP - (3)BP - (1)CP - (1)(4) - BP(1) - CP(2) - BP(2) - QB(1) - QB(4) - BP(1) - BP(1) - QB(3) - BP(1) - BPPW - (4)PW - (3)(1) - PW(1) - PW(3) - QB(6) - BNTREESCODEQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTREMARKSBN28River Birch Multi-TrunkBetula nigra2" CALB & BBP37Paper BirchBetula papyrifera2" CALB & BCP15Prairie Sentinel HackberryCeltis occidentalis `Prairie Sentinel`2.5" CALB & BPW25White PinePinus alba2.5" CALB & BQB20Swamp White OakQuercus bicolor2.5" Cal.B & BUP37American ElmUlmus americana `Princeton`2.5" CALB & BPLANT SCHEDULESOD/SEEDQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAME290,500 SFMN-DOT Seed Mix '25-131' - Low Maintenance Turf35,200 SFMN-DOT Seed Mix '33-261' - Stormwater South & WestGROUNDCOVERBSCHEDULETITLESHEET23217 PLANTINGPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.BYDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEDATEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,XX-XX SHEET TITLE 300 PROJ. NO (no year) XX-XXBR---11/08/19PROJ. NOL-3PLANTINGENLARGEMENTPLANPLANTING ENLARGEMENT 30SCALE IN FEET1530ROSEMOUNTWOODSPRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLAN TITLESHEET23217 PLANTINGPROJECT NO.FILE NAMEDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYORIGINAL ISSUE DATECLIENT PROJECT NO.BYDESCRIPTIONREVISION SCHEDULEDATEPROJECTWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.INC. AND MAY NOT BE USED, COPIED OR DUPLICATED THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF I & S GROUP,XX-XX SHEET TITLE 300 PROJ. NO (no year) XX-XXBR---11/08/19PROJ. NOL-4PLANTINGDETAILSSHRUB PLANTING DETAILSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"BACKFILL PLANTING PIT PER SHRUB PLANTINGSPECIFICATIONS WHEN PROVIDED, OR WITH NATIVESOIL-EXCEPT WHEN IN HEAVY CLAY, MIX AMENDEDTOPSOIL FROM A LOCAL SOURCE WITH NATIVE SOILEXCAVATE PLANTING PIT TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THEDEPTH OF THE ROOTBALL / CONTAINER MINUS 3" ANDA MINIMUM TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL/ CONTAINER - TILL ALL PLANTING BEDS TO AMINIMUM DEPTH OF 6" THROUGHOUTPLACE ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED SOIL ANDENSURE PLANT IS PLUMBALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED SO THAT THE TOP OFTHE CROWN OF THE PLANT IS SLIGHTLY ABOVEFINISH GRADE 3"ROOTBALL DIA1.5 X ROOTBALL DIADEPTH OFROOTBALLCUT AND REMOVE AT MINIMUM THE TOP HALF OFWIRE BASKETS, BURLAP AND/OR TWINE, OR ENTIRECONTAINER, AND REMOVE FROM THE PLANTING PIT,SCARIFY ROOTS FOR ALL CONTAINERIZED PLANTS 5GALLONS FOR SMALLERCONTAINER DIA1.5 X CONTAINER DIA3" LAYER OF MULCH, PER PLANS/NOTESPLANPERENNIAL PLANTING DETAILSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"SECTIONSYMMETRICALSPACING1/2 SPECIFIEDPLANT SPACINGRIP AND TILL EXISTING SUBGRADE TO A 6" DEPTHALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED SO THAT THE TOP OFTHE CROWN OF THE PLANT IS SLIGHTLY ABOVEFINISH GRADE 3"CUT AND REMOVE THE ENTIRE CONTAINER ANDSCARIFY, AS NECESSARY, ROOTS FOR ALLCONTAINERIZED PLANTS 5 GALLONS OR SMALLEREDGE OF PLANTING BED / GROUND COVER AREAINSTALL PLANTS PER PLANS AND PLANT LISTSPACING - ALL PLANTS SHALL BE EQUALLY SPACEDTO ACHIEVE A SYMMETRICAL LAYOUT FOR BOTHTRIANGULAR AND LINEAR PLANTING SCHEMESSUBGRADE3" LAYER OF MULCH, PER PLANS/NOTESCONIFER / EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAILSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"TIE NYLON STRAP AROUND TRUNK AS SHOWNCUT AND REMOVE AT MINIMUM THE TOP HALF OF WIRE BASKETS,BURLAP AND/OR TWINE AND REMOVE FROM THE PLANTING PIT.AVOID CUTTING OR SCARING ROOTS. ANY ROOTS THAT ARESCARED OR BROKEN DURING PLANTING SHOULD BE CUT CLEANAT 90 DEGREESBACKFILL PLANTING PIT PER TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONSWHEN PROVIDED, OR WITH NATIVE SOIL-EXCEPT WHEN IN HEAVYCLAY, MIX AMENDED TOPSOIL FROM A LOCAL SOURCE WITHNATIVE SOILEXCAVATE PLANTING PIT TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OFTHE ROOTBALL MINUS 3" AND A MINIMUM TWICE THE DIAMETER OFTHE ROOTBALL3" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH MOUNDED AT EDGETO FORM A SHALLOW SAUCER - DO NOT PLACE MULCH DIRECTLYON TREE TRUNK, LEAVE A MIN. 3" RING AROUND CROWNROOTBALL DIA1.5 X ROOTBALL DIADEPTH OFROOTBALLNEVER CUT PRIMARY LEADERPRUNE ALL BROKEN, DAMAGED, OR RUBBING LIMBS ANDBRANCHES IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING - ALL PRUNING CUTSCLEAN AT 90 DEGREESTREES 8'+TREES 6'-8'TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE SET ABOVE GRADE 3"1/2" WIDE NYLON STRAPPING - COLOR TO BE APPROVED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT*NOTE: DO NOT STAKETREES UNLESSINDICATED.STAKING DIAGRAM,NO STAKING TREES UNDER6'REMOVE AT MINIMUM THE TOP HALF OF WIREBASKETS, BURLAP, TWINE - REMOVE THESE AND ALLNON-BIODEGRADIBLE MATURIALS FROM THEPLANTING PIT. AVOID CUTTING OR SCARING ROOTS.ANY ROOTS THAT ARE SCARED OR BROKEN DURINGPLANTING SHOULD BE CUT CLEAN AT 90 DEGREESBACKFILL PLANTING PIT PER TREE PLANTINGSPECIFICATIONS WHEN PROVIDED, OR WITH NATIVESOIL-EXCEPT WHEN IN HEAVY CLAY, MIX AMENDEDTOPSOIL FROM A LOCAL SOURCE WITH NATIVE SOIL.DO NOT TAMP SOIL, BUT SATURATE WITH WATERTHROUGHOUT BACKFILL PROCESS.EXCAVATE PLANTING PIT TO A DEPTH EQUAL TOTHE DEPTH OF THE ROOTBALL MINUS 3" AND AMINIMUM TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL3" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCHMOUNDED AT EDGE TO FORM A SHALLOW SAUCER -DO NOT PLACE MULCH WITHIN 3" OF TRUCK. WHEN INPLANT BED, SUBSTITUTE WITH PLANT BED MULCH.ROOTBALL DIA2X ROOTBALL DIADEPTH OFROOTBALLNEVER CUT PRIMARY LEADERPRUNE ALL BROKEN, DAMAGED, OR RUBBING LIMBSAND BRANCHES IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING -ALL PRUNING CUTS CLEAN AT 90 DEGREESTREES 8'+TREES 6'-8'SET ROOT FLAIR ABOVE GRADE 3"WHEN STAKED, ATTACH 1/2" WIDE NYLONSTRAPPING SNUGLY AROUND TRUCK AND, WITHSOME LOOSENESS, TO STAKES AS SHOWNNOTE: * AVOID STAKING UNLESS NECESSARY. * NO STAKING TREES UNDER 6'.STAKING DIAGRAMMUST MAINTAIN TRUNK IN VERTICAL ORIENTATIONTREE PLANTING DETAILNO SCALEUNDISTURBED SOILROSEMOUNTWOODSPRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLAN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning ROSEMOUNT WOODS ROSEMOUNT, MN • JANUARY 2020 ISG PROJECT NO. 23217 ISGInc.com LOOKING NORTH FROM 140TH CIR. W. - EXISTING 1HWY. 3CONNEMARA TRAIL W. Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning ROSEMOUNT WOODS ROSEMOUNT, MN • JANUARY 2020 ISG PROJECT NO. 23217 ISGInc.com LOOKING NORTH FROM 140TH CIR. W. - PROPOSED 1HWY. 3CONNEMARA TRAIL W. Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning ROSEMOUNT WOODS ROSEMOUNT, MN • JANUARY 2020 ISG PROJECT NO. 23217 ISGInc.com LOOKING SOUTH FROM CONNEMARA TRAIL W. & HWY. 3- EXISTING 2 HWY. 3CONNEMARA TRAIL W. Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning ROSEMOUNT WOODS ROSEMOUNT, MN • JANUARY 2020 ISG PROJECT NO. 23217 ISGInc.com LOOKING SOUTH FROM CONNEMARA TRAIL W. & HWY. 3 - PROPOSED 2 HWY. 3CONNEMARA TRAIL W. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Rosemount Woods Rosemount, MN January 23, 2020 Project No. 19-23217 REPORT FOR : City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-4997 651.322.2022 FROM : ISG Will Kratt, PE, PTOE 201 Main Street + Suite 1020 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 608.789.2034 Will.Kratt@ISGInc,com 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page i SIGNATURE SHEET I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THESE CALCULATIONS WERE PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. William A. Kratt, PE, PTOE Project Engineer License No. 51210 My license renewal date is June 30, 2020 Documents covered by this seal: Rosemount Woods Traffic Impact Study ISG 201 Main Street, Suite 1020 La Crosse, WI 54601 Rosemount Woods Rosemount, Minnesota Engineer's Project Number: 19-23217 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2020 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Studied Intersection Description and Location ................................................................................................................................... 1 Findings .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Recommendations + Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of Report ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Area Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 City Data, Land Use, and Zoning .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Area Roadway System ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Existing Traffic Volumes and Conditions .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Projected Traffic ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Site Traffic .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Other Traffic ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Total Future Traffic ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Traffic Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Capacity and Level of Service at Studied Intersections ................................................................................................................... 11 Crash Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Improvements to Accommodate Site Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 18 Recommendations + Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 APPENDICES Appendix A: Preliminary Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ A Appendix B: Project Location Map ........................................................................................................................................................... B Appendix C: Intersection Map .................................................................................................................................................................. C Appendix D: Existing Zoning Map .............................................................................................................................................................D Appendix E: Future Land Use Map ........................................................................................................................................................... E Appendix F: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Counts........................................................................................................................................ F Appendix G: Existing – Synchro Analysis Worksheets.............................................................................................................................G Appendix H: Traffic Distribution ................................................................................................................................................................H Appendix I: 2025 No Build Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................................................................................................... I Appendix J: New Traffic Peak Hour Volumes ............................................................................................................................................ J Appendix K: 2025 Build Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................................................................................... K Appendix L: 2025 No Build – Synchro Analysis Worksheets ................................................................................................................. L Appendix M: 2025 Build – Synchro Analysis Worksheets ..................................................................................................................... M 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 1 of 19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Studied Intersection Description and Location This Traffic Impact Study (TIS) studied current, projected, and future traffic conditions at three locations in the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. These locations included: · Intersection 1 – The intersection of Minnesota Highway (MN) 3 and Connemara Trail West. · Intersection 2 – The intersection of Connemara Trail West and Bunratty Avenue. Traffic count data was collected at Intersection 1, Intersection 2, and the intersection of Brazil Avenue and Upper 138th Street. The intersection of Brazil Avenue and Upper 138th Street in not a studied intersection, but traffic was collected to assist with development trip distribution. This study has been prepared in response to the expansion of the existing Rosemount Woods manufactured home park. Rosemount Woods is located east of TH 3, south of West Connemara Trail, and west of Brazil Avenue. The expansion areas consist of an undeveloped woodland area, open space, and a gated vehicle and boat storage area within the Rosemount Woods property boundaries. The expansion will build upon the existing road network within the Rosemount Woods property, and no new access points are proposed. An asphaltic shared use path and concrete sidewalk runs adjacent to Connemara Trail West. The shared use path wraps around the Rosemount Woods property’s northeast corner and ends at the intersection of Brazil Avenue and Upper 138th Street West. The shared use path resumes 850 feet south where it connects to the Erickson Park trail system. A Minnesota Valley Transit Authority transit station is located 0.7 miles south of Rosemount Woods. There are no other pedestrian accommodations, bicycle accommodations, or bus or transit stops within the project vicinity. Rosemount Woods’s internal road, Bunratty Avenue, accesses Connemara Trail West, a city street. Rosemount Woods’s internal road, Upper 138th Street West, provides access to the end of Brazil Avenue. Brazil Avenue once ended as a cul-de-sac, so the intersection of Upper 138th Street West and Brazil Avenue is a two-legged intersection and functions much like a through street. New traffic expected as a result of the Rosemount Wood’s expansion is expected to use both access points. The expansion of Rosemount Woods is expected to commence in late summer 2020. No other major development is anticipated to take place between the time of the existing data collection and the proposed expansion. Findings Approximately 75% of Rosemount Woods traffic during the AM and PM peak periods enters and exits Rosemount Woods using the access to Connemara Trail W. Most of this traffic travels to and from TH 3. The morning traffic peak hour occurred from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM, and the evening traffic peak occurred from 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM. The peak hour of the generator was the same hour, or within 15 minutes, of the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. The existing traffic was projected to the design year, 2025, and the additional traffic expected as a result of the manufactured home park expansion was added to the 2025 No Build condition to create the 2025 Build condition. According to traffic modeling using Synchro (Percentile and Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition delay methods) and SimTraffic, the new traffic expected as a result of the manufactured home park expansion has a minimal effect on the area roadway network. According to the existing traffic modeling using the collected data and signal timing data from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the existing traffic signals are not timed to optimize efficiency at Intersection 1. Traffic signal timing optimization would be an appropriate short term solution; however, increasing background traffic volumes on Connemara Trail W will require further study and discussion with the Minnesota Department of Transportation in order to determine a feasible long term solution to mitigate decreased levels of service at side roads along the corridor. 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 2 of 19 Recommendations + Conclusions No improvements are recommended in order to accommodate the traffic expected as a result of the proposed manufactured home park expansion. The area should be re-evaluated periodically or when other development occurs in the future. Additionally, long term solutions to mitigate the negative impacts that increasing background traffic volumes have on side streets within the Connemara Trail W corridor should be studied further and discussed with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 3 of 19 INTRODUCTION Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to document the methodologies, findings, recommendations, and conclusions of the Rosemount Woods development expansion traffic impact analysis study, including the basis for all assumptions, traffic parameters, and conclusions. This report presents data in a logical format including tables and figures in order to accurately and clearly convey the data and its meaning. Study Objectives The objectives of this study include the following: 1. Identify the impacts to the transportation system and immediate area as a result of the proposed expansion. 2. Recommend necessary improvements to the adjacent transportation system to maintain a safe, efficient system. 3. Protect the safety and functionality of the transportation system while providing sufficient access for the proposed development. AREA CONDITIONS City Data, Land Use, and Zoning This report studies the impacts of a proposed expansion of an existing manufactured home park in the City of Rosemount. A preliminary site plan is provided in Appendix A, and a project location map is provided in Appendix B. More details regarding site traffic and trip generation are provided in a later section of this report. The City of Rosemount has an estimated population of 23,965 (year 2015), and the population has continually grown since it was incorporated as a City by state statue in 1974. According to the City of Rosemount’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City forecasts 2.0% annual growth between 2020 and 2030 which is consistent with the Metropolitan Council regional model. Intersections 1 (TH 3 and Connemara Trail W) and 2 (Connemara Trail W and Bunratty Ave) were studied. Traffic count data was also collected at the intersection of Brazil Street and Upper 138th Street to assist with existing development and new trip distribution. The figure in Appendix C identifies these intersections and illustrates their location within central Rosemount. The City of Rosemount’s existing zoning map is provided as Appendix D. The City of Rosemount Future Land Use Map is provided as Appendix E. The Future Land Use Map indicates that development will likely continue east of the City of Rosemount’s developed area, guided by the 2030 and 2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundaries, as Rosemount continues to attract new residents, commercial businesses, and industrial land users. Land use in the study area vicinity includes neighborhood commercial (south), public/institutional (southeast and southwest), parks and open space (north, west, and south), medium density residential (north), and low density residential (east and west). The properties are zoned appropriately and adjacent zoning includes convenience commercial (south), public/institutional (southeast, southwest, north, west, and south), medium density residential (north), and moderate density residential (east and west). Area Roadway System Through and adjacent to the study area: · TH 3 is a north-south minor expander · Connemara Trail is an west-east major collector · Rosemount Woods’s internal roadways and Brazil Avenue are local roads 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 4 of 19 To the north, TH 3 is a two-lane, undivided highway that connects Rosemount to other regional communities and highway routes. Starting at Intersection 1 and to the south towards Rosemount’s city center, TH 3 transitions into a 3-lane highway where the center lane is a two-way left-turn lane. Both left and right-turn lanes are provided at TH 3’s intersection with Connemara Trail W. TH 3 is locally known as S Robert Trail. TH 3 has experienced growing congestion, causing diversion of traffic to City roadways. The City expects TH 3 to approach capacity by 2040 from Connemara Trail W north to Bonaire Path W, the next adjacent roadway. According to the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Robert Trail South is not recommended for a lane expansion project due to the lack of space and because an expansion would negatively impact the City of Rosemount’s downtown. Connemara Trail W is a two-lane, undivided roadway that stretches from Rosemount’s west city limits to the Rosemount’s eastern limit of developed area. Right and left-turn lanes are provided at its intersection Bunratty Avenue. Connemara Trail W and Burnratty Avenue form a three-legged intersection where the Bunratty Avenue approach has a single combined left and right-turn lane. Bunratty Avenue connects a series of internal roadways within the Rosemount Woods manufactured home park development. Rosemount Woods’s internal roadways are two-lane roadways with sloped-type curb and gutter. Storm sewer catch basin inlets are not present in the curb and gutter. One of the internal roadways is Upper 138th Street, a west-east roadway that connects to Brazil Avenue on the east side of the development. Upper 138th Street and Brazil Avenue form a two-legged intersection with a Connemara Trail W shared-use path trail connection on the north side of the intersection. Where Upper 138th Street meets Brazil Avenue, Brazil Avenue had once ended as cul-de-sac. This end section of Brazil Avenue is unpaved from Upper 138th Street to Erickson Park, the park immediately south of the Rosemount Woods development. From Erickson Park and to the south, Brazil Avenue is a bituminous paved roadway with two travel lanes, no shoulders, and curb and gutter. Posted speed limits within the study area are 55 MPH north of Connemara Trail W on TH 3, 45 MPH south of Connemara Trail W on TH 3, 40 MPH on Connemara Trail W, 10 MPH on Bunratty Avenue and Upper 138th Street, and 30 MPH on Brazil Avenue. Intersection 1 (the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail W) is controlled by a traffic signal. Intersection 2 (the intersection of Connemara Trail W and Bunratty Avenue) is stop-controlled on Bunratty Avenue. The intersection of Upper 138th Street and Brazil Avenue is stop-controlled on Upper 138th Street. TH 3 is a state highway that connects Rosemount’s commercial center to neighboring communities to the north and south. As a result, TH 3 sees a mix of both commuter and truck traffic where trucks make up approximately 4% of the traffic stream. Connemara Trail W connects many of the residential neighborhoods on the north side of Rosemount’s developed area. It carries commuter traffic. A bituminous shared-use path runs along the length of Connemara Trail W on the south side of the roadway from the west of the City’s western boundary to Akron Avenue on the east side of the City’s developed area. A concrete sidewalk runs along Connemara Trail W’s north side for the same length of roadway. Trucks make up approximately 2% of Connemara Trail W’s traffic stream within the study boundary. According to collected traffic count data, the intersection of Upper 138th Street and Brazil Avenue sees mostly Rosemount Woods residential traffic and the occasional school bus or garbage truck. Existing Traffic Volumes and Conditions Traffic count data was collected by ISG at Intersections 1, Intersection 2 and the intersection of Brazil Avenue and Upper 138th Street on Tuesday, January 7th, 2019 from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM and from 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM. Area schools were in session. Outside temperatures ranged from 24 degrees to 29 degrees. Previous precipitation had left Brazil Avenue ice covered and the paved roads partially ice covered. This likely impacted travel speeds, and the individuals conducting the traffic count remarked that vehicles generally traveled at or below the speed limit and approached intersections with caution. 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 5 of 19 The morning (AM) peak hour of traffic on TH 3 and Connemara Trail W occurred from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM and the evening (PM) peak hour of traffic on TH 3 and Connemara Trail W occurred from 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM. Summary diagrams of the peak hour traffic counts are provided in Appendix F. To analyze the traffic conditions within the study area, Synchro version 10.3’s Synchro Control Delay (Percentile Method) was utilized at Intersection 1 and Synchro version 10.3’s Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, delay method was utilized at Intersection 2 which included modeling both subject intersections. Synchro analysis worksheets were prepared for the existing conditions and are provided in Appendix G. Table 1 and Table 2 show the existing level of service (LOS) and delay for Intersections 1 and 2 for both peak hour periods. See the Level of Service and Delay Comparison section for discussion on level of service and delay. Table 1: Existing LOS – Intersection 1 INTERSECTION 1 AM PEAK 2020 EXISTING TH 3 & W Connemara Trail Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 130 38 178 233 142 396 48 644 51 68 340 25 Queue (ft) 204 108 88 307 350 358 43 437 33 74 478 18 Mvmt Delay (sec) 82.8 68.3 14.3 59.5 80.0 39.9 10.3 24.6 0.6 11.5 17.5 0.0 Mvmt LOS D E B E E D B C A B B A Delay (sec) 33.2 34.7 53.2 22.1 15.6 LOS C C D C B Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (Percentile Delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). INTERSECTION 1 PM PEAK 2020 EXISTING TH 3 & W Connemara Trail Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 58 101 91 102 102 113 79 400 119 224 757 122 Queue (ft) 79 132 66 145 120 52 92 227 52 198 371 144 Mvmt Delay (sec) 52.1 80 5.3 61.6 72.4 9.1 7.7 15 1.7 7.6 18.3 3 Mvmt LOS D E A E E A A B A A B A Delay (sec) 21.7 46.4 46.3 11.4 14.5 LOS C D D B B Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (Percentile Delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). Using Synchro version 10.3, multiple delay computation methods are available (including the Percentile Delay Method, the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology, Highway Capacity Manual 2010 Edition methodology, and Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Edition methodology). Synchro’s core delay calculation, the Percentile Delay Method, which is recommended by Synchro when evaluating actuated signals, produced delay results much closer to SimTraffic microsimulation model results than other delay computation methods. During field observations of queuing at Intersection 1, queues on the westbound approach did 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 6 of 19 not cause blocking or impede traffic flow at Intersection 2. Observed queue lengths were reported to be closer to the Average Queue lengths than the 95th percentile queue lengths provided by SimTraffic and printed in the analysis worksheets in the Appendices. Table 2: Existing LOS – Intersection 2 INTERSECTION 2 AM PEAK 2020 EXISTING W Connemara Trail & Bunratty Ave Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 164 5 2 731 40 2 Queue (ft) 0 0 0 87 104 Mvmt Delay (sec) 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 Mvmt LOS A A A A Delay (sec) 1.1 0.0 0.0 24.5 LOS A A A C Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (HCM 6th Edition delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). INTERSECTION 2 PM PEAK 2020 EXISTING W Connemara Trail & Bunratty Ave Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 386 55 7 288 32 4 Queue (ft) 0 0 22 0 46 Mvmt Delay (sec) 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 Mvmt LOS A A A A Delay (sec) 0.8 0.0 0.2 16.0 LOS A A A C Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (HCM 6th Edition delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 7 of 19 TH 3 has an estimated average annual daily traffic (AADT) volume of 12,300 vehicles per day (vpd) and Connemara Trail W’s AADT adjacent to Rosemount Woods is 7,000 vpd. These are estimates for year 2018, according to Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) traffic data as presented in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 8 of 19 PROJECTED TRAFFIC Existing traffic was projected to create a 5-year (2025) No Build scenario and a 5-year (2025) Build scenario for the 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM weekday and 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM weekday peak hours. The method for determining these traffic projections included trip generation and distribution analyses based on estimates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition and existing traffic data. Site Traffic TRIP GENERATION Rosemount Woods, an existing 182 home development, is planning to be expanded by 39 homes with construction starting in summer 2020. It is anticipated that, over the next few years, homes will gradually be constructed with the expansion being complete by 2025. The additional traffic created as a result of the proposed expansion will be composed of new trips generally created by the new residents and visitors they attract. For this study, a trip is defined as a one-way movement between an origin and a destination. The expected number of trips the proposed expansion will generate was estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition. To form an estimate of number of additional trips created by the development as a result of the expansion, two tables were prepared: one for the existing condition (182 occupied dwelling units) and one for the proposed condition (221 occupied dwelling units). The two tables are provided as Table 3 and Table 4. The numerical difference between these two conditions makes up the number of new trips created by the proposed expansion. This is tabulated in Table 5. Table 3: Trip Generation - Existing Condition Table 4: Trip Generation - Proposed Condition Table 5: Trip Generation – Net New Trips ITE Code 240 182 Occupied Dwelling Units Fitted Curve Equation # of Generated Trips % Entering % Exiting # of Generated Trips Entering # of Generated Trips Exiting R^2 # of Studies Weekday AM (AM Peak Hour of Adj Street Traffic) T = 0.30X+16.58 71 20% 80% 14 57 0.89 8 Weekday AM (AM Peak Hour of Generator) T = 0.29X+22.62 75 25% 75% 19 56 0.92 8 Weekday PM (PM Peak Hour of Adj Street Traffic) T = 0.58X+2.38 108 62% 38% 67 41 0.93 8 Weekday PM (PM Peak Hour of Generator) T = 0.56X+6.89 109 61% 39% 66 43 0.94 8 Note: Sums may not add as expected due to rounding. Data from Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Mobile Home Park ITE Code 240 221 Occupied Dwelling Units Fitted Curve Equation # of Generated Trips % Entering % Exiting # of Generated Trips Entering # of Generated Trips Exiting R^2 # of Studies Weekday AM (AM Peak Hour of Adj Street Traffic) T = 0.30X+16.58 83 20% 80% 17 66 0.89 8 Weekday AM (AM Peak Hour of Generator) T = 0.29X+22.62 87 25% 75% 22 65 0.92 8 Weekday PM (PM Peak Hour of Adj Street Traffic) T = 0.58X+2.38 131 62% 38% 81 50 0.93 8 Weekday PM (PM Peak Hour of Generator) T = 0.56X+6.89 131 61% 39% 80 51 0.94 8 Mobile Home Park Note: Sums may not add as expected due to rounding. Data from Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Total New Trips Entering Exiting Weekday AM (AM Peak Hour of Adj Street Traffic) 12 3 9 Weekday AM (AM Peak Hour of Generator) 12 3 9 Weekday PM (PM Peak Hour of Adj Street Traffic) 23 14 9 Weekday PM (PM Peak Hour of Generator) 22 14 8 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 9 of 19 The AM peak hour of the generator, Rosemount Woods, and the AM peak hour of the adjacent street occurred at the same time, 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM. The PM peak hour of the generator (4:30 PM to 5:30 PM) occurred within 15 minutes of the PM peak hour of the adjacent street (4:15 PM to 5:15 PM). The difference in traffic volume is minimal, so for this study, the traffic data from the peak hours of the adjacent street will be used. Table 6 compares the traffic count data to the Trip Generation Manual values for the AM and PM peak hour periods. Table 6: Comparing Traffic Count Data to Trip Generation Manual TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT It is assumed that Rosemount Woods’s new trips would follow the travel patterns of the existing development traffic. Intersection 2 and the intersection of Brazil Avenue and Upper 138th Street serve as the entry and exit points for the Rosemount Woods development. The collected traffic count data showed that about 75% of the entering and exiting traffic preferred to use the access point at Intersection 2 rather than the access at Brazil Avenue and Upper 138th Street during both the AM and PM peak hours. The amount of traffic that would then travel to or come from the north, west, and south varied between the AM and PM periods. A diagram of the Synchro model, including labeled nodes, and the Traffic Impact Analysis Driveway Distribution Reports for the proposed traffic during the AM and PM periods is provided in Appendix H. Trips assigned using the Traffic Impact Analysis tool are assigned to the intersections within Synchro and can be seen in the analysis reports as “Future Vol”. These trips are included in the LOS analyses. Entering 12 Entering 14 Exiting 54 Exiting 57 Entering 12 Entering 19 Exiting 54 Exiting 56 Entering 75 Entering 67 Exiting 48 Exiting 41 Entering 73 Entering 66 Exiting 53 Exiting 43 AM PM Peak of Generator Peak of Generator Count Trip Generation Manual Peak of Adjacent Street Peak of Adjacent Street Peak of Adjacent Street Peak of Generator Trip Generation ManualCount Peak of Adjacent Street Peak of Generator 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 10 of 19 Other Traffic ROADWAY HISTORICAL GROWTH RATE The growth rate was back-calculated using the historical traffic counts along Connemara Trail W in the study area using the following equation: 1 ℎ: ℎ ℎ ℎ ! The results are shown in Table 7 and Figure 2. In the past 10 years, traffic volumes on Connemara Trail W has increased about 7% annually while traffic volumes on TH 3 has decreased by about 2% annually. Additionally, traffic count data was collected in April 2015 at the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail. Comparing this data set to the traffic count data collected for this Rosemount Woods expansion study, showed that northbound and southbound TH 3 traffic volumes changed little (-0.5% annually southbound and 1% annually northbound) over the past 5 years and westbound traffic on Connemara Trail W increased by approximately 10% annually. For this study, the traffic count data for all westbound movements, eastbound through, northbound right-turn, and southbound left-turn movements of Intersection 1 were projected by 7% annually to account for Connemara Trail W’s growth. This adds traffic to TH 3 and the eastbound leg of Connemara W at Intersection 1; however, no additional movements were adjusted due to the lack of traffic growth historically on TH 3. Development towards the east along Connemara Trail W is expected, according to the City of Rosemount’s 2040 Comprehensive plan. It is likely that this growth will make up the projected 7% annual traffic increase on Connemara Trail W though the study area, and no additional growth adjustments are needed in order to be consistent with future land use development expectations. Table 7: Historical Connemara Trail W Growth Figure 2: Historical Connemara Trail W Growth Year AADT Annualized Growth 2018 7000 13.3% 2014 4250 0.9% 2010 4100 - 7.1% Historical Connemara Trail W Growth Average Growth 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 11 of 19 MODAL SPLIT No cyclists were recorded during traffic count conducted for this study; however, it is expected that weather conditions contributed to the lack of cyclists. TH 3 is considered a Regional Bicycle Transportation Network, Tier 2, corridor by the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, and the Metropolitan Council. Tier 2 corridors are the second highest priority for funding. There are currently no existing or future plans to constructed bicycle or pedestrian facilities on TH 3. Some pedestrian movements were recorded during the traffic count conducted for this study. The trail connection along Brazil Avenue between Erickson Park (the park to the south of Rosemount Woods) and Connemara Trail W is considered a key connection by the City of Rosemount’s Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan adopted in 2010 in need of improvement. The trail along Connemara Trail W branches off to end at the intersection of Brazil Avenue and Upper 138th Street. The trail resumes again near the paved end of Brazil Avenue closer to the Erickson Park. The expansion of the manufactured home park should include improvements to remedy the need identified in Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan. As requested by the City of Rosemount, the current site plan shows a trail connection from the end of Bunratty Street to the Erickson Park Trail network. This is considered an appropriate improvement to remedy the need identified in the City’s Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan. Total Future Traffic The trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment analysis and calculations result in peak hour volumes for each study period. Appendix I shows the 2025 No Build peak volumes, Appendix J shows the traffic volumes created by the proposed expansion, and Appendix K shows the 2025 Build peak volumes. Refer to Appendices L and M for the Synchro analysis worksheets for the 2025 No Build and 2025 Build traffic conditions. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Site Access, Circulation, and Parking No new access points to will be created as a part of the proposed manufactured home park expansion. About half of the new lots will utilize the existing internal roadway network, and the other half of the new lots will line an extension of Burgundy Avenue, one of the internal roadways. Burgundy Avenue and Upper 138th Street W would form an uncontrolled T-intersection according to the proposed site plan. The park currently has a mix of stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersections, so proposing an uncontrolled intersection would not violate driver expectations. Placing a stop sign on Upper 138th Street at the intersection of Burgundy Avenue and Upper 138th Street W would control the intersection but is optional due to the streets’ low volumes and the lack of conflicts anticipated. The proposed off-street paved parking area provided on each new lot is consistent with the rest of the development and appropriately accommodates the expansion’s parking needs. Capacity and Level of Service at Studied Intersections The peak hour volumes for each study period were analyzed within Synchro (Percentile and Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, delay methods) for capacity and LOS at the study roadways and intersections. The Synchro analysis worksheets are provided within the Appendices. Table 8 and Table 9 show the 2025 No Build condition LOS and delay, and Table 10 and Table 11 show the 2025 Build condition LOS and delay. 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 12 of 19 2025 NO BUILD CONDITION Table 8: 2025 No Build LOS - Intersection 1 INTERSECTION 1 AM PEAK 2025 NO BUILD TH 3 & W Connemara Trail Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 130 54 178 326 200 555 48 644 72 95 340 25 Queue (ft) 314 272 139 355 417 415 260 706 260 133 257 14 Mvmt Delay (sec) 45.1 51.1 8.2 40.0 41.9 53.5 20.6 46.7 0.5 35.6 30.3 0.1 Mvmt LOS D D A D D D C D A D C A Delay (sec) 39.7 27.9 47.3 40.7 29.8 LOS D C D D C Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (Percentile Delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). INTERSECTION 1 PM PEAK 2025 NO BUILD TH 3 & W Connemara Trail Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 58 141 91 143 143 158 79 400 167 315 757 122 Queue (ft) 74 178 65 191 181 85 78 232 62 264 408 43 Mvmt Delay (sec) 47.4 76.7 1.8 58.2 59.3 9.2 11.4 21.8 3.0 11.9 23.9 2.0 Mvmt LOS D E A E E A B C A B C A Delay (sec) 24.9 47.4 41.1 15.7 18.5 LOS C D D B B Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (Percentile Delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 13 of 19 Table 9: 2025 No Build LOS - Intersection 2 INTERSECTION 2 AM PEAK 2025 NO BUILD W Connemara Trail & Bunratty Ave Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 230 5 2 1025 40 2 Queue (ft) 0 0 0 43 112 Mvmt Delay (sec) 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 Mvmt LOS A A A A Delay (sec) 1.6 0.0 0.0 50.4 LOS A A A F Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (HCM 6th Edition delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). INTERSECTION 2 PM PEAK 2025 NO BUILD W Connemara Trail & Bunratty Ave Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 541 55 7 403 32 4 Queue (ft) 7 0 31 0 47 Mvmt Delay (sec) 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 Mvmt LOS A A A A Delay (sec) 0.9 0.0 0.2 22.6 LOS A A A C Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (HCM 6th Edition delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 14 of 19 2025 BUILD CONDITION Table 10: 2025 Build LOS - Intersection 1 INTERSECTION 1 AM PEAK 2025 BUILD TH 3 & W Connemara Trail Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 130 55 178 329 202 560 48 644 73 96 340 25 Queue (ft) 371 408 99 359 438 418 261 667 159 136 247 15 Mvmt Delay (sec) 45 51.1 8.2 39.9 41.7 53.9 20.6 47.3 0.6 37.6 30.5 0.1 Mvmt LOS D D A D D D C D A D C A Delay (sec) 40.0 27.9 47.4 41.2 30.4 LOS D C D D C Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (Percentile Delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). INTERSECTION 1 PM PEAK 2025 BUILD TH 3 & W Connemara Trail Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 58 144 91 145 146 161 79 400 171 322 757 122 Queue (ft) 82 152 57 173 194 83 87 289 60 325 499 208 Mvmt Delay (sec) 46.2 76.1 1.7 55.9 57.8 8.8 12.3 23.1 3.3 12.7 24.8 2.1 Mvmt LOS D E A E E A B C A B C A Delay (sec) 25.3 47.1 39.7 16.6 19.3 LOS C D D B B Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (Percentile Delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 15 of 19 Table 11: 2025 Build LOS - Intersection 2 INTERSECTION 2 AM PEAK 2025 BUILD W Connemara Trail & Bunratty Ave Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 230 8 2 1025 50 2 Queue (ft) 0 0 0 82 172 Mvmt Delay (sec) 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 Mvmt LOS A A A A Delay (sec) 2.3 0.0 0.0 58.2 LOS A A A F Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (HCM 6th Edition delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). INTERSECTION 2 PM PEAK 2025 BUILD W Connemara Trail & Bunratty Ave Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (veh) 541 69 7 403 41 4 Queue (ft) 0 0 24 0 55 Mvmt Delay (sec) 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 Mvmt LOS A A A A Delay (sec) 1.1 0.0 0.2 23.7 LOS A A A C Source: Data collected by ISG Jan 2020. Data was analyzed using Synchro (HCM 6th Edition delay method) and SimTraffic (queue). LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY COMPARISON Table 12 and Table 14 provide a side-by-side comparison in the change in delay and level of service for the studied intersections’ approaches. The traffic models developed for this study, using collected traffic count data and traffic signal timing information from MnDOT, show that the studied intersections operate with lower delays in the PM peak hour than in the AM peak hour. In the existing condition, Intersection 1’s approaches are operating at LOS B-D during the AM peak hour and PM peak hours. Intersection 2’s northbound approach operates at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours – the eastbound and westbound approaches are free flowing. The background traffic growth on Connemara Trail W is expected to cause increased delays at Intersections 1 and 2 in the future. It is assumed that the cycle length will remain the same to maintain coordination with the signal at McAndrews Road but splits will be optimized to maximize efficiency at the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail W. The increased volumes are expected to create difficulties for drivers turning onto Connemara Trail W at Intersection 2 during the AM peak hour. The northbound approach at Intersection 2 is expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour. The addition of the proposed traffic as a result of the Rosemount Woods expansion has a minimal effect on level of service and delay. 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 16 of 19 Table 12: LOS Comparison - Intersection 1 INTERSECTION 1 AM PEAK TH 3 & W Connemara Trail Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Existing Delay (sec) 33.2 34.7 53.2 22.1 15.6 LOS C C D C B No Build 2025 Delay (sec) 39.7 27.9 47.3 40.7 29.8 LOS D C D D C Build 2025 Delay (sec) 40.0 27.9 47.4 41.2 30.4 LOS D C D D C INTERSECTION 1 PM PEAK TH 3 & W Connemara Trail Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Existing Delay (sec) 21.7 46.4 46.3 11.4 14.5 LOS C D D B B No Build 2025 Delay (sec) 24.9 47.4 41.1 15.7 18.5 LOS C D D B B Build 2025 Delay (sec) 25.3 47.1 39.7 16.6 19.3 LOS C D D B B At Intersection 1, the existing condition using existing signal timing and no signal optimization. In the No Build 2025 and Build 2025 conditions, signal splits are optimized. Signal optimization allows approach delay and overall delay to decrease. The addition of the new expansion traffic causes the differences between No Build 2025 and Build 2025. Changes in delay are tabulated below: Table 13: % Change in Delay – Intersection 1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound % Change in Delay (AM) 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 2.0% % Change in Delay (PM) -0.6% -3.4% 5.7% 4.3% 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 17 of 19 Table 14: LOS Comparison - Intersection 2 INTERSECTION 2 AM PEAK W Connemara Trail & Bunratty Ave Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Existing Delay (sec) 1.1 0.0 0.0 24.5 LOS A A A C No Build 2025 Delay (sec) 1.6 0.0 0.0 50.4 LOS A A A F Build 2025 Delay (sec) 2.3 0.0 0.0 58.2 LOS A A A F INTERSECTION 2 PM PEAK W Connemara Trail & Bunratty Ave Overall Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Existing Delay (sec) 0.8 0.0 0.2 16.0 LOS A A A C No Build 2025 Delay (sec) 0.9 0.0 0.2 22.6 LOS A A A C No Build Delay (sec) 1.1 0.0 0.2 23.7 LOS A A A C The northbound approach of Intersection 2 operates at LOS F due to high traffic volumes on Connemara Trail. At T-intersections that are stop-controlled on the side road, side road traffic volumes have low impact on level of service when traffic volumes on the main road are high. Table 15: % Change in Delay – Intersection 2 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound % Change in Delay (AM) 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% % Change in Delay (PM) -0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 18 of 19 Crash Analysis The City of Rosemount has identified the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail W (Intersection 1) as a top crash location by frequency of crashes, where between 2011 and 2015 the intersection experienced no type K crashes, 1 Type A severity crash, 4 type B severity crashes, 13 type C severity crashes, and 27 property damage only crashes. These crash types are defined in the Guide to MN Crash Data Files and the MN Law Enforcement Accident Report Instruction Manual as described in the following table. Crash Type Severity Type Description Type K Killed A fatality resulted. Type A Incapacitating injury Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving, or normally continuing the activities the person was capable of performing before the injury occurred. Type B Non-incapacitating injury Any injury, other than a fatal injury or an incapacitating injury, which is evident to the observers at the scene of the accident in which the injury occurred. Type C Possible injury Any injury reported or claimed which is not a fatal injury, incapacitating injury or non-incapacitating evident injury. Type N No apparent injury Property damage only. Crashes continued at Intersection 1 between 2016 and 2019 and a similar rate as from 2011 to 2015. The majority of crash types were rear end collisions. Other crash types include failed to yield to right-of-way (vehicle turned in front of another), ran red light, head on collision, and weather/deer related accidents. Most crashes were property damage only crashes, some were injury crashes, and there were no fatalities. At the intersection of Connemara Trail W and Bunratty Avenue (Intersection 2), 3 vehicular crashes were recorded in the past 5 years. 2 of the 3 crashes were related to icy roads, where one of these crashes actually happened just south of the intersection near Bunratty’s intersection with 138th Street W. The third was a ran off the roadway type crash. No injuries were indicated in the Rosemount Police Department crash data. As delay increases, drivers may tend to yield to the right-of-way less and take more risks. As drivers take more risks, crash rates increase. The recorded crash data at the intersection of Connemara Trail W and Bunratty Avenue does not indicate a need for geometric or traffic control changes to the intersection due to safety. Improvements to Accommodate Site Traffic The proposed expansion is expected to have a minimal impact on the area roadway network during the design year (2025) with no or slight changes to delay and level of service during AM and PM peak periods. No improvements are needed in order to accommodate site traffic. Optimization of traffic signal timing should be considered, regardless of if, how, and when the proposed development is completed. Retiming the signal to optimize efficiency at Intersection 1 would improve conditions at the intersection as a whole. However, increasing volumes on Connemara Trail will cause decreasing level of service at unsignalized intersection side roads throughout the Connemara Trail W corridor. A long term solution will require further study and coordination with MnDOT. RECOMMENDATIONS + CONCLUSIONS The proposed Rosemount Woods expansion located southeast of the intersection of TH 3 and Connemara Trail W will generate traffic as lots are sold and developed, expanding the manufactured home park. This traffic will utilize internal roads accessing existing access points, the intersection of Connemara Trail W and Bunratty Avenue, and the intersection of Brazil Avenue and 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Page 19 of 19 Upper 138th Street. Due to the low new peak hour traffic and the availability of multiple development access points, the Rosemount Woods is expected to have a minimal impact the adjacent street network. From this review the following are recommended: · Discuss long term solutions to mitigate the negative impacts that increasing background traffic volumes have on side streets within the corridor. · Re-evaluate the area periodically or when a major development occurs in the future. 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix A Appendix A: Preliminary Site Plan © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS GM EM AC EMGM AC EM GM T T TT E E TTTD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D W W W W W WWWWWWW W W W WWWD 62' 62'25'50'106'PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN 50' BUIL D I N G SET B A C K PROPOSED ROADEXISTING STORM SHELTER (TO BE EXPANDED) UPPER 138TH STREET 138TH STREET WEST LOWER138TH STREET W 139TH STREET WEST BUNDORAN STREETBROUGHSHANE STREETBRIANBORN STREETBRIANBORN STREET140TH CIRCLE WEST 50' BUILDING SETBACK BRAZIL AVENUES. ROBERT TRAILCONNEMARA TRAIL W. 50' BUIL D I N G SET B A C K 35 36 37 3835363738 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 28.0'R2 5 . 0 ' PROPOSED MAILBOX RELOCATION PROPOSED PLAYGROUND PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUILDING 3 OVERALL SITE PLAN C1.1 1" = ' (HORIZONTAL) '' 80 160.000380.00020 REVISIONS THIS DESIGN AND THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. NO PART OF THIS WORK MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM CAGE ENGINEERING, INC. SHEET NUMBER PROJ NO: ENG : DATE : SHEET TITLE OF3110 WOODCREEK DRIVEDOWNERS GROVE, IL 60515P: 630.598.0007WWW.CAGECIVIL.COMCAGECIVIL ENGINEERINGROSEMOUNTWOODS EXPANSION13925 BUNRATTY AVE.ROSEMOUNT, MN190087 JGN 11.18.2019 11 SITE SUMMARY STANDARD SITE: 106' X 50' PROPOSED SITES:39 EXISTING SITES:182 TOTAL SITES: 221 SEE SHEETS C2.2 & C3.2 FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS SEE SHEET C4.0 FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS SEE SHEETS C2.1, C3.1, & C5.0 FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS SEE SHEETS C2.0 & C3.0 FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix B Appendix B: Project Location Map G o o d h u e12345612345612345656 31313233343536 8 17 20 29 32 8 9 17 20 29 32 31 32 33 34 35 363233343536 12345 5 8 17 20 29 32 5 8 17 20 29 32 17 20 29 32 1 1 12 13 24 25 36 1 12 13 24 25 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 ßߪATOSENNIM110 ßߪATOSENNIM149 ßߪATOSENNIM51 ßߪATOSENNIM121 ßߪATOSENNIM5 ßߪATOSENNIM13 ßߪATOSENNIM3 ßߪATOSENNIM3 ßߪATOSENNIM77 ßߪATOSENNIM100 ßߪATOSENNIM55 ßߪATOSENNIM62 ßߪATOSENNIM56 ßߪATOSENNIM50 Rosemount £¤52 £¤61 §¨¦494 §¨¦694 §¨¦35E §¨¦35 §¨¦94 Site Location 34 5 33 34 23456 7 8 9 10 11 1415161718 19 20 21 22 23 2627282930 31 32 33 34 35 12345 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 13 22 23 24 2526272829 32 33 34 35 36 7 15 161718 19 20 21 22 23 2627282930 31 32 33 34 35 1314 22 23 24 25262728 32 33 34 35 36 56 7 8 1718 19 20 2930 31 32 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 56 7 8 1718 19 20 2930 31 32 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 12 11 12 1314 23 24 2526 35 36 1718 19 20 2930 31 32 7 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 10 11 12 131415 22 23 24 252627 34 35 36 56 7 8 18 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 27282930 31 56 7 8 1718 19 20 21 282930 31 32 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415161718 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 32 45 9 45 8 9 16 21 28 33 37 16 21 28 33 123456 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415 16 22 23 24 12345 8 9 10 11 12 14151617 20 21 22 23 2728 30 31 1234 9 10 11 12 13141516 21 22 23 24 25262728 33 34 35 36 34 9 10 1516 21 22 2728 33 34 4 8 9 10 1516 21 22 2728 33 343738 2345612 23456 7 8 9 10 11 1415161718 19 20 21 22 23 2627282930 31 32 33 34 35 12 11 12 1314 23 24 2526 35 36 23456 7 8 9 10 11 1415161718 19 20 21 22 23 2627282930 31 32 33 34 35 2526 35 36 WashingtonRamseyWashingto nHennepinRamseyHennepinRamsey Scott Rice Scot t DakotaDakota CountyCounty T115NR19W Rosem ount RobertTrSConnemara TrDoddBlvd Brockway AveBrazil AveßߪATOSENNIM3 DakotaDakota CountyCounty 0 31.5 Miles ¯Figure 1 Project Location Map Rosemount Woods Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota 1 in = 3 miles Friday, August 2, 2019 Source(s): Municipalities (MN DOT, 6/24/2016) Lakes (MN DNR, July, 2008) Counties (MN DNR, July 2013) PLSS (MnGeo/USGS) Project Number 19-23217 S:\Projects\23000 PROJ\23200-23299\23217 Rosemount Woods-Rosemount MN\23217 GIS\23217 MapDocs\23217 - L1WD Figure 1 - Location Map.mxd 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix C Appendix C: Intersection Map N APPENDIX C - INTERSECTION MAP TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ISG Project No. 19-23217 ROSEMOUNT WOODS, MINNESOTA 01/17/20 0 REFERENCE SCALE 1" = FEET 125 250 500 500 ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING www.ISGInc.com CAD FILE NAME PLEXTERRAIN 1 2 STUDY INTERSECTIONX CONNEMARA TRAIL W UPPER 138TH ST WTH 3 / S ROBERT TRAILBRAZIL AVEBUNRATTY AVESTUDY AREA 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix D Appendix D: Existing Zoning Map )p ?ØA@ G±WX ?§A@ SÈ GÑWX G¸WX GªWX G¥WX )p ?ØA@ G±WX G±WX ?§A@ )p Date Saved: November 2019 The Zoning Designations on this Map should be interpreted in lightof the accompanying text and polices contained in the completeRosemount Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Designations subject tochange as part of the City's ongoing planning process. Data Sources:Dakota County Land Surveyors and Office of Geographic Information SystemsCity of Rosemount Community Development and Engineering/Public Works Departments ZoningResidential:RR - Rural ResidentialR1 - Low Density ResidentialR1A - Low Density ResidentialR2 - Moderate Density ResidentialR3 - Medium Density Residential R4 - High Density ResidentialCommercial:C1 - Convenience CommercialDT - Downtown DistrictC3 - Highway Service CommercialC4 - General Commercial Industrial:BP - Business ParkIP - Industrial ParkGI - General IndustrialHI - Heavy IndustrialOther:AGP - Agricultural Preserve AG - AgriculturalPI - Public/InstitutionalFP - Flood PlainWM - Waste ManagementW - WaterROW - Right-of-W ay PUDMississippi River Critical Area & MNRRA CorridorRailroad Zoning Map 0 0.5 1 Miles I Site Location 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix E Appendix E: Future Land Use Map Rosemount 2040 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 – Land Use 3-22 SiteLocation 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix F Appendix F: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Counts N APPENDIX F - EXISTING (2020) PEAK HOUR VOLUME TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ISG Project No. 19-23217 ROSEMOUNT WOODS, MINNESOTA 01/17/20 0 REFERENCE SCALE 1" = FEET 62 125 250 250 ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING www.ISGInc.com CAD FILE NAME PLEXTERRAIN 1 2 STUDY INTERSECTIONX CONNEMARA TRAIL W UPPER 138TH ST WTH 3 / S ROBERT TRAILBUNRATTY AVE757224 122 400119 79 102 113 102 101 58 91 38 130 178 142 396 23366451 48 34068 25 X XX X 432 288 X 7 386 X 55 164 X 5 731 X 2 X 240 X XX AM PM 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix G Appendix G: Existing – Synchro Analysis Worksheets Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 130 38 178 233 142 396 48 644 51 68 340 25 Future Volume (vph) 130 38 178 233 142 396 48 644 51 68 340 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 Lane Width (ft) 14 12 14 14 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -2% 3% 1% 1% Storage Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 150 200 200 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1835 1919 1723 1878 1782 1664 2000 2105 1454 1908 2105 1789 Flt Permitted 0.553 0.564 0.479 0.220 Satd. Flow (perm) 1068 1919 1723 1115 1782 1664 1008 2105 1454 442 2105 1789 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 200 318 95 95 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 55 Link Distance (ft) 556 538 1113 708 Travel Time (s) 9.5 9.2 16.9 8.8 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 (%) 6% 0% 1% 1% 5% 2% 4% 4% 28% 9% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 146 43 200 262 160 445 54 724 57 76 382 28 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 43 200 262 160 445 54 724 57 76 382 28 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.94 1.02 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 15 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 Detector Template Right Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 186 186 35 186 186 50 481 0 50 481 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 30 15 15 30 15 15 45 6 20 45 6 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 3 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 7 4 4 3 8 8 8 2 5 2 2 1 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.5 33.0 33.0 10.5 37.0 37.0 10.5 38.0 38.0 10.5 36.0 36.0 Total Split (s) 27.0 23.0 23.0 27.0 23.0 23.0 17.0 93.0 93.0 17.0 93.0 93.0 Total Split (%) 16.9% 14.4% 14.4% 16.9% 14.4% 14.4% 10.6% 58.1% 58.1% 10.6% 58.1% 58.1% Maximum Green (s) 21.5 17.0 17.0 21.5 17.0 17.0 11.5 87.0 87.0 11.5 87.0 87.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 6.0 6.0 2.5 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.0 4.0 0.2 4.0 4.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 32.6 16.7 16.7 41.7 21.5 21.5 99.7 92.8 92.8 102.4 95.8 95.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.13 0.62 0.58 0.58 0.64 0.60 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.22 0.56 0.68 0.67 0.89 0.08 0.59 0.06 0.22 0.30 0.03 Control Delay 52.8 68.3 14.3 59.5 80.0 39.9 10.3 24.6 0.6 11.5 17.5 0.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.8 68.3 14.3 59.5 80.0 39.9 10.3 24.6 0.6 11.5 17.5 0.0 LOS D E B E E D B C A B B A Approach Delay 34.7 53.2 22.1 15.6 Approach LOS C D C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 121 42 0 232 160 139 19 481 0 27 201 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 184 84 76 321 #285 #357 36 615 4 47 270 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 476 458 1033 628 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 365 206 363 392 239 498 730 1220 882 396 1259 1108 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 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 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.21 0.55 0.67 0.67 0.89 0.07 0.59 0.06 0.19 0.30 0.03 Intersection Summary Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 36 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.89 Intersection Signal Delay: 33.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W HCM 6th TWSC 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 164 5 2 731 40 2 Future Vol, veh/h 164 5 2 731 40 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 120 80 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 16 25 50 2 15 0 Mvmt Flow 198 6 2 881 48 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 204 0 1083 198 Stage 1 - - - - 198 - Stage 2 - - - - 885 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.6 - 6.55 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.55 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.55 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.65 - 3.635 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1127 - 227 848 Stage 1 - - - - 805 - Stage 2 - - - - 383 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1127 - 227 848 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 227 - Stage 1 - - - - 805 - Stage 2 - - - - 382 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 24.5 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 235 - - 1127 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.215 - - 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 24.5 - - 8.2 - HCM Lane LOS C - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0 - Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN SimTraffic Report Page 1 Intersection: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 185 95 84 303 339 318 38 403 36 69 182 24 Average Queue (ft) 101 44 46 202 164 212 19 242 9 38 84 2 95th Queue (ft) 204 108 88 307 350 358 43 437 33 74 178 18 Link Distance (ft) 507 459 1059 652 Upstream Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)12 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 3 1 14 8 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 18 6 53 8 0 Intersection: 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W Movement WB NB Directions Served T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 79 67 Average Queue (ft) 11 30 95th Queue (ft) 87 104 Link Distance (ft) 360 200 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 101 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 58 101 91 102 102 113 79 400 119 224 757 122 Future Volume (vph) 58 101 91 102 102 113 79 400 119 224 757 122 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 Lane Width (ft) 14 12 14 14 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -2% 3% 1% 1% Storage Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 150 200 200 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1945 1919 1740 1772 1872 1697 2080 2105 1842 2080 2065 1861 Flt Permitted 0.661 0.494 0.224 0.428 Satd. Flow (perm) 1353 1919 1740 922 1872 1697 490 2105 1842 937 2065 1861 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 142 142 142 110 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 55 Link Distance (ft) 556 538 1113 708 Travel Time (s) 9.5 9.2 16.9 8.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 6% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 62 109 98 110 110 122 85 430 128 241 814 131 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 62 109 98 110 110 122 85 430 128 241 814 131 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.94 1.02 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 Detector Template Left Left Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 186 186 35 186 186 50 481 0 50 481 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 30 15 15 30 15 15 45 6 20 45 6 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 3 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 7 4 4 3 8 8 8 2 5 2 2 1 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.5 33.0 33.0 10.5 37.0 37.0 10.5 38.0 38.0 10.5 36.0 36.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 23.0 23.0 15.0 23.0 23.0 14.0 92.0 92.0 20.0 98.0 98.0 Total Split (%) 10.0% 15.3% 15.3% 10.0% 15.3% 15.3% 9.3% 61.3% 61.3% 13.3% 65.3% 65.3% Maximum Green (s) 9.5 17.0 17.0 9.5 17.0 17.0 8.5 86.0 86.0 14.5 92.0 92.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 6.0 6.0 2.5 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.0 4.0 0.2 4.0 4.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 22.6 13.9 13.9 25.2 17.1 17.1 100.7 93.5 93.5 108.1 97.2 97.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.72 0.65 0.65 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.62 0.34 0.53 0.52 0.38 0.21 0.33 0.11 0.32 0.61 0.11 Control Delay 52.1 80.0 5.3 61.6 72.4 9.1 7.7 15.0 1.7 7.6 18.5 3.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 52.1 80.0 5.3 61.6 72.4 9.1 7.7 15.0 1.7 7.6 18.5 3.0 LOS D E A E E A A B A A B A Approach Delay 46.4 46.3 11.4 14.5 Approach LOS D D B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 104 0 93 105 0 21 192 0 66 441 7 Queue Length 95th (ft) 93 169 16 151 171 44 40 285 22 102 619 34 Internal Link Dist (ft) 476 458 1033 628 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 281 217 323 214 226 330 425 1312 1201 796 1338 1244 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 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 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.50 0.30 0.51 0.49 0.37 0.20 0.33 0.11 0.30 0.61 0.11 Intersection Summary Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 10.6 (7%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.62 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W HCM 6th TWSC 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 386 55 7 288 32 4 Future Vol, veh/h 386 55 7 288 32 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 120 80 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 33 2 9 50 Mvmt Flow 434 62 8 324 36 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 496 0 774 434 Stage 1 - - - - 434 - Stage 2 - - - - 340 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.43 - 6.49 6.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.49 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.49 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.497 - 3.581 3.75 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 925 - 357 532 Stage 1 - - - - 639 - Stage 2 - - - - 705 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 925 - 354 532 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 354 - Stage 1 - - - - 639 - Stage 2 - - - - 699 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 16 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 368 - - 925 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.11 - - 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) 16 - - 8.9 - HCM Lane LOS C - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0 - Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN SimTraffic Report Page 1 Intersection: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 78 119 64 146 115 56 86 210 49 202 339 113 Average Queue (ft) 40 76 31 76 66 27 41 138 22 80 209 23 95th Queue (ft) 79 132 66 145 120 52 92 227 52 198 371 144 Link Distance (ft) 507 459 1059 652 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%)0 6 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 19 Intersection: 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 26 46 Average Queue (ft) 4 18 95th Queue (ft) 22 46 Link Distance (ft) 200 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 20 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix H Appendix H: Traffic Distribution Map - 23217 Rosemount Woods, MNLane Diagrams01/13/202023217 Rosemount Woods, MN Build 2025 AM23217 Build 2025 AM.syn12345678 ©2014 Microsoft Corporation AND ©2013 Nokia TIA Driveway Distribution Report 01/16/2020 1 Driveway 1 (Node 7)Driveway: Development: Rosemount Woods Expansion Distribution %Trips Distribution %Trips RouteOrigin #FromTo 1 Origin 1 (Node 3) to Driveway 1 (Node 7)42.60 1 51.25 4 2 Origin 2 (Node 4) to Driveway 1 (Node 7)24.22 0 18.47 1 3 Origin 3 (Node 5) to Driveway 1 (Node 7)32.29 1 30.10 2 4 Origin 4 (Node 6) to Driveway 1 (Node 7)0.90 0 0.18 0 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 01/07/2020 Default Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report 1Page TIA Driveway Distribution Report 01/16/2020 1 Driveway 1 (Node 7)Driveway: Development: Rosemount Woods Expansion Distribution %Trips Distribution %Trips RouteOrigin #FromTo 1 Origin 1 (Node 3) to Driveway 1 (Node 7)50.00 6 35.35 2 2 Origin 2 (Node 4) to Driveway 1 (Node 7)22.38 2 31.99 2 3 Origin 3 (Node 5) to Driveway 1 (Node 7)26.51 3 31.77 2 4 Origin 4 (Node 6) to Driveway 1 (Node 7)1.11 0 0.89 0 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 01/07/2020 Default Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report 1Page 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix I Appendix I: 2025 No Build Peak Hour Volumes N APPENDIX I - 2025 NO BUILD PEAK HOUR VOLUME TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ISG Project No. 19-23217 ROSEMOUNT WOODS, MINNESOTA 01/17/20 0 REFERENCE SCALE 1" = FEET 62 125 250 250 ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING www.ISGInc.com CAD FILE NAME PLEXTERRAIN 1 2 STUDY INTERSECTIONX CONNEMARA TRAIL W UPPER 138TH ST WTH 3 / S ROBERT TRAILBUNRATTY AVE757315 122 400167 79 143 158 142 141 58 91 54 130 178 200 555 32666472 48 34095 25 X XX X 432 403 X 7 541 X 55 230 X 5 1025 X 2 X 240 X XX AM PM 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix J Appendix J: New Traffic Peak Hour Volumes N APPENDIX J - NEW TRAFFIC DURING PEAK HOURS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ISG Project No. 19-23217 ROSEMOUNT WOODS, MINNESOTA 01/17/20 0 REFERENCE SCALE 1" = FEET 62 125 250 250 ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING www.ISGInc.com CAD FILE NAME PLEXTERRAIN 1 2 STUDY INTERSECTIONX CONNEMARA TRAIL W UPPER 138TH ST WTH 3 / S ROBERT TRAILBUNRATTY AVE0 7 0 0 4 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 301 0 0 1 0 X XX X 09 0 X 0 0 X 14 0 X 3 0 X 0 X 010 X XX AM PM 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix K Appendix K: 2025 Build Peak Hour Volumes N APPENDIX K - 2025 BUILD PEAK HOUR VOLUME TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ISG Project No. 19-23217 ROSEMOUNT WOODS, MINNESOTA 01/17/20 0 REFERENCE SCALE 1" = FEET 62 125 250 250 ARCHITECTURE + ENGINEERING + ENVIRONMENTAL + PLANNING www.ISGInc.com CAD FILE NAME PLEXTERRAIN 1 2 STUDY INTERSECTIONX CONNEMARA TRAIL W UPPER 138TH ST WTH 3 / S ROBERT TRAILBUNRATTY AVE757322 122 400171 79 146 161 145 144 58 91 55 130 178 202 560 32966473 48 34096 25 X XX X 438 403 X 7 541 X 66 230 X 8 1025 X 2 X 250 X XX AM PM 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix L Appendix L: 2025 No Build – Synchro Analysis Worksheets Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 No Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 130 54 178 326 200 555 48 644 72 95 340 25 Future Volume (vph) 130 54 178 326 200 555 48 644 72 95 340 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 Lane Width (ft) 14 12 14 14 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -2% 3% 1% 1% Storage Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 150 200 200 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1835 1919 1723 1878 1782 1664 2000 2105 1454 1908 2105 1789 Flt Permitted 0.618 0.617 0.436 0.084 Satd. Flow (perm) 1193 1919 1723 1220 1782 1664 918 2105 1454 169 2105 1789 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 200 191 133 133 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 556 538 1113 708 Travel Time (s) 9.5 9.2 16.9 10.7 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 (%) 6% 0% 1% 1% 5% 2% 4% 4% 28% 9% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 146 61 200 366 225 624 54 724 81 107 382 28 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 61 200 366 225 624 54 724 81 107 382 28 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.94 1.02 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 Detector Template Left Left Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 186 186 35 186 186 50 481 0 50 481 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 30 15 15 30 15 15 45 6 20 45 6 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 No Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 3 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 7 4 4 3 8 8 8 2 5 2 2 1 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.5 33.0 33.0 10.5 37.0 37.0 10.5 38.0 38.0 10.5 36.0 36.0 Total Split (s) 10.5 42.5 42.5 31.0 63.0 63.0 10.5 72.5 72.5 14.0 76.0 76.0 Total Split (%) 6.6% 26.6% 26.6% 19.4% 39.4% 39.4% 6.6% 45.3% 45.3% 8.8% 47.5% 47.5% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 36.5 36.5 25.5 57.0 57.0 5.0 66.5 66.5 8.5 70.0 70.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 6.0 6.0 2.5 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.0 4.0 0.2 4.0 4.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 39.4 33.9 33.9 64.5 53.5 53.5 76.1 70.3 70.3 82.7 75.4 75.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.48 0.44 0.44 0.52 0.47 0.47 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.15 0.38 0.62 0.38 0.91 0.11 0.78 0.11 0.61 0.39 0.03 Control Delay 45.1 51.1 8.2 40.0 41.9 53.5 20.6 46.7 0.5 35.6 30.3 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.1 51.1 8.2 40.0 41.9 53.5 20.6 46.7 0.5 35.6 30.3 0.1 LOS D D A D D D C D A D C A Approach Delay 27.9 47.3 40.7 29.8 Approach LOS C D D C Queue Length 50th (ft) 95 51 0 272 174 454 28 671 0 58 272 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 145 94 65 362 247 #668 53 834 1 94 359 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 476 458 1033 628 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 333 437 547 623 634 715 471 925 714 179 991 913 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 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 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.14 0.37 0.59 0.35 0.87 0.11 0.78 0.11 0.60 0.39 0.03 Intersection Summary Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 No Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 36 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.91 Intersection Signal Delay: 39.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W 01/14/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 No Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 230 5 2 1025 40 2 Future Vol, veh/h 230 5 2 1025 40 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 120 80 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 16 25 50 2 15 0 Mvmt Flow 277 6 2 1235 48 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 283 0 1516 277 Stage 1 - - - - 277 - Stage 2 - - - - 1239 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.6 - 6.55 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.55 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.55 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.65 - 3.635 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1048 - 123 767 Stage 1 - - - - 741 - Stage 2 - - - - 257 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1048 - 123 767 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 123 - Stage 1 - - - - 741 - Stage 2 - - - - 256 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 50.4 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 128 - - 1048 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.395 - - 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 50.4 - - 8.4 - HCM Lane LOS F - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 - - 0 - Queuing and Blocking Report No Build 2025 AM 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN SimTraffic Report Page 1 Intersection: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 232 264 118 296 349 364 288 623 293 126 249 21 Average Queue (ft) 174 86 52 232 207 278 63 426 59 75 173 4 95th Queue (ft) 314 272 139 355 417 415 260 706 260 133 257 14 Link Distance (ft) 507 459 1059 652 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)13 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 24 0 6 3 24 25 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 56 0 48 27 125 31 1 Intersection: 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W Movement WB NB Directions Served T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 27 71 Average Queue (ft) 7 40 95th Queue (ft) 43 112 Link Distance (ft) 360 200 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 300 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 No Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 58 141 91 142 143 158 79 400 167 315 757 122 Future Volume (vph) 58 141 91 142 143 158 79 400 167 315 757 122 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 Lane Width (ft) 14 12 14 14 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -2% 3% 1% 1% Storage Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 150 200 200 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1945 1919 1740 1772 1872 1697 2080 2105 1842 2080 2065 1861 Flt Permitted 0.659 0.347 0.198 0.389 Satd. Flow (perm) 1349 1919 1740 647 1872 1697 433 2105 1842 852 2065 1861 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 182 170 182 142 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 55 Link Distance (ft) 556 538 1113 708 Travel Time (s) 9.5 9.2 16.9 8.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 6% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 62 152 98 153 154 170 85 430 180 339 814 131 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 62 152 98 153 154 170 85 430 180 339 814 131 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.94 1.02 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 Detector Template Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 186 186 35 186 186 50 481 0 50 481 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 30 15 15 30 15 15 45 6 0 45 6 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 No Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 3 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 7 4 4 3 8 8 8 2 5 2 2 1 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.5 33.0 33.0 10.5 37.0 37.0 10.5 38.0 38.0 10.5 36.0 36.0 Total Split (s) 10.5 33.0 33.0 18.0 40.5 40.5 10.5 74.8 74.8 24.2 88.5 88.5 Total Split (%) 7.0% 22.0% 22.0% 12.0% 27.0% 27.0% 7.0% 49.9% 49.9% 16.1% 59.0% 59.0% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 27.0 27.0 12.5 34.5 34.5 5.0 68.8 68.8 18.7 82.5 82.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 6.0 6.0 2.5 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.0 4.0 0.2 4.0 4.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 23.4 17.9 17.9 35.9 27.0 27.0 89.9 82.6 82.6 102.8 90.3 90.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.60 0.55 0.55 0.69 0.60 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.67 0.27 0.62 0.46 0.38 0.26 0.37 0.16 0.48 0.65 0.11 Control Delay 47.4 76.7 1.8 58.2 59.3 9.2 11.4 21.8 3.0 11.9 23.9 2.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.4 76.7 1.8 58.2 59.3 9.2 11.4 21.8 3.0 11.9 23.9 2.0 LOS D E A E E A B C A B C A Approach Delay 47.4 41.1 15.7 18.5 Approach LOS D D B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 48 145 0 126 139 0 25 230 0 116 503 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 84 213 0 184 203 64 51 370 41 184 738 26 Internal Link Dist (ft) 476 458 1033 628 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 312 345 462 281 430 521 333 1159 1096 740 1243 1176 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 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 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.44 0.21 0.54 0.36 0.33 0.26 0.37 0.16 0.46 0.65 0.11 Intersection Summary Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 No Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 136.3 (91%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.9 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W 01/14/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 No Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 541 55 7 403 32 4 Future Vol, veh/h 541 55 7 403 32 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 120 80 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 33 2 9 50 Mvmt Flow 608 62 8 453 36 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 670 0 1077 608 Stage 1 - - - - 608 - Stage 2 - - - - 469 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.43 - 6.49 6.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.49 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.49 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.497 - 3.581 3.75 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 790 - 235 418 Stage 1 - - - - 530 - Stage 2 - - - - 615 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 790 - 233 418 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 233 - Stage 1 - - - - 530 - Stage 2 - - - - 609 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 22.6 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 245 - - 790 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.165 - - 0.01 - HCM Control Delay (s) 22.6 - - 9.6 - HCM Lane LOS C - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - - 0 - Queuing and Blocking Report No Build 2025 PM 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN SimTraffic Report Page 1 Intersection: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 74 166 60 184 178 83 72 254 63 245 379 45 Average Queue (ft) 34 103 32 103 92 45 42 136 26 137 259 20 95th Queue (ft) 74 178 65 191 181 85 78 232 62 264 408 43 Link Distance (ft) 507 459 1059 652 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 1 0 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 3 4 39 Intersection: 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W Movement EB WB NB Directions Served T L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 4 35 50 Average Queue (ft) 1 6 21 95th Queue (ft) 7 31 47 Link Distance (ft) 459 200 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 49 19-23217 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – ROSEMOUNT WOODS – ROSEMOUNT, MN Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning Appendix M Appendix M: 2025 Build – Synchro Analysis Worksheets Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 130 54 178 326 200 555 48 644 72 95 340 25 Future Volume (vph) 130 55 178 329 202 560 48 644 73 96 340 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 Lane Width (ft) 14 12 14 14 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -2% 3% 1% 1% Storage Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 150 200 200 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1835 1919 1723 1878 1782 1664 2000 2105 1454 1908 2105 1789 Flt Permitted 0.617 0.617 0.434 0.080 Satd. Flow (perm) 1191 1919 1723 1220 1782 1664 913 2105 1454 161 2105 1789 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 200 190 133 133 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 55 Link Distance (ft) 556 538 1113 708 Travel Time (s) 9.5 9.2 16.9 8.8 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 (%) 6% 0% 1% 1% 5% 2% 4% 4% 28% 9% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 146 62 200 370 227 629 54 724 82 108 382 28 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 62 200 370 227 629 54 724 82 108 382 28 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.94 1.02 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 0 Detector Template Left Left Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 186 186 35 186 186 50 481 0 50 481 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 30 15 15 30 15 15 45 6 20 45 6 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 3 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 7 4 4 3 8 8 8 2 5 2 2 1 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.5 33.0 33.0 10.5 37.0 37.0 10.5 38.0 38.0 10.5 36.0 36.0 Total Split (s) 10.5 42.3 42.3 31.2 63.0 63.0 10.5 72.4 72.4 14.1 76.0 76.0 Total Split (%) 6.6% 26.4% 26.4% 19.5% 39.4% 39.4% 6.6% 45.3% 45.3% 8.8% 47.5% 47.5% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 36.3 36.3 25.7 57.0 57.0 5.0 66.4 66.4 8.6 70.0 70.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 6.0 6.0 2.5 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.0 4.0 0.2 4.0 4.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 39.7 34.2 34.2 64.9 53.9 53.9 75.6 69.8 69.8 82.4 74.9 74.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.52 0.47 0.47 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.15 0.38 0.62 0.38 0.92 0.12 0.79 0.12 0.62 0.39 0.03 Control Delay 45.0 51.1 8.2 39.9 41.7 53.9 20.6 47.3 0.6 37.6 30.5 0.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.0 51.1 8.2 39.9 41.7 53.9 20.6 47.3 0.6 37.6 30.5 0.1 LOS D D A D D D C D A D C A Approach Delay 27.9 47.4 41.2 30.4 Approach LOS C D D C Queue Length 50th (ft) 95 52 0 275 175 463 28 671 0 58 272 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 145 94 65 367 250 #681 53 835 2 100 359 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 476 458 1033 628 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 331 435 545 624 634 715 467 918 709 177 985 908 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 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 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.14 0.37 0.59 0.36 0.88 0.12 0.79 0.12 0.61 0.39 0.03 Intersection Summary Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 160 Actuated Cycle Length: 160 Offset: 36 (23%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay: 40.0 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W HCM 6th TWSC 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 7:00 am 01/07/2020 Build 2025 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 230 5 2 1025 40 2 Future Vol, veh/h 230 8 2 1025 50 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 120 80 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 16 25 50 2 15 0 Mvmt Flow 277 10 2 1235 60 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 287 0 1516 277 Stage 1 - - - - 277 - Stage 2 - - - - 1239 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.6 - 6.55 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.55 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.55 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.65 - 3.635 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1044 - 123 767 Stage 1 - - - - 741 - Stage 2 - - - - 257 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1044 - 123 767 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 123 - Stage 1 - - - - 741 - Stage 2 - - - - 256 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 58.2 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 127 - - 1044 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.493 - - 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 58.2 - - 8.5 - HCM Lane LOS F - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.3 - - 0 - Queuing and Blocking Report Build 2025 AM 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN SimTraffic Report Page 1 Intersection: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 248 305 145 327 344 370 208 612 138 122 226 21 Average Queue (ft) 207 129 48 228 213 289 64 413 37 76 164 4 95th Queue (ft) 371 408 99 359 438 418 261 667 159 136 247 15 Link Distance (ft) 507 459 1059 652 Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 21 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%) 53 6 3 27 26 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 123 48 27 143 32 1 Intersection: 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W Movement WB NB Directions Served T LR Maximum Queue (ft) 63 97 Average Queue (ft) 16 63 95th Queue (ft) 82 172 Link Distance (ft) 360 200 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 395 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 58 141 91 142 143 158 79 400 167 315 757 122 Future Volume (vph) 58 144 91 145 146 161 79 400 171 322 757 122 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 Lane Width (ft) 14 12 14 14 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) -2% 3% 1% 1% Storage Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 120 150 200 200 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1945 1919 1740 1772 1872 1697 2080 2105 1842 2080 2065 1861 Flt Permitted 0.657 0.346 0.194 0.383 Satd. Flow (perm) 1345 1919 1740 646 1872 1697 425 2105 1842 838 2065 1861 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 182 173 184 142 Link Speed (mph) 40 40 45 55 Link Distance (ft) 556 538 1113 708 Travel Time (s) 9.5 9.2 16.9 8.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 6% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 62 155 98 156 157 173 85 430 184 346 814 131 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 62 155 98 156 157 173 85 430 184 346 814 131 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 24 24 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Yes Headway Factor 0.91 0.99 0.91 0.94 1.02 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Number of Detectors 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 Detector Template Right Leading Detector (ft) 35 186 186 35 186 186 50 481 0 50 481 0 Trailing Detector (ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Position(ft) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 475 0 5 475 0 Detector 1 Size(ft) 30 15 15 30 15 15 45 6 0 45 6 20 Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 2 Channel Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 3 Position(ft) 180 180 180 180 Detector 3 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6 Detector 3 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 3 Channel Detector 3 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 7 4 4 3 8 8 8 2 5 2 2 1 6 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 Minimum Split (s) 10.5 33.0 33.0 10.5 37.0 37.0 10.5 38.0 38.0 10.5 36.0 36.0 Total Split (s) 10.5 33.0 33.0 19.0 41.5 41.5 10.5 72.0 72.0 26.0 87.5 87.5 Total Split (%) 7.0% 22.0% 22.0% 12.7% 27.7% 27.7% 7.0% 48.0% 48.0% 17.3% 58.3% 58.3% Maximum Green (s) 5.0 27.0 27.0 13.5 35.5 35.5 5.0 66.0 66.0 20.5 81.5 81.5 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.5 All-Red Time (s) 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 6.0 6.0 2.5 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4.0 4.0 0.2 4.0 4.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None C-Max C-Max Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20.0 20.0 23.0 23.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Act Effct Green (s) 23.8 18.3 18.3 37.2 28.3 28.3 87.9 80.8 80.8 101.6 89.3 89.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.59 0.54 0.54 0.68 0.60 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.67 0.26 0.61 0.44 0.38 0.26 0.38 0.17 0.50 0.66 0.11 Control Delay 46.2 76.1 1.7 55.9 57.8 8.8 12.3 23.1 3.3 12.7 24.8 2.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 46.2 76.1 1.7 55.9 57.8 8.8 12.3 23.1 3.3 12.7 24.8 2.1 LOS D E A E E A B C A B C A Approach Delay 47.1 39.7 16.6 19.3 Approach LOS D D B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 148 0 127 140 0 26 236 0 122 515 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 215 0 183 203 63 53 385 45 197 750 26 Internal Link Dist (ft) 476 458 1033 628 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Base Capacity (vph) 311 345 462 292 443 533 321 1134 1077 739 1228 1164 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 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 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.45 0.21 0.53 0.35 0.32 0.26 0.38 0.17 0.47 0.66 0.11 Intersection Summary Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W 01/20/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 150 Actuated Cycle Length: 150 Offset: 136.3 (91%), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL and 6:SBTL, Start of 1st Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.67 Intersection Signal Delay: 25.3 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W HCM 6th TWSC 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN 4:15 pm 01/07/2020 Build 2025 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 541 55 7 403 32 4 Future Vol, veh/h 541 69 7 403 41 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 120 80 - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 33 2 9 50 Mvmt Flow 608 78 8 453 46 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 686 0 1077 608 Stage 1 - - - - 608 - Stage 2 - - - - 469 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.43 - 6.49 6.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.49 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.49 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.497 - 3.581 3.75 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 779 - 235 418 Stage 1 - - - - 530 - Stage 2 - - - - 615 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 779 - 233 418 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 233 - Stage 1 - - - - 530 - Stage 2 - - - - 609 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 23.7 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 243 - - 779 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.208 - - 0.01 - HCM Control Delay (s) 23.7 - - 9.7 - HCM Lane LOS C - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0 - Queuing and Blocking Report Build 2025 PM 01/16/2020 23217 Rosemount Woods, MN SimTraffic Report Page 1 Intersection: 1: MN-3 & Connemara Trail W Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L T R L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 79 142 60 161 172 73 80 286 70 353 524 199 Average Queue (ft) 37 91 26 94 110 43 45 176 26 162 287 43 95th Queue (ft) 82 152 57 173 194 83 87 289 60 325 499 208 Link Distance (ft) 507 459 1059 652 Upstream Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200 240 240 250 250 250 250 Storage Blk Time (%)1 2 0 12 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 4 1 54 Intersection: 2: Bunratty Ave & Connemara Trail W Movement WB NB Directions Served L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 24 52 Average Queue (ft) 4 24 95th Queue (ft) 24 55 Link Distance (ft) 200 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 61 MEMORANDUM To: Anthony Nemcek, Planner CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer From: Stephanie Smith, Assistant City Engineer Date: January 28, 2019 Subject: Rosemount Woods Expansion - Engineering Review Update SUBMITTAL: The following review comments were generated from the following Rosemount Woods Expansion documents prepared by Cage Civil Engineering, dated 11/18/2019: ▫ Existing Conditions Survey ▫ Site Plan ▫ Grading Plan ▫ Utility Plan ▫ Lighting Plan ▫ Landscaping Plan ▫ Drainage Map ▫ Stormwater Management Report This memo is updated to include review of a Traffic Impact Study by ISG, dated January 17, 2020. GENERAL: 1. The development fees below are based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees. These fees are due with the development agreement for the acreage proposed for development.  Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge: $1,075/acre  Watermain Trunk Charge: $6,500/acre  Storm Sewer Trunk Charge: $6,865/acre 2. Construction documents shall incorporate City of Rosemount Specifications and Standard Detail Plates. 3. Benchmark elevation shall be labeled on the survey. 4. Existing homesites and roadways shall be sketched into the plan for clarity. Lowest opening elevations shall be shown where adjacent to grading activities. EASEMENTS: As the property is not being platted, the applicant shall dedicate paper easements as listed in the comments below prior to construction. 5. Existing and proposed easements shall be shown in the plan set. 6. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easement over the public sanitary sewer line that will be relocated along Burgundy Avenue. 7. Applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance and Easement Agreement with the City for the proposed, private infiltration basin. 8. Conservation easements are required over the wetland and buffers. Signage for conservation easements shall be provided by the developer. ROADWAYS AND SIDEWALKS: The applicant proposes to continue the private street Burgundy Avenue to the south that will end in a hammerhead turnaround. Additionally, Brazil Avenue is proposed to be paved per City of Rosemount standards. 1. Street names must be labeled. 2. Proposed private streets 28 feet wide shall be signed “No Parking” on one side. 3. Staff recommends adjusting the slope of Burgundy Avenue to be no greater than 8%. 4. At intersections, the street grade shall not exceed 2.0% for the first 100’ approaching said intersection. This is measured from the curve line of the intersected street. 5. Type-III barricades, high-back curb and “No Parking” is required on the hammerhead on Burgundy Avenue. 6. Brazil Avenue shall be constructed as an urban section with barrier curb and gutter and stormwater conveyance. 7. Driveway footprints and slopes shall be shown for the proposed homesites. 8. Plans shall include construction of a trail connection to Erickson Park approximately where the existing travel path is located. Due to traffic concerns expressed by the public at the December 16th, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a traffic impact study. The study evaluated intersections of TH 3 & Connemara Trail and Connemara Trail & Bunratty Avenue in the design year 2025 with and without the construction of this development. Level of Service or LOS is a measurement of the traffic movement and delay at an intersection. It can be described as how “full” the roads are. The modeling showed the LOS stays the same for all intersections and individual legs. The study concludes this development would have a minimal impact on the adjacent street network and recommends working with MnDOT and continuing to evaluate the intersection. The 2025 modeling included signal optimization to improve efficiencies at the intersection, and City staff will follow-up with MnDOT on implementing this to improve the function at the TH 3 intersection. WATER & SANITARY UTILITIES: The existing water and sanitary utilities on site are privately owned and maintained. The exception being an 8-inch public sanitary line that parallels Trunk Highway 3 on the western property line. 9. Watermain and sanitary sewer shall be privately owned and maintained, except the proposed realignment of the existing public sewer line in the northwest area of the project. 10. Existing utilities shall be shown and labeled on plan sheets. 11. Services shall be shown on plan sheets. 12. Connections to active mains shall be wet taps. 13. All valves on the water system shall be gate valves. A minimum of two valves is required at 3-legged intersections, and a minimum of three valves is required at four-legged intersections. 14. Gate valves are required on hydrant leads. 15. A watermain loop is not required for the end of Burgundy Avenue if a hydrant is provided for flushing. 16. Staff may permit 6-inch watermain, a departure from minimum watermain sizing requirements, on the private system if justified by hydraulic analysis and future water use. 17. Plans shall show proposed sanitary sewer material. 18. Connections to existing sanitary shall be core-drilled. 19. Access routes to backyard sanitary manholes shall be shown on the grading plan. 20. New public sanitary main shall tie into the manhole on Bonaire Path rather than installing a new structure at the north end. 21. Watermain and sanitary sewer will be revised during final design. Typical revisions will include number and placement of hydrants, gate valves and manholes. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: The new impervious areas are proposed to drain to an infiltration basin constructed in the southwest portion of the property. The areas that will drain to the existing wetland on the northeast corner of the property are not anticipated to have an increase in impervious with the proposed plan. 22. Signage for natural areas around the pond buffer shall be provided by the developer and a 3- year maintenance warranty shall be required to ensure establishment of the naturally vegetated areas. Costs associated with the establishment of the naturally vegetated pond buffer shall be a cost of the development. 23. Pond access route shall be labeled on the grading plan. 24. Trees are not allowed to be planted over the proposed storm sewer, or within a pond access route. 25. To comply with NPDES Construction Permit requirements any soils with an infiltration rate greater than 8.3 in/hr will need to be amended. Provide infiltration basin amendment plan for review. 26. Post-construction infiltration testing utilizing an ASTM approved method will be required to show compliance with section 16.11 of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. The City’s stormwater consultant, WSB, reviewed the submittal and their comments are summarized below: 27. A NPDES permit will be required prior to the start of construction. 28. An operations and maintenance agreement will need to be submitted. 29. The location and elevation of the emergency overflow from the proposed basin should be added to the plans. 30. No erosion control plan was provided. An erosion control plan and SWPPP should be submitted. 31. Any proposed driveways should be shown on the plans with the driveway slopes called out. 32. The bottom of the proposed infiltration basin is called out at 935 on sheet C3.1 but there is an existing 934 contour being shown within the basin. The bottom contour surface area is what will be used to confirm infiltration requirements are being met. 33. Applicant should confirm drainage isn’t be routed towards any proposed structures. From the grading shown on sheet C3.0 it appears backyard will be routed to any proposed structure on lot 1 and on sheet C3.1 it appears offsite drainage will be directed to any structures on lots 7-14. 34. Rational method storm sewer calculations and a catch basin drainage area map for all proposed storm sewer should be submitted for review to confirm the storm sewer is being sized for a 10-year storm event. This should include what is being routed to the 24” FES north of Lot 7. This should include any offsite drainage draining to the catch basins/inlets. 35. It is recommended storm sewer be routed under the curb and gutter within the roadway from north to south to the proposed basin rather than discharging to the ditch behind Lots 15-22. Without knowing how much water will discharge to the ditch, there is a concern with using the ditch to route drainage to the proposed basin. 36. Profile views of the proposed storm sewer should be included in future submittals. Watermain and sanitary sewer should also be shown on the profiles to confirm there aren’t any conflicts. 37. Invert information for the proposed ST MHs should be added to sheet C3.1. 38. A 0.1-foot drop should be added at each storm structure were possible. 39. Casting information for the proposed storm structures should be included in future submittals. 40. All applicable City standard detail plates should be added to the plans. 41. The drainage narrative states that a 3 in/hr infiltration rate is justified based on infiltration tests done in the field. Applicant should submit the referenced infiltration tests. 42. Existing conditions modeling for the 2-, 10-, 100-year and 10-day snowmelt event should be included for review. An existing conditions drainage map should also be submitted. 43. Modeling for the 2- and 10-year as well as the 10-day snowmelt event for proposed conditions should be included with future submittals. 44. The pond report should be included with future submittals to confirm the Hydraflow modeling matches what is being shown in the plans. 45. A MSE 3 distribution should be used for all storm events. 46. The existing and proposed impervious for OS-1 should be added to the proposed drainage area map. 47. Proposed drainage area OS-2 is noted to drain to the northeast basin on the drainage area map. Applicant should remove this area from what is being modeled as draining to the proposed basin. Applicant should include any offsite drainage to the proposed basin in the modeling to get an accurate HWL and discharge rate from the proposed basin. 48. Minimum low floor and low opening for any proposed structures should be included on the plans to confirm freeboard requirements are being met. 49. Per the City’s Engineering Guidelines, pretreatment to NURP standards must be provided prior to discharging into an infiltration basin. Applicant should reference the City’s Engineering Guidelines for further information. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2015. Attachments: WSB Memorandum Re: Rosemount Woods Plan Review dated 12/12/2019 1 Kennedy Mary D. Tietjen 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 & Graven (612) 337-9277 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax mtietjen@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com C H A R T E R E D MEMORANDUM To: Anthony Nemcek, Planner From: Mary Tietjen, city attorney Re: Rosemount Woods proposed expansion Date: January 22, 2020 This memorandum is related to the Planning Commission’s consideration of a major amendment to the Rosemount Woods Planned Unit Development agreement to develop an additional 39 units within the existing mobile home park. As I understand it, the additional units would comply with the city code requirements for density and the road infrastructure serving the site was designed to accommodate the additional density. Therefore, you do not anticipate that the proposed amendments would cause any adverse traffic impacts. You asked me to comment on the appropriate rationale for consideration of the application. Original PUD application and amendment applications are first reviewed by the Planning Commission which makes a recommendation to the Council. PUDs are intended to provide flexibility in land development and usually involve some deviation from strict application of code requirements. Because of this, the Planning Commission and Council generally have more latitude with this type of application than other types of land use applications. Nevertheless, recommendations and actions on such an application must not be arbitrary and any factors that are considered must be both relevant and reasonable. I understand there was a concern raised that the proposed expansion would cause an unacceptable increase in traffic on State Highway 3. For several reasons, this is potentially problematic as a basis for denial. First, Highway 3 is under the State’s jurisdiction and it is not within the City’s authority (nor is it a developer’s burden) to determine whether the highway provides adequate transportation facilities. Second, because Highway 3 is a major roadway through the area, it is used not only by Rosemount residents, but by people from all over the region. Thus, it would be extremely challenging to connect any particular traffic issues to any particular project or development. Third, any development built in Rosemount will add traffic to Highway 3. Therefore, singling out a particular project and recommending denial based on adverse traffic impacts could be viewed as arbitrary. Such a basis could be valid in a situation where there is evidence that a 2 development would cause adverse traffic impacts on a local street that was not designed to handle capacity beyond a certain defined limit. With this particular application, staff has indicated that the proposed expansion is consistent with city code requirements and that the expansion areas meet the applicable setback requirements. In addition, staff noted that all other aspects of the project will comply with the City’s zoning requirements and that all proposed deviations are consistent with the PUD Agreement that was approved in 1981. Given this, any recommendation for denial should be based on objective, factual evidence that the proposed expansion is inconsistent with either the original PUD agreement or applicable city code requirements. Absent that, a recommendation based solely on subjective factors could be susceptible to a legal challenge. MIKAEL DAHLSTROM Chief of Police JOHN WINTERS Commander RYAN COUGHLIN Sergeant JEREMIAH SIMONSON Sergeant JOE RISVOLD Sergeant SHAWN MCMENOMY Sergeant ALEX ECKSTEIN Sergeant KATHIE HANSON Records Supervisor S P I R I T O F P R I D E A N D P R O G R E S S Rosemount Police De p a rtment • 2875 145th Street West • Rosemount , MN 55068-4997 Emergency 911 • N on-Emergency 651-423-4491 • TDD/TTY 711 • F ax 651-423-4 485 w w w . c i . r o s e m o u n t . m n . u s To: Anthony Nemcek - Planner From: Mikael Dahlstrom – Chief of Police Date: 1-21-2020 Subject: Rosemount Woods Expansion and Crime Over the course of the last month, statistics were compiled and analyzed to compare police calls for service to the Rosemount Woods development against other residential developments within Rosemount. Specifically, the following 2019 call data was pulled: 911 Hang-up 571 Medical 737 Accident /Injuries 75 Medical/Priority 305 Accident Medic Request 6 Misc/Uncategorized 242 Accident/Injuries/Entrapped 3 Missing Person/Runaway 53 Accident/No injury 384 Motorist Assist 503 Admin Background/Permits 92 OFP/DANCO Violation In Progress 7 Adult Protection 23 OFP/DANCO Violation RPT 24 Alarm Burg/Holdup/Panic 406 Open Doors/Windows 9 Animal Calls 379 Ordinance Violation 54 Assault In Progress 11 Paper Service/Civil 41 Assault RPT 19 Parking Violation 190 Assist Other Juris 184 Predatory Offender Registration 85 Burglary In Progress 3 Premise Check 46 Burglary RPT 15 Probation Check 40 Child Protection 58 Property Lost/Found 136 Civil Assist 220 Public Assist 255 Community Policing 53 Pursuit 6 Criminal Sexual Conduct 26 Recovered Prop/Person 16 Crisis Mental Health 123 Recreational Fire 12 Detail/Tobacco 88 Road and Driving Comp 459 Disturbance/Disorderly 220 Robbery In Progress 2 DNR/Hunting/Off Road/Fishing 28 Shoplifting 7 Domestic/Disputes in Progress 172 Suicide Threat/Attempt 5 Domestic/Disputes RPT 16 Suspicious Activity 944 Drug Activity 25 Theft In Progress 15 Drunkenness 51 Theft RPT 163 Dumping/Littering 21 Threats/Stalking 31 Extra Patrol 250 Tow Repo/Private 1 Fight 16 Traffic Stop 6729 Fire Alarm 126 Trespass 12 Fire Related Call 84 Utility Callout 49 Fireworks 30 Vandalism/Property Damage 69 Follow up 699 Void/Test Call 2 Fraud Activity In Progress 2 Warrant Check/Processing 83 Fraud Activity RPT 131 Weapons 5 Harassment 45 Welfare Check 301 Juvenile Complaint 84 Total: 16377 It is important to note that police calls for service that did not exclusively pertain to residential units (i.e. traffic stops, pursuit, community policing, etc.) were removed from consideration before formulating conlcusions. Moreover, residential housing units were geograpically grouped into subdivisions or associations to compare police calls for service. In an effort to utilize the most recent data, calls for service information was pulled from all of 2019. Next, a ratio of “Police Calls for Service (PCFS) per 100 Residential Units” was calculated across these residential groups (see attachment) The Rosemount Woods residential group had the 5th highest ratio at 86.10 PCFS per 100 units. While in the upper echelon of calls for service, this ratio is not a rate of significant concern from a public safety perspective. The ratio is not a statistical outlier and is reasonably comparative to other housing-type groups. A few other obvserations of note: • Conventional single-family residential groups had similar or higher ratios • The residential groups around Rosemount Woods had some of the lowest ratios in the City (i.e. Dunmore, Harmony West, Harmony East, and Connemara Crossing Neighborhood Calls Housing Units Calls per 100 Housing Units Cimarron Village 155 101 153.47 Oakwood Estates 40 34 117.65 Broback East 161 151 106.62 Mickelson's Addition 31 36 86.11 Rosemount Woods 161 187 86.10 Rosemount Family Housing 27 33 81.82 Oak Ridge Estates 17 21 80.95 Lan-O-Ken 41 51 80.39 Amber Wood Estates 8 10 80.00 Rahns South 90 127 70.87 Motz Addition 50 71 70.42 Prestwick Place East 28 42 66.67 Rahns North 58 95 61.05 Broback West 75 125 60.00 Wilde Lake Estates 18 30 60.00 Geronime Pond 62 106 58.49 Shannon Oaks 8 14 57.14 Rosemount Hills 46 84 54.76 The Enclave 100 185 54.05 Town Center 86 161 53.42 Rose Park Addition 133 257 51.75 Valley Oak 138 269 51.30 Broback Central 95 195 48.72 Chelsea Woods Estates 10 21 47.62 Meadow Ridge 10 21 47.62 Rural North 14 30 46.67 Marian Terraces 45 104 43.27 Rachels Woods 3 7 42.86 Meadows of Bloomfield East 72 170 42.35 Carrollton North 34 81 41.98 Biscayne Pointe South 56 145 38.62 Glenrose 23 61 37.70 Limerick Way 89 241 36.93 Evermoor East 86 239 35.98 Rosewood Village 56 159 35.22 Wensmann East 50 142 35.21 Evermoor West 75 214 35.05 Bloomfield West 61 177 34.46 Shannon Pond East 25 73 34.25 Biscayne Pointe North 43 129 33.33 Simons Jay 1st Addition 13 39 33.33 Bloomfield Central 81 247 32.79 Stonebridge Addition 10 31 32.26 Harmony East 84 266 31.58 Greystone West 37 119 31.09 West Ridge 72 232 31.03 Shannon Hills South 28 91 30.77 Country Hills North 49 161 30.43 Harmony West 49 162 30.25 Birchview Terrace 9 31 29.03 Wensmann West 51 185 27.57 Country Hills South 104 380 27.37 Hawkins Pond 29 109 26.61 Wensmann Central 56 211 26.54 Prestwick Place North 60 227 26.43 Bella Vista 25 96 26.04 Bloomfield East 33 128 25.78 O'Leary's Hills 53 211 25.12 Mallard Pond 1 4 25.00 Carrollton South 32 130 24.62 Shannon Pond West 32 132 24.24 White Lake Acres 5 22 22.73 Evermoor South 56 248 22.58 Wachter Lake 46 207 22.22 Meadows of Bloomfield West 18 86 20.93 Dunmore 29 143 20.28 Prestwick Place South 26 133 19.55 Greystone East 17 92 18.48 Meadows of Bloomfield North 21 118 17.80 Roundstone 44 268 16.42 Shannon Hills North 10 101 9.90 Connemara Crossings 3 44 6.82 Greif Addition 3 65 4.62