Tucker Chick-fil-A

MEMO
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

From: Courtney Smith, Planning and Zoning Director
CC: Tami Hanlin, City Manager
Date: May 4, 2022
RE: Memo for CFA SLUP and CVs
Issue:
At the March 14, 2022 Mayor and City Council meeting, the applicant requested a full cycle deferral to go back through the
Land Use process (Planning Commission and two reads before Mayor and City Council) due to a major change in the
application. The major change included adding an additional parcel to their application (2239 Dillard), which would allow for
two access points to the subject property, and an additional concurrent variance (CV-22-0006) to reduce the transitional
buffer on the additional parcel.
The request now includes a SLUP to allow a drive-through restaurant with four concurrent variances for inter-parcel access,
setbacks, drive-through location, and transitional buffer requirements
Recommendation:
Staff and the applicant have not been able to agree on all elements of the submitted plan. Ultimately, council must vote on the
application before them. Therefore, staff has drafted conditions should council wish to approve the application as submitted
by the applicant (Document titled “Draft Conditions May 4 2022). At this time, Staff recommends denial of the application as
submitted.
Background:
The application went before Planning Commission on April 21, 2022 where the case was deferred. It will go back before
Planning Commission on May 19, 2022, in between the 1st and 2nd read.
Page 39 of 433
Draft Conditions (May 4, 2022)
to Approve Application as Presented by Applicant
1. The property shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan submitted on
May _, 2022, with revisions to meet these conditions.
2. The drive through facility may be located between the building and both Rosser Terrace
and Hugh Howell, as shown on the May _, 2022 site plan (CV-21-0002).
3. A mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be planted in the landscape strip between
the drive-through restaurant and both Hugh Howell Road and Rosser Terrace to screen
the appearance of the drive-through lanes from the street.
4. The maximum building setback along Rosser Terrace shall be 65’, as shown on the May
_, 2022 site plan (CV-21-0003).
5. Outdoor dining shall meet the requirements outlined in Section 46-998.
6. The drive-through establishment shall close no later than 10:00 p.m.
7. The Special Land Use Permit shall not be able to be transferred to another business.
8. Owner/ Developer shall provide direct pedestrian entrances from Hugh Howell Road and
Rosser Terrace. The required pedestrian entrances must face the public street and
provide ingress and egress.
9. Owner/Developer shall remove the existing billboard located on the northwestern

portion of the property before/during the land development phase.
10. Inter-parcel access is not required (CV-21-0004).
11. The transitional buffer along the southern property line of 2239 Dillard Street shall be
reduced from 50’ to 24.4’ (CV-22-0006). A 6’ tall wood fence shall be installed on or near
the southern property line.
12. Owner/Developer shall install a sidewalk along the drive aisle on the Dillard Street parcel,
as shown on the May _, 2022 site plan.
13. Owner/Developer shall install six foot (6’) wide sidewalk with a five foot (5’) wide
landscape strip along the entire frontage of Rosser Terrace and Hugh Howell Road.
14. The development shall be limited to one (1) limited access driveway on Rosser Terrace
(right in/left out) and one (1) full access driveway on Dillard Street. Curb cut locations are
Page 40 of 433
subject the sight distance requirements and the approval of the City Engineer. Signage
and a raised median at the Rosser Terrace curb cut to restrict right turns out shall be
constructed.
15. Owner/Developer shall construct a southbound deceleration lane on Rosser Terrace at

the new entrance, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
16. Owner/Developer shall construct a northbound right turn lane on Rosser Terrace at the
intersection of Hugh Howell Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the
Georgia Department of Transportation.
17. Owner/Developer shall dedicate at no cost to the City of Tucker such additional right-of-
way as required to construct the above improvements and have a minimum of two feet
(2’) from the back of the future sidewalk.
18. Owner/Developer shall provide ADA compliant pedestrian connectivity between the
sidewalks along both frontages and the building entrance.
19. Owner/Developer shall comply with Section 14-39 of the City of Tucker Code of
Ordinances concerning tree protection and replacement. A minimum tree density of
thirty (30) units/acre shall be required. Any specimen trees removed during the
redevelopment shall require additional tree replacement units as required in the
ordinance.
20. Owner/Developer shall provide stormwater management in compliance with Tucker’s

Post Construction Stormwater Management Ordinance.
Page 41 of 433
D ST
AVATAR REAL ESTATE IV, LLC
R
DILLA
H
R
U
E
LLAY
G
H
FUW
(G
EO V D
H
SP
RGAR LI
(
Chick-fil-A
O
EE
IAIAB MI
5200 BUFFINGTON RD
W
H LE T: 4
IG R 5
Atlanta, Georgia 30349-
EL
H /W M
2998
W ) PH
AY
L
35
23
RO
.0
'
0'
6)
TOMANELLI, LLC 34
.
AD
Certificate of Authorization License No. PEF-006755

950 North Point Parkway Suite 200
© Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd.

www.bowmanconsulting.com
Phone: (678) 374-6687
Alpharetta, GA 30005
61
4,9 ARK E: X
P1 S.F. 40 C XX'
P FF
89 S - XX.
3-S - 1 AR
E-L 04 ST
AR SEA AC
GE TS K
EET
11
.
0'
12
.0'
11.0'
12.0'
DILLARD STR
/W)
12.0'
30.5'
(VARIABLE R
24.0'
T
10
CHICK-FIL-A
29.4'
.0'
24
4435 HUGH HOWELL ROAD

10.0'
7 12.0' 12.0'
RACE
RELOTUCKER FSU
TUCKER, GA 30084
24.0' 10.0'
LARRY SHAMBLIN
BETTY H. SHAMBLIN 9 7
PH
8
ROSSER TER
18.0'
: 25 M
26.0' 18.0' 18.0' 26.0' 18.0'
(50' R/W)
SPEED LIMIT
BRIGHTLINE PROPERTIES, LLC
5
FSU# 04959
24.0'
BUILDING TYPE / SIZE: P13-SE-LRG
REVISION SCHEDULE
NO. DATE DESCRIPTION
8 7
CONSULTANT PROJECT # 120005-01-049
JOHN SANTIAGO ISSUED FOR
DATE April 20, 2022

PERMIT
DRAWN BY
BCG
Information contained on this drawing and in all digital files
produced for above named project may not be reproduced in
any manner without express written or verbal consent from
authorized project representatives.
SHEET
DILLARD ST
ACCESS EXHIBIT
SHEET NUMBER
EX-1.3
Page 42 of 433
RD ST
DILLA
H
R
U
E
LLAY
G
H
FUW
(G
EO V D
H
SP
RGAR LI
(
Chick-fil-A
O
EE
IAIAB MI
5200 BUFFINGTON RD
W
H LE T: 4
IG R 5
EL
H /W M
2998
W ) PH
AY
L
35
23
RO
.0'
0'
6)
.
34
AD

TOMANELLI, LLC

Phone: (678) 374-6687
61
4,9 ARK E: X
P1 S.F. 40 C XX'
P FF
89 S - XX.
3-S - 1 AR
E-L 04 ST
AR SEA AC
GE TS K
11
.0
'
12.0'
12
.0'
11.0'
12.0'
30.5'
24.0'
SCOTT L. NELSON
T
WANDA H. NELSON
10
CHICK-FIL-A
29.4'
.0'
24

10.0'
7 12.0' 12.0'
RACE
LARRY SHAMBLIN
RELOTUCKER FSU
TUCKER, GA 30084
BETTY H. SHAMBLIN 24.0' 10.0'
9 7
PH
8
ROSSER TER
18.0'
: 25 M
26.0' 18.0' 18.0' 26.0' 18.0'
(50' R/W)
SPEED LIMIT
5
FSU# 04959
24.0'
REVISION SCHEDULE
8 7
DATE April 1, 2022

PERMIT
RECEIVED DRAWN BY
BCG
CITY OF TUCKER Information contained on this drawing and in all digital files
04/01/2022 authorized project representatives.
SHEET
PLANNING & ZONING

DILLARD ST
DEPARTMENT ACCESS EXHIBIT
SHEET NUMBER
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003,

CV-21-0004 and CV-22-0006
EX-1.2
Page 43 of 433
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Chick-fil-A # 04959 Tucker
4431 Hugh Howell Rd,
Tucker, Georgia
May 2, 2022
Prepared for:
Chick-fil-A, Inc.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
05/03/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 44 of 433
Traffic Impact Study
Tucker, Georgia
Prepared May 2, 2022
Prepared for:
Chick-fil-A, Inc.
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, GA 30349
Phone: 404.214.9934
Prepared by:
Bowman Consulting Group

Certificate of Authorization License No. 30462
4450 W. Eau Gallie Blvd., Suite 144
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone: (321) 255-5434
Fax: (321) 255-7751
Analysts: Daniela Jurado

Rodrigo Meirelles
Project Manager: Andrew Petersen, PE
05/02/2022
Bowman Job # 120005-01-049
Page 45 of 433
Page i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ii
1.Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.Background Information ............................................................................................................................. 1
Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................ 2
3.Roadway Network ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Intersection Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 2
4.Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................... 4
5.Traffic Forecast and Background Traffic .................................................................................................... 4
6.Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................................... 5
7.Trip Distribution .......................................................................................................................................... 5
8.Turn Lane Warrant Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 6
9.Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Conditions (Year 2023) ................................................ 8
Proposed Improvements ............................................................................................................................. 10
Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Improved Conditions .................................................. 10
Queueing Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 11
10.Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Site location. .................................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2. Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 6
List of Tables
Table 1 Historical AADT and Annual Growth Rates ..................................................................................... 4
Table 2 Site Trip Generation ......................................................................................................................... 5
Table 3 Right Turn Lane Warrant Criteria ..................................................................................................... 6
Table 4 HCM Level of Service Criteria .......................................................................................................... 7
Table 5 2023 AM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................... 8
Table 6 2023 PM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................... 9
Table 7 2023 morning Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Comparison No Build vs Improved Conditions ....... 11
Table 7 2023 Evening Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Comparison No Build vs Improved Conditions ....... 11
Table 8 Queueing Analysis Comparison ..................................................................................................... 12
Appendices
Appendix A: Site Plan
Appendix B: Scope/Methodology
Appendix C: Traffic Counts
Appendix D: Traffic Volume and Traffic Distribution Exhibits
Appendix E: Chick-Fil-A Trip Generation Assessment
Appendix F: Capacity Analysis Reports
4450 W Eau Gallie Boulevard, Suite 144, Melbourne, FL 32934

P: (321) 255-5434 | F: 321.270.8977
Bowman.com
Page 46 of 433
Page ii
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the findings of the Traffic Impact Study performed by Bowman Consulting
(Bowman) for the proposed 4,989 SF Chick-fil-A development with 40 Car Stack Chick-fil-A development
to be located at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace in the
City of Tucker, Georgia.
Access to the site will be provided by (1) one right-in/left-out driveway along Rosser Terrace and (2) one
full-access driveway along Dillard St.
The purpose of this study is threefold: (i) to determine the number of expected trips generated by the
proposed site; (ii) to determine the potential impact, if any, of the proposed development on the
surrounding roadway network; and (iii) to propose improvements to mitigate the impact of the proposed
development, if required.
A Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Statement was prepared and shared with representatives from
the City of Tucker and the Georgia Department of Transportation.
Turning movement counts were collected for the morning and evening peak hours at the intersections
of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd, Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace, Hugh Howell Rd & Tucker Industrial
Rd, and Cowan Rd & Dillard St.
Based on the results of the trip generation assessment prepared by Bowman Consulting, the proposed
development is expected to generate a total of 261 trips during the morning peak hour and 285 trips
during the evening peak hour. It is anticipated that during the morning peak hour 128 of these are
existing trips, the remaining 133 are expected to be primary trips. During the evening peak hour, it is
anticipated that 143 are existing trips and 142 are new trips.
For the purposes of this analysis, it is anticipated that the proposed development will be constructed
and fully operational by the year 2023.
The following scenarios were evaluated as part of this study: 2023 No Build, 2023 Build and 2023 Build
with Improvements.
A Turn Lane Warrant Analysis was conducted based on the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances Sec. 22-
284 – Access Management. The results show a right turn lane is warranted at the eastbound approach
of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace under Existing, No Build and Build conditions.
Based on discussion with the City of Tucker Traffic Review Staff, a southbound right turn lane on Rosser
Terrace to access the site via Site Driveway 1 was requested to be included with the development of the
project.
Capacity Analyses comparison No Build Vs Build conditions were conducted for the analysis
intersections to identify areas impacted by the proposed development. The results indicate the
following:
• During the morning peak hour: all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable overall
LOS B or better during the No Build and Build conditions. No changes in LOS and minimal increases
in delays are expected on all approaches of the analysis intersections.
• During the evening peak hour: all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable overall
LOS C or better during the No Build and Build conditions. The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd with

P: (321) 255-5434 | F: 321.270.8977
Bowman.com
Page 47 of 433
Page iii
Cowan Rd is expected to operate at LOS B under No Build conditions and LOS C under Build
conditions, with an increase in delay of 3.7 seconds.
The following improvements for the signalized intersection of Cowan RD and Hugh Howell Rd were
evaluated in order to verify the effectiveness of possible proposed improvements.
• Improved Signal Optimization: Optimize signal timings at Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd &
Cowan Rd for evening Peak Hour.
• Improved LT: Provide a Northbound Left turn lane at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan
Rd.
• Improved RT CH: Provide a channelized Northbound Right-turn Lane at the intersection of Hugh
Howell Rd & Cowan Rd.
Capacity Analyses comparison No Build Vs Build Improved conditions were conducted to evaluate the
proposed improvements. The results indicate the following:
• During the morning peak hour: The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre
Driveway is expected to experience acceptable overall LOS A under Build Improved conditions
with minimal increase in the overall delay overall delay considering a northbound channelized right
turn lane improvement. The northbound approach is anticipated to operate at LOS E under both
No Build and Build Improved conditions with no increase in delay. All other approaches and turning
movements are expected to maintain the existing LOS.
• During the evening peak hour: During the evening peak hour, the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd
and Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway is expected to experience acceptable overall LOS B under
Build Improved conditions with minimal increase in the overall delay considering a northbound
channelized right turn lane improvement. The northbound approach is anticipated to operate at
LOS E under both No Build and Build Improved conditions with no increase in delay. All other
approaches and turning movements are expected to maintain the existing LOS.
The 95th% queue results show that, during the morning peak hour, no storage lengths are exceeded
with the inclusion of the proposed development. During the evening peak hour, the storage length of
the southbound left-turn lane of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway
is expected to be exceeded under No Build, Build and Build Improved conditions. The westbound left-
turn lane of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Tucker Industrial Rd is expected to be exceeded under
both No Build and Build conditions, with no increase in queue length under Build conditions.
Based on the results of the capacity, queuing and turn lane warrant analysis the following improvements
are proposed:
• Provide a southbound right-turning lane at the intersection of Rosser Terrace & Site Driveway 1.
• Provide a northbound right-turn flare at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace.
• Provide a Northbound Right turn lane at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd.
Based on the results of the capacity, turn lane, and queueing analysis, the proposed Chick-Fil-A at 4431
Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding roadway network
provided the proposed improvements mentioned on this report.

P: (321) 255-5434 | F: 321.270.8977
Bowman.com
Page 48 of 433
1. Introduction
This report summarizes the findings of the Traffic Impact Study performed by Bowman
Consulting (Bowman) for the proposed Chick-fil-A development to be located at the Southwest
corner of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace in the City of Tucker, Georgia.
The purpose of this study is threefold: (i) to determine the number of expected trips generated
by the proposed site; (ii) to determine the potential impact, if any, of the proposed
development on the surrounding roadway network; and (iii) to propose improvements to
mitigate the impact of the proposed development, if required.
2. Background Information
The proposed development entails a 4,989 SF Chick-fil-A development with 40-Car Stack to
be constructed at 4431 Hugh Howell Rd, in the City of Tucker, Georgia. Figure 1 depicts the
site location.
Figure 1. Site location.
Access to the development will be provided by (1) one right-in/left-out driveway along Rosser
Terrace and (2) one full-access driveway along Dillard St, no access driveways are proposed
on Hugh Howell Rd. The latest Concept Plan is presented in Appendix A.
Page |1
Bowman.com
Page 49 of 433
Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology
A Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Statement was prepared and shared with
representatives from the City of Tucker and the GDOT DeKalb County Division. A copy of the
approved Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Statement and proof of the coordination is
contained in Appendix B.
To assess the traffic operation at the study Intersections, the following tasks were undertaken:
• Turning movement counts were collected during an average weekday for the morning
(7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak periods.
• Trip generation Assessment for Chick-Fil-a (CFA) facilities.
• Trip Distribution for the proposed development.
• Capacity and queuing analyses at study intersections.
3. Roadway Network
Hugh Howell Rd (GA 236): Within the identified study area is a State-maintained four-lane
Minor Arterial according to the Georgia Department of Transportation State Functional
Classification Map Online. Hugh Howell Rd has a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL), a
southeast-northwest alignment and a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour.
Rosser Terrace: Within the identified study area is a city-maintained two-lane undivided
roadway identified as a Local Road according to the City of Tucker 2019, Strategic
Transportation Master Plan. Rosser Terrace has a north-south alignment and a posted speed
limit of 25 miles per hour.
Tucker Industrial Rd: Within the identified study area is a city-maintained two-lane undivided
roadway identified as a Local Road according to the City of Tucker Strategic 2019,
Transportation Master Plan. Tucker Industrial Rd has a north-south alignment with a posted
speed limit of 35 miles per hour.
Cowan Rd: Within the identified study area is a city-maintained two-lane undivided roadway
identified as a Local Road according to the City of Tucker 2019, Strategic Transportation Master
Plan. Cowan Rd has a northeast-southwest alignment with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per
hour.
Dillard St: Within the identified study area is a city-maintained two-lane undivided roadway
Plan. Dillard St has a north-south alignment with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
Intersection Characteristics
1. Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way
This intersection is currently a four-legged unsignalized intersection where Hugh Howell Rd
has a southeast-northwest alignment and Rosser Terrace and Fuller way have a north-south
alignment.
Page |2
Bowman.com
Page 50 of 433
The northwest approach (Hugh Howell Road eastbound) consists of an exclusive through lane,
one shared through/right-turn lane and a continuous TWLTL. The southeast approach (Hugh
Howell Road westbound) consists of two exclusive through lanes, one exclusive right-turn lane
and a continuous TWLTL. The northbound approach (Rosser Terrace) consists of one shared
left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The southbound approach (Fuller Way) consists of one
shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane.
2. Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway

This intersection is currently a four-legged signalized intersection where Hugh Howell Rd has
a southeast-northwest alignment and Cowan Rd has a northeast-southwest alignment.
The northwest approach (Hugh Howell Road eastbound) consists of one exclusive left-turn
lane, one exclusive through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The southeast
approach (Hugh Howell Road westbound) consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, two exclusive
through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. The southwest approach (Cowan Road
Northbound) consists of one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The northeast approach
(Publix Driveway southbound) consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane.
3. Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd

an east-west alignment and Tucker Industrial Rd has a north-south alignment.
The eastbound and westbound approaches consist of one exclusive left-turn lane, one
exclusive through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The northbound and
southbound approaches have one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane.
4. Intersection of Cowan Rd & Dillard St

This intersection is currently a three-legged unsignalized intersection where Hugh Howell Rd
has a northeast-southwest alignment and Dillard St has a north-south alignment.
The northeast approach consists of a single lane with left-turn and through movements
allowed. The southwest approach consists of a single lane with through and right-turn
movements allowed. The northbound approach consists of a single lane with left-turn and
right-turn movements allowed.
Proposed Conditions
As mentioned before, access to the development will be provided by (1) one right-in/left-out
driveway along Rosser Terrace and (2) one full-access driveway along Dillard St. No access is
proposed on Hugh Howell Road.
Page |3
Bowman.com
Page 51 of 433
4. Data Collection
For the purposes of this study the following data was collected:
• Inspections were conducted to obtain an inventory of existing roadway geometry, traffic

control devices, and location of existing and proposed driveways.
• Published GDOT AADT counts and functional classification information.
• Turning movement counts were collected at the following intersections:
- Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd
- Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace
- Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd
- Cowan Rd & Dillard St
The traffic counts were completed during an average weekday, Tuesday, June 15, 2021, for
the intersections of Hugh Howell Rd with Cowan Rd, Rosser Terrace, and Tucker Industrial Rd,
and on Tuesday, March 1, 2022, for the intersection of Cowan Rd with Dillard St for the morning
(7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak periods. The turning movement
counts are presented in Appendix C.
5. Traffic Forecast and Background Traffic

For the purposes of this analysis, it is anticipated that the proposed development will be
constructed and fully operational by the year 2023. The following scenarios were evaluated as
part of this study:
• Future Conditions (2023) without the proposed development (No Build)

• Future Conditions (2023) with the proposed development (Build)
• Improved Future Conditions (2023) with the proposed development (Build with
Improvements)
To develop the 2022 and the 2023 traffic volumes, the first step was to determine a background
growth rate applicable for the study area roadway segments. For each roadway segment, the
annual growth rate was calculated using the historical AADT information provided by the
GDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic & Historical Counts 2015-2019 information. A 0.5%
minimum average annual growth rate was used for all traffic in the study area.
The historical study area roadway AADT information, as well as the applied growth rates
utilized for the analysis, are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Historical AADT and Annual Growth Rates
Source: GDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic & Historical Counts 2015-2019
Page |4
Bowman.com
Page 52 of 433
The growth rates presented in Table 1 were applied to the 2021 Turning Movement Counts to
develop the 2022 Existing Volumes. The 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes are presented in
Appendix D, Exhibit 1.
The 2023 No Build Traffic Volumes were developed applying one year growth to the 2022
Existing Traffic Volumes, see Exhibit 2 in Appendix D.
6. Trip Generation
The applicant is proposing to develop the site with the following land uses generating site
traffic:
• 4,989 SF Chick-fil-A Restaurant with drive-thru window (Proposed)
Considering Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurants generate larger number of trips than ITE
comparable land uses. Bowman conducted a Trip Generation Assessment based on trip
generation data provided by the Atlanta Department of Transportation for three similar Chick-
fil-A facilities. The trip generation assessment is presented Appendix E.
Table 2 displays the trip generation for the proposed development and includes the morning
and evening peak hour.
Table 2 Site Trip Generation

Land Use AADT of Adjacent Peak Hour Trips (2) Pass by(3) Primary
Land Use Period
Code(1) Street In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Fast Food restaurant AM 133 128 261 65 63 128 68 65 133

934 24,400
with Drive thru PM 148 137 285 74 69 143 74 68 142
(1) Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 10th Edition
(2) Based on Bowman 2021 Trip Generation Assessment for Chick-Fil-A facilities
(3) Pass-By rates of 49% were extracted from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition
The proposed development is expected to generate a total of 261 trips during the morning
peak hour and 285 trips during the evening peak hour. It is anticipated that during the morning
peak hour 128 of these are existing trips, the remaining 133 are expected to be primary trips.
During the evening peak hour, it is anticipated that 143 are existing trips and 142 are new trips.
7. Trip Distribution
The proposed trip distribution for the site was developed based on the AADT information of
the surrounding roadway network, he population and employment centers in the area, and the
access conditions of the site. The trip distribution for this site is presented in Figure 2.
Page |5
Bowman.com
Page 53 of 433
Figure 2. Trip Distribution
The Primary and Pass-By trip distributions are presented in Exhibits 3 and 4 in Appendix D.
The Primary and Pass-By trips are presented in Exhibits 5 and 6 in Appendix D.
The CFA Site Trips are presented in Exhibits 7 in Appendix D.
The CFA Site Trips were added to the 2022 No Build Traffic Volumes to yield the 2022 Build
Traffic Volumes presented in Exhibit 8 in Appendix D.
8. Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
A Turn Lane Warrant Analysis was conducted based on the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances.
Per Sec. 22-284 – Access Management, a deceleration lane shall be required at each project
driveway or subdivision street entrance, as applicable, that meets either the average daily
traffic (ADT) or right turning volumes shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Right Turn Lane Warrant Criteria
For driveways, right-turn lanes shall be required at all driveways where the right-turning volume
exceeds 300 vehicles per day.
Page |6
Bowman.com
Page 54 of 433
The following number of entering right turns are anticipated under 2023 Build Conditions:
• Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace

o AM Peak Hour – 16
o PM Peak Hour – 33
• Rosser Terrace and Site Driveway 1

Based on the thresholds for a right-turn lane provided on the City of Tucker Code of
Ordinances, a right turn lane is warranted at the eastbound approach of the intersection of
Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace. Note the 7 right-turning vehicle per hour threshold from
the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances for a 40 mph or higher speed limit roadway is already
exceeded under Existing and No Build conditions.
Based on the posted speed limit of Rosser Terrace (25 mph) a right-turn deceleration lane is
not warranted as the threshold is not applicable for roads with speed limits smaller than 35
mph. Based on discussion with the City of Tucker Traffic Review Staff, a southbound right turn
lane on Rosser Terrace to access the site via Site Driveway 1 was requested to be included with
the development of the project.
9. Capacity Analysis
The study intersections were analyzed for each scenario following the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM 6th edition) methodologies using the computer software Synchro 10. The analysis
uses capacity, Level of Service, and control delay as the criteria for the performance of the
driveways and study intersections.
Capacity, as defined by the HCM, is a measure of the maximum number of vehicles in an hour
that can travel through an intersection or section of roadway under typical conditions. Level of
Service (LOS) is a marker of the driving conditions and perception of drivers while traveling
during the given time period. LOS ranges from LOS A which represents free flow conditions,
to LOS F which represents breakdown conditions.
Table 4 shows the LOS for unsignalized intersections as defined by the HCM.
Table 4 HCM Level of Service Criteria

Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections
Level of Service (LOS) Average Control Delay Average Control Delay
(sec/veh) (sec/veh)
A ≤10 ≤10
B 10 - 15 10 - 20
C 15 - 25 20 - 35
D 25 - 35 35 - 55
E 35 - 50 55 - 80
F >50 >80
Page |7
Bowman.com
Page 55 of 433
Control delay is a measure of the total amount of delay experienced by an individual vehicle
and includes delay related to deceleration, queue delay, stopped delay, and acceleration.
Table 4 displays the amount of control delay (in seconds per vehicle) that corresponds to the
LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Conditions (2023)
Capacity Analyses comparison were conducted for the No Build Vs Build conditions (2023).
The primary purpose for this approach was to compare the results to identify areas impacted
by the proposed development. The capacity results are included in Appendix F.
The capacity results for morning peak hour are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5 2023 AM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis

No Build Build
2023 CONDITIONS - (AM)
DELAY (S) LOS DELAY (S) LOS
Intersection Approach Movement
L 8.3 A 8.2 A
T 0.0 A 0.0 A
EB
TR 0.0 A 0.0 A
Approach 0.5 A 0.5 A
L 0.0 A 7.8 A
T 0.0 A 0.0 A
WB
1 Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way R 0.0 A 0.0 A
LT - - 12.3 B
NB R - - 9.1 A
Approach 10.7 B 10.0 A
SB Approach 9.7 A 9.7 A
Intersection - 0.6 A 1.3 A
L 4.4 A 6.2 A
T 5.7 A 8.0 A
EB
TR 5.7 A 8.0 A
L 4.9 A 6.8 A
T 0.3 A 0.4 A
WB
2 Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway R 0.0 A 0.1 A
NB Approach 78.7 E 75.5 E
L 68.2 E 61.7 E
SB TR 65.2 E 58.7 E
Approach 66.3 E 59.8 E
Intersection - 8.3 A 11.4 B
L 100.8 F 96.0 F
T 0.3 A 0.3 A
EB
TR 0.3 A 0.3 A
L 102.5 F 102.5 F
3 Hugh Howell Rd & Tucker Industrial Rd T 5.2 A 5.6 A
WB
TR 5.2 A 5.6 A
SB Approach 67.0 E 66.7 E
Intersection - 13.2 B 13.5 B
EB Approach 0.0 A 0.0 A
WB Approach 0.9 A 3.6 A
4 Cowan Rd & Dillard St
NB Approach 8.9 A 9.7 A
Extracted from Synchro HCM 6th Edition
Page |8
Bowman.com
Page 56 of 433
Based on the results of the capacity analysis during the morning peak hour, all intersections
are projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the No Build and Build
conditions.
The northbound and southbound approaches of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and
Cowan Rd are expected to operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build conditions. The
northbound and southbound approaches of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker
Industrial Rd are expected to operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build conditions. The
eastbound and westbound left-turning movements of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd with
Tucker Industrial Rd are expected to operate at a LOS F during both No Build and Build
conditions, minimal increases in delays are expected at the above-mentioned turning
movements and approaches.
The capacity results for evening peak hour are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6 2023 PM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis

No Build Build
2023 CONDITIONS - (PM)
L 8.3 A 8.2 A
T 0.0 A 0.0 A
EB
TR 0.0 A 0.0 A
L 9.1 A 9.5 A
T 0.0 A 0.0 A
WB
1 Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way R 0.0 A 0.0 A
LT - - 17.9 C
NB R - - 11.7 B
Approach 15.2 C 13.7 B
SB Approach 10.2 B 10.1 B
L 9.3 A 12.0 B
T 16.7 B 21.6 C
EB
TR 16.7 B 21.5 C
Approach 15.9 B 20.6 C
L 12.1 B 15.8 B
T 0.4 A 0.5 A
WB
L 57.6 E 51.5 D
SB TR 56.1 E 49.9 D
Approach 56.7 E 50.5 D
Intersection - 17.6 B 21.3 C
L 117.2 F 108.3 F
T 1.7 A 1.8 A
EB
TR 1.7 A 1.8 A
L 104.4 F 104.4 F
WB
TR 8.0 A 8.4 A
Approach 15.0 B 15.3 B
NB Approach 9.4 A 10.5 B
Page |9
Bowman.com
Page 57 of 433
Based on the results of the capacity analysis during the evening peak hour, all intersections are
projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the No Build and Build
conditions. An increase in delay of 3.7 seconds is expected at the intersection of Hugh Howell
Rd with Cowan Rd under Build conditions.
Tucker Industrial Rd are expected to operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build
conditions; the eastbound and westbound left-turning movements of the intersection of Hugh
Howell Rd with Tucker Industrial Rd are expected to operate at LOS F during both No Build
and Build conditions.
Proposed Improvements
Based on the results of the turn lane warrant analysis and the capacity analysis comparison
between No Build and Build conditions, the following improvements are proposed:
- Provide a southbound right-turning lane at the intersection of Rosser Terrace & Site
Driveway 1.
- Provide a northbound right-turn flare at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser
Terrace.
Additionally, the following improvements for the signalized intersection of Cowan Rd and
Hugh Howell Rd were evaluated in order to verify the effectiveness of possible proposed
improvements.
- Improved Opt: Optimize signal timings at Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd
for evening Peak Hour.
- Improved LT: Provide a Northbound Left-turn Lane at the intersection of Hugh Howell
Rd & Cowan Rd.
- Improved RT CH: Provide a channelized Northbound Right-turn Lane at the

intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd.
Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Improved Conditions
A Capacity Analyses comparison was conducted for the No Build and Build Improved
conditions (year 2023). The primary purpose for this approach was to compare the results in
order to evaluate the effect of the proposed improvements. The capacity results are included
in Appendix F.
P a g e | 10
Bowman.com
Page 58 of 433
Table 7 2023 Morning Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Comparison No Build vs Improved Conditions
No Build Build Improved LT Build Improved RTch
DELAY (S) LOS DELAY (S) LOS DELAY (S) LOS
L 4.4 A 4.8 A 4.8 A
T 5.7 A 6.3 A 6.5 A
EB
TR 5.7 A 6.3 A 6.4 A
Approach 5.6 A 6.2 A 6.4 A
L 4.9 A 5.4 A 5.5 A
T 0.3 A 0.3 A 0.3 A
WB
R 0.0 A 0.1 A 0.1 A
2 Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway Approach 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.4 A
L/TL* 76.7 E 76.9 E
NB TR/R* 76.0 E - -
Approach 78.7 E 76.4 E 76.9 E
L 68.2 E 67.0 E 65.9 E
SB TR 65.2 E 63.5 E 63.0 E
Approach 66.3 E 64.8 E 64.1 E
Intersection - 8.3 A 11.0 B 9.1 A
During the morning peak hour, the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre
with minimal increase in the overall delay considering a northbound channelized right turn
lane improvement. The northbound approach is anticipated to operate at LOS E under both
No Build and Build Improved conditions with no increase in delay. All other approaches and
turning movements are expected to maintain the existing LOS.
Table 8 2023 Evening Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Comparison No Build vs Improved Conditions
No Build Build Improved Opt Build Improved LT Build Improved RTch
DELAY (S) LOS DELAY (S) LOS DELAY (S) LOS DELAY (S) LOS
L 9.3 A 11.1 B 8.7 A 9.5 A
T 16.7 B 20.0 B 16.0 B 17.4 B
EB
TR 16.7 B 20.0 B 16.0 B 17.4 B
Approach 15.9 B 19.1 B 15.3 B 16.6 B
L 12.1 B 14.6 B 11.6 B 12.6 B
T 0.4 A 0.5 A 0.4 A 0.4 A
WB
R 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A
2 Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway Approach 1.1 A 1.3 A 1.1 A 1.2 A
L/TL* 73.7 E 73.6 E
NB TR/R* 72.5 E - -
Approach 74.2 E 71.7 E 73.1 E 73.6 E
L 57.6 E 53.5 D 60.3 E 56.7 E
SB TR 56.1 E 51.8 D 57.7 E 55.5 E
Approach 56.7 E 52.5 D 58.7 E 56.0 E
Intersection - 17.6 B 20.2 C 18.7 B 17.8 B
During the evening peak hour, the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre
Driveway is expected to experience acceptable overall LOS B under Build Improved conditions
with minimal increase in the overall delay considering a northbound right turn lane
improvement. The northbound approach is anticipated to operate at LOS E under both No
Build and Build Improved conditions with no increase in delay. All other approaches and
turning movements are expected to maintain the existing LOS.
Queueing Analysis
The queue lengths were evaluated to determine if the available storage length of the turn lanes
was exceeded. The 95th Percentile queue lengths are presented in Appendix F. Table 9
summarizes the queue results.
P a g e | 11
Bowman.com
Page 59 of 433
Table 9 Queueing Analysis Comparison

No Build Build Build Imp - Signal Opt Build Imp - Left Turn Build Imp - Right Turn
2023 PM PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS Available
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Storage (ft)
Intersection Approach Movement Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft)
Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace EB L 100 3 3 3 3
1
(Unsignalized) WB L 100 0 0 5 8
EB L 125 25 85 33 89 N/A - No 98 29 83 30 89
Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway WB L 115 12 m27 16 m28 AM Signal m32 14 m26 15 m28
2
(Signalized) NB Approach - 88 201 178 #323 Opt 276 125 167 135 207
SB L 100 48 127 44 125 Required 119 46 129 45 125
Hugh Howell Rd & Tucker Industrial Rd EB L 150 20 m11 m26 m17
3
(Signalized) WB L 100 79 #124 79 #124
4 Cowan Rd & Dillard St (Unsignalized) NB Approach - 3 3 13 15
Extracted from Synchro10 HCM 6th Edition
Intersections 3 & 4 have Non-NEMA Phasing therefore were extracted from Synchro10 HCM 2000 Edition
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
For queue given in terms of vehicles one vehicle was assumed equal to 25 ft (Including space in between vehicles).
P a g e | 12
Bowman.com
Page 60 of 433
Based on the 95th% queue results, during the morning peak hour, no storage lengths are
exceeded with the inclusion of the proposed development.
Based on the 95th% queue results, during the evening peak hour the storage length of the
southbound left-turn lane of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre
Driveway is expected to be exceeded under No Build, Build and Build Improved conditions.
The westbound left-turn lane of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Tucker Industrial Rd is
expected to be exceeded under both No Build and Build conditions, with no increase in queue
length under Build conditions.
P a g e | 13
Bowman.com
Page 61 of 433
10. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the results of the trip generation assessment prepared by Bowman Consulting, the proposed
development is expected to generate a total of 261 trips during the morning peak hour and 285 trips
during the evening peak hour. It is anticipated that during the morning peak hour 128 of these are
existing trips, the remaining 133 are expected to be primary trips. During the evening peak hour, it is
anticipated that 143 are existing trips and 142 are new trips.
The study found that based on the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances, a right turn lane is warranted at
the eastbound approach of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace under Existing, No
Build and Build conditions. Based on discussion with the City of Tucker Traffic Review Staff, a
southbound right turn lane on Rosser Terrace to access the site via Site Driveway 1 was requested to be
included with the development of the project.
The results of the No Build Vs Build conditions capacity analysis comparison indicate the following:
• During the morning peak hour:
All intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the No
Build and Build conditions. No changes in LOS and minimal increases in delays are expected on all
approaches of the analysis intersection.
• During the evening peak hour:

All intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the No
Build and Build conditions.
The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd with Cowan Rd is expected to operate at LOS B under No Build
conditions and LOS C under Build conditions, with an increase in delay of 3.7 seconds.
The following improvements for the signalized intersection of Cowan RD and Hugh Howell Rd were
evaluated in order to verify the effectiveness of possible proposed improvements.
• Improved Signal Optimization: Optimize signal timings at Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd &
Cowan Rd for evening Peak Hour.
• Improved LT: Provide a Northbound Left turn lane at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan
Rd.
• Improved RT CH: Provide a channelized Northbound Right-turn Lane at the intersection of Hugh
Howell Rd & Cowan Rd.
Capacity Analyses comparison No Build Vs Build Improved conditions were conducted to evaluate the
proposed improvements. The results indicate the following:
• During the morning peak hour: The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre
with minimal increase in the overall delay considering a northbound channelized right turn lane
improvement. The northbound approach is anticipated to operate at LOS E under both No Build
and Build Improved conditions with no increase in delay. All other approaches and turning
movements are expected to maintain the existing LOS.
• During the evening peak hour: During the evening peak hour, the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd
and Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway is expected to experience acceptable overall LOS B under
Build Improved conditions with minimal increase in the overall delay overall delay considering a
northbound channelized right turn lane improvement. The northbound approach is anticipated to
P a g e | 14
Bowman.com
Page 62 of 433
operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build Improved conditions with no increase in delay. All
other approaches and turning movements are expected to maintain the existing LOS.
The 95th% queue results show that, during the morning peak hour, no storage lengths are exceeded
with the inclusion of the proposed development. During the evening peak hour, the storage length of
the southbound left-turn lane of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway
is expected to be exceeded under No Build, Build and Build Improved conditions. The westbound left-
turn lane of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Tucker Industrial Rd is expected to be exceeded under
both No Build and Build conditions, with no increase in queue length under Build conditions.
Based on the results of the capacity, queuing and turn lane warrant analysis the following improvements
are proposed:
• Provide a southbound right-turning lane at the intersection of Rosser Terrace & Site Driveway 1.
• Provide a northbound right-turn flare at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace.
• Provide a northbound right turn lane at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd.
Based on the results of the capacity, turn lane, and queueing analysis, the proposed Chick-Fil-A at 4431
Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding roadway network
provided the proposed improvements mentioned on this report.
P a g e | 15
Bowman.com
Page 63 of 433
APPENDIX A
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 64 of 433
D ST
R
DILLA
H
R
U
E
LLAY
G
H
FUW
(G
EO V D
H
SP
RGAR LI
(
Chick-fil-A
O
EE
IAIAB MI
5200 BUFFINGTON RD
W
H LE T: 4
IG R 5
EL
H /W M
2998
W ) PH
AY
L
35
23
RO
.0
'
0'
6)
TOMANELLI, LLC 34
.
AD


Phone: (678) 374-6687
61
4,9 ARK E: X
P1 S.F. 40 C XX'
P FF
89 S - XX.
3-S - 1 AR
E-L 04 ST
AR SEA AC
GE TS K
EET
11
.
0'
12
.0'
11.0'
12.0'
DILLARD STR
/W)
12.0'
30.5'
(VARIABLE R
24.0'
T
10
CHICK-FIL-A
29.4'
.0'
24

10.0'
7 12.0' 12.0'
RACE
RELOTUCKER FSU
TUCKER, GA 30084
24.0' 10.0'
LARRY SHAMBLIN
BETTY H. SHAMBLIN 9 7
PH
8
ROSSER TER
18.0'
: 25 M
26.0' 18.0' 18.0' 26.0' 18.0'
(50' R/W)
SPEED LIMIT
5
FSU# 04959
24.0'
REVISION SCHEDULE
8 7
DATE April 20, 2022

PERMIT
DRAWN BY
BCG
SHEET
DILLARD ST
ACCESS EXHIBIT
SHEET NUMBER
EX-1.3
Page 65 of 433
APPENDIX B
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 66 of 433
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CHICK-FIL-A, TUCKER, GA
SCOPING/METHODOLOGY STATEMENT
Scoping Meeting Date: Electronic Coordination
Applicant's Consultant: Bowman Consulting Group
Applicant's Contact information: Andrew J Petersen (321 -270 - 8987 / [email protected])
Daniela Jurado (321 -270 - 8977 / [email protected])
(1) LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: 4431 Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA 30084, See Figure 1.
Municipality: City of Tucker, GA
County DeKalb County
(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:

The proposed development comprises a 4,989 square feet Fast-food restaurant with drive-thru window with 44 car stack, located at 4431
Hugh Howell Rd in the city of Tucker, Georgia. Access to the development will be provided by one (1) full-access driveway along Rosser
Terrace.
Trip generation rates were extracted from the Institute of Transportation Engineers 10th Edition. The trip generation is presented in Table
1. The proposed Trip Distribution is presented in Figure 2.
(3) PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT:

The purpose for the study is threefold: to determine the number of trips generated by the proposed site; to determine the potential
impact, if any, of the proposed development on the roadway network; to propose improvements, if required.
Capacity analyses will be prepared for the No Build, Build conditions, and Build Conditions with Improvements (if required). Turn lane
warrant analyses will be completed at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace. The results of the study will be summarized
in a report document with graphics and back up data.
(4) DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE:
Anticipated Opening Date: 2022
Analysis Date: 2022
(5) STUDY INTERSECTIONS (See Figure 2):

-Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace (Unsignalized Intersection)
-Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd (Signalized Intersection)
-Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd (Singalized Intersection)
(6) STUDY AREA TYPE: Urban: x Rural:
(7) ANALYSIS PERIODS AND TIMES:

AM Peak hour 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
PM Peak hour 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
1 ........
Page 67 of 433
(8) TRAFFIC ADJUSTMENT FACTORS:
(a) Seasonal Adjustment: To be determined upon coordination
Approximate Growth average from AADT's

(b) Annual Base Traffic Growth: See Table 2 Source: GDOT Traffic Count Data online
(9) OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN STUDY AREA TO BE ADDED TO BASE TRAFFIC:
To be determined upon coordination
(10) APPROVAL OF DATA COLLECTION ELEMENTS AND METHODOLOGIES:

Proposed Location Period (Avg Day) Type
-Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace AM/PM Turning Movement Counts
-Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd AM/PM Turning Movement Counts
-Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd AM/PM Turning Movement Counts
(11) CAPACITY/LOS ANALYSIS

Location Period (Avg Day) Type
-Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace AM/PM Synchro (HCS)
-Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd AM/PM Synchro (HCS)
-Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd AM/PM Synchro (HCS)
(12) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS/MODIFICATIONS BY OTHERS TO BE INCLUDED:
To be determine upon coordination
(13) OTHER NEEDED ANALYSES:
(a) Signal Warrant Analysis:

No
(b) Required Signal Phasing/Timing Modifications:

TBD
(c) Analysis of the Need for Turning Lanes:

(d) Turning Lane Lengths:

95th Percentile Synchro Queue
(14) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT:
2 ........
Page 68 of 433
FIGURE 1
2021 © Google Earth
FIGURE 2 Proposed trip distribution
2020 © Google Maps
3 ........
Page 69 of 433
TABLE 1
Land Use Peak Hour Trips Pass by(2) Primary
Land Use Size Daily Trips Period
Code(1) In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
AM 102 99 201 50 49 99 52 50 102
Fast Food restaurant with Drive thru 934 4,989 SF 2,350
PM 85 78 163 43 39 82 42 39 81
(1) Pass-By rates of 49% for the AM Peak Hour and 50% for the PM Peak Hour were extracted from the ITE Trip Generation Handb ook, 3rd Edition
TABLE 2
Avg Growth Applied
Roadway From to 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019
rate Growth rate
Hugh Howell Rd Lawrenceville Hwy Mountain Industrial Blvd 21,700 22,400 25,600 25,600 24,400 3.2% 14.3% 0.0% -4.7% 3.2% 3.2%
Rosser Terrace N/A N/A - - - - - - - - - No Data 0.5%
Tucker Industrial Rd N/A N/A - - - - - - - - - No Data 0.5%
Cowan Rd N/A N/A - - - - - - - - - No Data 0.5%
Source: Approximate Growth average from 2015-2019 AADT's GDOT Traffic Count Database System (TCDS).
https://gdottrafficdata.drakewell.com/publicmultinodemap.asp
A 0.5% minimum growth rate for the roads was assumed based on the City of Tucker population growth rate.
4 ........
Page 70 of 433
Rodrigo Meirelles
From: Ken Hildebrandt <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 5:23 PM
To: Daniela Jurado
Cc: Andrew Petersen; Rodrigo Meirelles
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External]RE: [External]RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Yes, these will be a good representation.
KEN HILDEBRANDT, PE, PTOE

CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645
E: [email protected] W: tuckerga.gov
From: Daniela Jurado <[email protected]>

To: Ken Hildebrandt <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Petersen <[email protected]>; Rodrigo Meirelles <[email protected]>
Subject: [External]RE: [External]RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Good Afternoon Ken,
We received some trip generation information today of some CFA locations in the Great Atlanta area, average weekday
(M-Th) information from 2 months in 2019 and February 2021 when school was in session. The locations are the
following:
1- 2580 Piedmont Rd
2- 2340 N Druid Hills Rd
3- 1100 Northside Dr
Sincerely,
DANIELA JURADO
Project Manager | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
[email protected] | bowman.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 8:23 AM
To: Daniela Jurado <[email protected]>
1
Page 71 of 433
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [External]RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
What is the ADT on the street in Miami?

Is it a comparable site?

CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645

Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 2:21 PM
Subject: [External]RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Good Afternoon Ken,
For the trip generation of the CFA we have conducted a trip generation study for a CFA in the Miami Dade area. Is it
possible for us to use this trip generation study results to evaluate the trip generation for this site?
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
From: Daniela Jurado

Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 8:47 AM
Subject: RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
2
Page 72 of 433
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
DeKalb County maintains our traffic signals. You may be able to get this information from Demetria Allen.
[email protected]

CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645

To: Ken Hildebrandt <[email protected]>; Rodrigo Meirelles <[email protected]>; Courtney Smith
<[email protected]>; Kylie Thomas <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Petersen <[email protected]>
Subject: [External]RE: [External]RE: [External]RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Good Morning Ken,
Is there a way we can get the signal phasing and timings for the intersections of Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd
and Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd?
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762

Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 3:21 PM
To: Daniela Jurado <[email protected]>; Rodrigo Meirelles <[email protected]>; Courtney Smith
No further comments at this time.
3
Page 73 of 433
CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645

Thank you Ken,
We will start working on the best locations to get this data collected. Besides the trip generation, is there any other
comments on the proposed methodology?
Sincerely,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762

Again, I think that a Chick fil-A is a different animal and is not accurately represented in this trip generation category.

CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645
4
Page 74 of 433
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 9:53 AM
Good Morning Ken,
Would it be possible for us to use the ITE mean values plus one standard deviation. That would leave the following trip
generation:
Would you agree with this approach?
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762

To: Rodrigo Meirelles <[email protected]>; Courtney Smith <[email protected]>; Kylie Thomas
<[email protected]>
Cc: Daniela Jurado <[email protected]>; Andrew Petersen <[email protected]>
Rodrigo,
A Chick fil-A restaurant is rather unique and does not fit in the mold of Code 934 for a Fast Food Restaurant. Actual trip
generation will be significantly higher. A more accurate estimate would be to provide counts at an existing comparably
sized Chick fil-A.
You can call me at the number below with any questions.
5
Page 75 of 433
CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645
From: Rodrigo Meirelles <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:18 AM
To: Ken Hildebrandt <[email protected]>; Courtney Smith <[email protected]>; Kylie Thomas
<[email protected]>
Subject: [External]Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Good Morning Ken, Courtney, and Kylie,
I am contacting you regarding a Chick-fil-A project at 4431 Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA. The site will be replacing the
existing Presbyterian Church. Attached you will find a Methodology Statement with the Trip Generation for this site and
a Current Site Plan.
We want to schedule a meeting with the City of Tucker to verify that our methodology for this Traffic Impact Study is
acceptable. Could you reply to this email with the best time for you to discuss this project?
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
RODRIGO MEIRELLES VAN VLIET

Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
6
Page 76 of 433
Rodrigo Meirelles
From: Rodrigo Meirelles

To: Mathis, Renaldo M
Cc: Daniela Jurado; Andrew Petersen
Subject: RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination - GDOT
That will work, thank you very much Renaldo. Can you please include Daniela Jurado ([email protected]) and
Andrew Petersen ([email protected]) to the meeting invite as well?
Sincerely,

Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
[email protected]
From: Mathis, Renaldo M <[email protected]>

To: Rodrigo Meirelles <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination - GDOT
I will set the meeting on Microsoft teams for Tuesday at 1.
Thanks,
Renaldo M. Mathis
Civil Engineer II
Serving City of Atlanta & DeKalb County
District 7 Office of Traffic Operations

5025 New Peachtree Road
Chamblee, GA, 30341
770.216.3993 office
404.655.8946 mobile

To: Mathis, Renaldo M <[email protected]>
Hello Renaldo,
1
Page 77 of 433
Sorry for misspelling your name at first. Either one of these days will work for us. Let us know what time works best for
you and your manager.
Thank you,

Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
[email protected]

Good morning Rodrigo,
I can set a meeting for sometime early next week if that works for you. I m going to speak with my manager to see what
times work best based on the day you prefer. I’m thinking sometime Monday or Tuesday. How does these dates sound
to you?
Thanks,
Renaldo M. Mathis
Civil Engineer II

Chamblee, GA, 30341
770.216.3993 office
404.655.8946 mobile

Cc: Andrew Petersen <[email protected]>; Daniela Jurado <[email protected]>
Good Morning Ronaldo,
I wanted to follow up on my previous email and see if you received my previous email with the attached methodology
for this project, and if there is any additional information you require for the TIA of this project.
Please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you in advance,
2
Page 78 of 433
Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
[email protected]

Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 2:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination - GDOT
the most recent Site Plan.
We want to schedule a meeting with the GDOT to verify that our methodology for this Traffic Impact Study is
Sincerely,

Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
Georgia is a state of natural beauty. And it’s a state that spends millions each year cleaning up litter that not only mars
that beauty, but also affects road safety, the environment and the economy. Do your part – don’t litter. How can you play
an active role in protecting the splendor of the Peach State? Find out at http://keepgaclean.com/.
3
Page 79 of 433
APPENDIX C
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 80 of 433
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume
LOCATION: Rosser Ter -- Hugh Howell Rd QC JOB #: 15488401
CITY/STATE: Tucker, GA DATE: Tue, Jun 15 2021
50 36 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 4 8.3

Peak 15-Min: 8:30 AM -- 8:45 AM
31 0 19 0 0 10.5
741 27 10 716 2.3 7.4 10 2.4

414 0.93 706 3.4 2.3
441 0 0 435 3.6 0 0 3.7
3 0 2 33.3 0 0
0 5 0 20
1
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0
1 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Rosser Ter Rosser Ter Hugh Howell Rd Hugh Howell Rd
Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals
Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
7:00 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 1 59 0 0 0 118 5 0 194
7:15 AM 2 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 1 87 0 0 0 124 2 0 226
7:30 AM 2 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 11 60 0 0 1 167 3 0 252
7:45 AM 4 0 1 0 5 0 12 0 2 98 1 0 0 165 3 0 291 963
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 4 100 0 0 0 170 2 0 286 1055
8:15 AM 1 0 1 0 4 0 8 0 6 103 0 0 0 168 4 0 295 1124
8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 7 0 8 0 5 107 0 0 0 196 2 0 326 1198
8:45 AM 1 0 1 0 5 0 8 0 11 104 0 1 0 172 2 0 305 1212
Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Flowrates Total
Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U
All Vehicles 4 0 0 0 28 0 32 0 20 428 0 0 0 784 8 0 1304
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 4 0 24
Buses
Pedestrians 4 0 0 0 4
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
Report generated on 6/21/2021 10:17 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212
PagePage
811 of
of 1
433
72 69 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM 5.6 5.8

Peak 15-Min: 4:00 PM -- 4:15 PM
41 0 31 9.8 0 0
817 28 41 812 3.2 3.6 7.3 3.1

1187 0.96 769 3.4 2.9
1230 15 2 1220 3.3 0 0 3.3
6 1 2 0 0 0
17 9 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 11 0 3 315 3 0 0 203 8 0 552
4:15 PM 2 0 0 0 9 0 6 0 12 294 3 0 1 196 12 0 535
4:30 PM 3 0 1 0 6 0 11 0 4 329 6 0 0 169 11 0 540
4:45 PM 1 1 1 0 7 0 13 0 8 249 3 1 1 201 10 0 496 2123
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 6 0 11 0 2 285 6 0 0 187 9 0 507 2078
5:15 PM 3 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 7 332 2 0 1 193 11 0 567 2110
5:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 7 302 2 0 0 165 9 0 500 2070
5:45 PM 1 0 1 0 1 1 7 0 9 316 7 0 0 189 5 0 537 2111
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 36 0 44 0 12 1260 12 0 0 812 32 0 2208
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 32 0 0 32 4 72
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
821 of
of 1
433
LOCATION: Cowan Rd -- Hugh Howell Rd QC JOB #: 15488403
58 87 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 3.4 0

Peak 15-Min: 8:45 AM -- 9:00 AM
32 5 21 0 0 9.5
752 46 34 750 3.7 0 0 3.7

394 0.93 698 4.6 4
451 11 18 446 4.2 9.1 0 4.5
22 7 31 0 0 0
34 60 2.9 0
1
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Cowan Rd Cowan Rd Hugh Howell Rd Hugh Howell Rd

Totals
7:00 AM 2 0 7 0 0 2 1 0 8 52 3 0 3 125 2 0 205
7:15 AM 4 2 8 0 4 0 3 0 5 74 1 0 6 122 7 0 236
7:30 AM 4 0 5 0 3 0 6 0 8 63 4 0 7 161 5 0 266
7:45 AM 4 1 3 0 4 4 4 0 7 91 2 1 6 174 3 0 304 1011
8:00 AM 8 2 9 0 3 3 7 0 11 90 0 0 6 163 11 0 313 1119
8:15 AM 3 3 8 0 6 0 7 0 13 95 4 0 3 170 3 0 315 1198
8:30 AM 4 1 4 0 6 1 6 0 6 99 3 0 6 190 9 0 335 1267
8:45 AM 7 1 10 0 6 1 12 0 16 110 4 0 3 175 11 0 356 1319
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 28 4 40 0 24 4 48 0 64 440 16 0 12 700 44 0 1424
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 16 4 0 32 0 56
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
831 of
of 1
433
232 260 Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM 0.4 0.4

Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM
85 42 105 0 0 1
772 146 68 741 2.2 0 1.5 2.4

1109 0.93 632 3.2 2.7
1295 40 41 1262 2.7 0 0 3
53 48 48 0 0 4.2
123 149 0 1.3
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Totals
4:00 PM 11 6 13 0 18 7 29 0 37 291 18 0 15 181 17 0 643
4:15 PM 18 5 19 0 23 14 29 0 37 260 7 0 9 159 22 0 602
4:30 PM 9 11 11 0 19 5 15 0 35 301 5 0 14 159 13 0 597
4:45 PM 13 7 11 0 26 9 25 0 29 228 10 0 11 175 24 0 568 2410
5:00 PM 11 13 8 0 24 6 15 0 46 268 16 0 8 153 17 0 585 2352
5:15 PM 15 12 15 0 22 10 24 0 36 296 9 1 10 183 16 0 649 2399
5:30 PM 13 8 17 0 25 14 19 0 37 258 8 1 12 144 17 0 573 2375
5:45 PM 14 15 8 0 34 12 27 0 25 287 7 0 11 152 18 0 610 2417
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 60 48 60 0 88 40 96 0 144 1184 36 4 40 732 64 0 2596
Heavy Trucks 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 4 0 44
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
841 of
of 1
433
LOCATION: Tucker Industrial Rd -- Hugh Howell Rd QC JOB #: 15488405
17 32 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 0 6.3

Peak 15-Min: 8:30 AM -- 8:45 AM
9 2 6 0 0 0
727 5 21 697 4 0 9.5 4

333 0.90 644 5.4 3.4
389 51 32 364 5.1 3.9 12.5 5.8
74 6 25 9.5 0 12
85 105 7.1 9.5
1
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 1 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
15-Min Count Tucker Industrial Rd Tucker Industrial Rd Hugh Howell Rd Hugh Howell Rd
Totals
7:00 AM 10 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 17 0 16 115 1 0 214
7:15 AM 11 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 2 68 11 0 13 124 2 0 241
7:30 AM 29 0 6 0 1 1 0 0 2 50 11 0 10 133 5 0 248
7:45 AM 13 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 89 10 0 19 162 4 0 303 1006
8:00 AM 19 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 80 11 0 10 156 3 0 289 1081
8:15 AM 21 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 89 5 0 8 145 4 0 281 1121
8:30 AM 14 3 10 0 0 1 4 0 1 81 19 0 6 184 11 0 334 1207
8:45 AM 20 1 9 0 1 1 3 0 0 83 16 0 8 159 3 0 304 1208
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 56 12 40 0 0 4 16 0 4 324 76 0 24 736 44 0 1336
Heavy Trucks 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 32 0 4 8 4 56
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
851 of
of 1
433
42 11 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM 4.8 9.1

Peak 15-Min: 4:00 PM -- 4:15 PM
4 10 28 0 0 7.1
775 5 6 694 2.8 20 0 3.3

967 0.95 638 2.7 2.8
1167 195 50 1070 2.5 1 10 3.6
132 1 75 3 0 13.3
255 208 2.7 6.7
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
4:00 PM 41 0 21 0 11 3 0 0 2 240 51 1 16 164 3 0 553
4:15 PM 33 0 18 0 3 4 0 0 1 248 54 0 15 160 2 0 538
4:30 PM 31 1 20 0 3 2 3 0 0 262 40 0 8 148 0 0 518
4:45 PM 27 0 16 0 11 1 1 0 1 217 50 0 11 166 1 0 502 2111
5:00 PM 27 1 15 0 4 2 1 0 0 259 48 0 11 160 2 0 530 2088
5:15 PM 38 1 10 0 4 5 2 0 2 247 62 0 11 142 1 0 525 2075
5:30 PM 30 1 14 0 7 5 2 0 3 250 51 0 8 134 3 0 508 2065
5:45 PM 26 0 11 0 3 3 0 0 0 249 59 0 8 162 2 0 523 2086
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 164 0 84 0 44 12 0 0 8 960 204 4 64 656 12 0 2212
Heavy Trucks 4 0 12 4 0 0 0 28 0 4 24 0 76
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
861 of
of 1
433
Project ID: 22-180036-001
Location: Dillard St & Cowan Rd Day: Tuesday
City: Tucker Date: 3/1/2022
Groups Printed - Cars, PU, Vans - Heavy Trucks

Dillard St Dillard St Cowan Rd Cowan Rd
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Start Time Left Thru Rgt Uturn Peds App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn Peds App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn Peds App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 1 0 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 13 2 3 0 0 0 5 24
7:15 AM 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 1 8 0 0 0 9 32
7:30 AM 0 0 7 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 4 7 0 0 0 11 26
7:45 AM 5 0 6 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 27 4 10 0 0 0 14 52
Total 6 0 32 0 2 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 57 11 28 0 0 0 39 134
8:00 AM 2 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 14 3 9 0 0 0 12 33
8:15 AM 2 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 14 1 20 0 0 0 21 41
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 1 17 1 9 0 0 0 10 29
8:45 AM 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 2 13 0 0 0 15 29
Total 4 0 15 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 2 0 1 55 7 51 0 0 0 58 132
***BREAK***
4:00 PM 2 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 2 0 0 45 4 20 0 0 0 24 78
4:15 PM 0 0 6 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 1 0 1 45 3 15 0 0 0 18 69
4:30 PM 0 0 8 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2 0 1 40 3 28 0 0 0 31 79
4:45 PM 1 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 0 0 24 5 26 0 1 0 32 67
Total 3 0 31 0 3 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 6 0 2 154 15 89 0 1 0 105 293
5:00 PM 0 0 5 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 27 7 28 0 0 2 35 67
5:15 PM 2 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 36 6 30 0 0 0 36 80
5:30 PM 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 2 0 0 37 7 20 0 0 0 27 76
5:45 PM 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 0 0 38 7 19 0 0 0 26 70
Total 2 0 29 0 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 4 0 0 138 27 97 0 0 2 124 293
Grand Total 15 0 107 0 6 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392 12 0 3 404 60 265 0 1 2 326 852

Apprch % 12.3 0.0 87.7 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.0 3.0 0.0 0.7 18.4 81.3 0.0 0.3 0.6
Total % 1.8 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.7 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 1.4 0.0 0.4 47.4 7.0 31.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 38.3
Cars, PU, Vans 15 0 105 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 382 10 0 392 60 255 0 1 316 828
% Cars, PU, Vans 100.0 0.0 98.1 0.0 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.4 83.3 0.0 97.0 100.0 96.2 0.0 100.0 96.9 97.2
Heavy trucks 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 12 0 10 0 0 10 24
%Heavy trucks 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 16.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.8
Page 87 of 433
Project ID: 22-180036-001
City: Tucker PEAK HOURS Date: 3/1/2022
AM
Start Time Left Thru Rgt Uturn App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis from 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
7:45 AM 5 0 6 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 27 4 10 0 0 14 52
8:00 AM 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 14 3 9 0 0 12 33
8:15 AM 2 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 1 20 0 0 21 41
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 17 1 9 0 0 10 29
Total Volume 9 0 17 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 0 72 9 48 0 0 57 155
% App. Total 34.6 0.0 65.4 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 97.2 2.8 0.0 100 15.8 84.2 0.0 0.0 100
PHF 0.591 0.667 0.679 0.745
Cars, PU, Vans 9 0 17 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 1 0 68 9 44 0 0 53 147
% Cars, PU, Vans 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.7 50.0 0.0 94.4 100.0 91.7 0.0 0.0 93.0 94.8
Heavy trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 8
%Heavy trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 50.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 5.2
PM
Peak Hour Analysis from 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
5:00 PM 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 27 7 28 0 0 35 67
5:15 PM 2 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 36 6 30 0 0 36 80
5:30 PM 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 2 0 37 7 20 0 0 27 76
5:45 PM 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 0 38 7 19 0 0 26 70
Total Volume 2 0 29 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 4 0 138 27 97 0 0 124 293
% App. Total 6.5 0.0 93.5 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 97.1 2.9 0.0 100 21.8 78.2 0.0 0.0 100
PHF 0.646 0.908 0.861 0.916
Cars, PU, Vans 2 0 29 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 3 0 137 27 97 0 0 124 292
% Cars, PU, Vans 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 75.0 0.0 99.3 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.7
Heavy trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
%Heavy trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Page 88 of 433
APPENDIX D
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 89 of 433
Co
wa
n
Rd
(1
48
)/5
3
9/(33) (6
)/2
51
Dillard St 7/
/( 9
7)
(34)/19 (2
7)
(3)/4
(31)/15
(1
(4
11
1)
5)
/1
(1
1
/4
0
38
7
)/4
6
32
(5 /( 9
1) 5/ 8)
/22 (3
(2 21 5)
9)
(5 /7
Driveway 2
/( 8
4) 6)
/31
19
/( 5
72
1)
0/
34
(6
/( 7
96
)
6)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(1
(1
22
5)
5)
/0
/4
(2
2
9)
7
/2
8
Rosser Terrace 0/(17)

31
(9)/5 /( 4
0/ 1)
(0
(6 19 )
)/3 /( 3
(1 1)
)/0
(2
)/2
0/
(2
)
72
9/
10
(7
/( 4
94
)
2)
Page 90 of 433
Fu
lle
r W
ay
9/(4)
2/(10)
(5)/5
(998)/344
(201)/53
Tucker Industrial Rd 6/(28)
(133)/74
(1)/6
22/(6)
(75)/25
33/(52)
665/(658)
Hugh Howell Rd
Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd.

DSGN
SCALE
4450 W Eau Gallie Blvd

EXHIBIT
2022 Traffic Volumes Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
Chick-fil-A Tucker Development
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER
4431 Hugh Howell Rd Fax: (321) 255-7751

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD
TUCKER, GEORGIA © Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd.

Co
wa
n
Rd
(1
48
)/5
3
9/(33) (6
)/2
51
Dillard St 7/
/(9
7)
(34)/19 (2
7)
(3)/4
(31)/15
(1
(4
15
2)
1)
(1
/11
/4
38
20
)/4
6
32
(5 /(9
1) 5/ 8)
/22 (3
(2 21 5)
9)
(5 /7
Driveway 2
/(8
4) 6)
/31
20
/(5
74
3)
3/ (
34
71
/(7
8)
6)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(1
(1
26
5)
4)
/0
/4
(3
41
0)
/29

31
(9)/5 /(4
0/ 1)
(0
(6 19 )
)/3 /(3
(1 1)
)/0
(2
)/2
0/
(2
)
75
2/ (
10
81
/(4
9 )
2)
Page 91 of 433
Fu
lle
r W
ay
9/(4)
2/(10)
(5)/5
(207)/55
(1030)/355
(134)/74
(1)/6
23/(6)
(75)/25
34/(54)
686/(679)
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 No Build Traffic Volumes Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
25
%
45%
Dillard St 20
%
25%
35%
60%
20
%
15
%
25
%
Driveway 2
10
%
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
15
%
10
40%
%
55%
Rosser Terrace
10
%
30
%
40
%
Page 92 of 433
Fu
lle
r W
ay
5%
5%
5%
30%
Tucker Industrial Rd
5%
30%
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
Primary Trip Distribution Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
-5
%
5%
40% -5
Dillard St %
35
%
5%
55%
60%
30
%
-3
0%
40
%
Driveway 2
10
%
-5
0%
+1
0%
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
-4
0%
10
+1
40%
0%
60%
Rosser Terrace
10
%
30
%
50
%
-5
0%
Page 93 of 433
Fu
lle
r W
ay
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
Pass-By Trip Distribution Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
(1
8)
/17
31/(33)
Dillard St 14
/(1
(17)/16 5)
(24)/23
39/(41)
(1
5)
(1
/14
1)
/10
(1
7)
/17
Driveway 2
(7
) /6
6/
(7
)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(1
1)
/10
(7
(27)/26
)/6
37/(41)
Rosser Terrace
(7
) /6
(2
0)
/20
27
/(3
0)
Page 94 of 433
Fu
lle
r W
ay
3/(4)
(4)/3
(3)/3
(20)/20
(4)/4
20/(22)
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
Primary Trips Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
-(4
)/-
(4 3
)/3
26/(30) -3
Dillard St /-
23 (4)
/( 2
(3)/3 6)
(38)/35
38/(41)
2)
-(2
/2
2)
0
(2 /-20
(2
8)
/26
Driveway 2
(7
)/6
-2
7/
-(3
0)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(7
-(2
2)
)/6
(28)/25
/-2
0
39/(44)
Rosser Terrace
(7
)/6
(2
1)
/19
33
-3
/( 3
3/
7)
-(3
7)
Page 95 of 433
Fu
lle
r W
ay
-(1)/-1
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
Pass-By Trips Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
-(4
)/-
(2
2) 3
/20
57/(63) -3
Dillard St /-
37 (4)
/( 4
(20)/19 1)
(62)/58
77/(82)
(3
7)
-(1
/3
1)
4
/-1
0
(4
5)
/43
Driveway 2
(1
4)
/12
-2
1/
-(2
3)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(1
8)
-(1
/1
5)
(55)/51
/-1
76/(85)
4
Rosser Terrace
(1
4)
/12
(4
1)
/39
60
-3
/( 6
3/
7)
-(3
7)
Page 96 of 433
Fu
lle
r W
ay
3/(4)
(19)/19
(3)/3
(4)/3
(4)/4
20/(22)
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
CFA Site Trips Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
(1
45
)/5
(2
8) 0
9/(33) /22
57/(63) 48
Dillard St 44
/( 9
3
(34)/19 /( 6 )
(23)/23 8)
(0)/0 (93)/73
0/(0)
77/(82)
(1
(7
9)
0)
/4
(1
5
3
/41
0
14 8)/4
6
32
(9 /( 9
6) 5/ 8)
/65 (3
(2 21 5)
9)
Driveway 2
(6 /7 /( 8
8) 6)
/43
20
/( 5
72
3)
2/
34
(6
/( 7
95
)
6)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(1
(3
3)
9)
/1
6
(3
/42
(55)/51
7
76/(85)
24 0)/2
9

31
(9)/5 /( 4
0/ 1)
(2 (0
0) 19 )
/15 /( 3
(1
(4 )/ 0
1)
3)
/41
60
/( 6
71
9)
9/
10
(7
/( 4
82
)
3)
Page 97 of 433
Fu
lle
r W
ay
12/(8)
2/(10)
(1049)/374
(8)/8
(211)/58
(138)/78
(1)/6
23/(6)
(75)/25
34/(54)
706/(701)
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Build Traffic Volumes Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

APPENDIX E
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 98 of 433
To: Chick-fil-A, Inc.
From: Andrew J. Petersen, P.E. - Director
Daniela Jurado – Analyst
Rodrigo Meirelles -Analyst
Date: 06/18/2021
Re: Chick-Fil-A – Trip Generation Memorandum
Bowman Consulting has been retained by Chick-fil-A, Inc. to perform a Trip Generation at three
fully operational Chick-Fil-A (CFA) Restaurants to determine the expected morning and evening
peak hour trip generation rates for this facilities.
The purposes of the trip generation and stacking assessment are as follows:
• Determine the appropriate independent variable to assess the applicable CFA trip
generation rates.
• Determine the expected trip generation rates for the CFA based on data collected from
three existing CFA Sites.
• Determine if the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates are
consistent with calculated expected number of vehicular trips on the proposed CFA.
• Select the appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed CFA.
Selected Sites
For the preparation of this assessment, three Chick-Fil-A sites have been evaluated. The following
criteria has been considered for the site selection:
• Type of Facility (Chick-Fil-A Restaurant)

• Operation (Drive-thru and Indoor sitting)
• Location of the facilities
The following sites were selected for the data collection.
• Chick-Fil A Piedmont
Location 1 • Address: 2580 Piedmont Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30324
• Surveyed Site Intensity: 5,200 SF
• AADT of Adjacent Street: 44,100
• Chick-Fil A Druid Hills

Location 2 • Address: 2340 N Druid Hills Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329
Page 99 of 433
Trip Generation Memorandum
Chick-Fil-A
• Chick-Fil A Northside Dr
Location 3 • Address: 1100 Northside Dr NW, Atlanta, GA 30318
• Surveyed Site Intensity: 4,450SF
Study Methodology
The study was based on average weekday entering/exiting volumes at each one of the selected
Chick-Fil-A locations provided by the Atlanta Department of Transportation. The information
corresponds to the average weekday data from two months in 2019 and February 2021 while
school was in session.
The procedures and evaluation for this assessment are in accordance with the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual Handbook, 3rd Edition. The ITE is the leading resource
for such data and provides traffic and parking related data for numerous land use and building
types. Additionally, ITE provides trip and parking generation procedures to determine site specific
trip and parking generation rates.
Data Collection
• Site specific data for existing Chick Fil A sites: Square Footage and location.
• Published GDOT AADT counts.
• ITE Trip Generation information and variables.
• Average trips generated by the surveyed Chick Fil A sites provided by the Atlanta
Department of Transportation, see Attachment A.
Trip Generation Data

Table 1 displays the trip generation data collected on the three existing sites.
Table 1. Collected Trip Generation Data

Square Adjacent Street
Facility Location Time In Out Total
Footage ADTs
2580 Piedmont Rd NE, AM 221 221 442
CFA 5,200 44,100
Atlanta, GA 30324 PM 202 202 404
AM 184 248 432
2340 N Druid Hills Rd NE
CFA 4,550 56,300 Noon 306 412 718
Atlanta, GA 30329
PM 192 308 500
AM 262 262 524
1100 Northside Dr NW
CFA 4,450 30,300 Noon 263 263 526
Atlanta, GA 30318
PM 164 164 328
To assess the trip generation rates for the Chick-Fil-A two independent variables were evaluated:
Gross Floor Area (GFA), AADT Adjacent Street.
To select the independent variables, the best fitted curve models were evaluated based on the
conceptual validity of signs of the equations and goodness of fit. The results of these evaluation
are presented in Table 2.
P a g e |2
bowmanconsulting.com
Page 100 of 433
Chick-Fil-A
Table 2. Trip Generation Model evaluation

Model Independent Variable Equation R2 Signs Conceptually Valid Acceptable Goodness of FIT
1,000 SF GFA y = -64.523x + 771.41 0.271 No No
AM Models
AADT of Adajacent Street y = -0.0036x + 622.44 0.8563 No Yes
1,000 SF GFA y = 11.859x + 354.53 0.0031 Yes No
PM Models
AADT of Adajacent Street y = 0.0066x + 123.51 0.9895 Yes Yes
Models containing the GFA variable were found to be not conceptually valid, with equations that
reflect an inverse relationship between the GFA and the number of trips generated by the site and
unacceptable goodness of fit.
Models using AADT of Adjacent Street as independent variable show acceptable goodness of fit.
However, the AM model Based on AADT of adjacent street shows signs non conceptually valid,
therefore, the weighted average was evaluated for this time period.
Based on the results presented in Table 2 the Adjacent Street Traffic was selected as
independent variable for both the morning and evening peak hours.
Following the procedures presented on the ITE trip generation Handbook, Chapter 9 and
Appendix J, the use of the weighted average rate for the Morning peak was validated by
comparing the weighted standard deviation with the weighted Average trip rate. Table 3 presents
the validation for the use of weighted average for the morning peak hour trip rate.
Table 3. Validation of AM Weighted average trip generation

Value
Peak Hour
Location AADT of adjacent Steet Trip rate Value Value Squared weight Squared
AM
*weight
2580 Piedmont Rd 44,100 442 0.01002 0.00 0.0000005 0.34 0.00000015
2340 N Druid Hills Rd 56,300 432 0.00767 0.00 0.0000091 0.43 0.00000394
1100 Northside Dr 30,300 524 0.01729 0.01 0.0000435 0.23 0.00001009
Total 130,700.00 1,398.00 0.01070 - Variance 0.00001418
Weighted Sample Variance 0.00001773
Weighted Std Dev 0.00
Percentage of W StdDev 39%
Acceptable (less than 55% Trip Rate) Yes
As presented in Table 3 the standard deviation of the data falls in the allowable 55% threshold
according to the procedures presented on the ITE trip generation Handbook, Chapter 9 and
Appendix J, therefore, the use of weighted average trip generation rate is acceptable.
The selected trip generation equations for CFA facilities are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Trip Generation equations for CFA facilities

Model Independent Variable Equation
AM AADT of Adajacent Street Total AM CFA trips = 0.0107 x AADT of Adjacent Street
PM AADT of Adajacent Street Total PM CFA trips = 0.0066 x AADT of Adjacent Street + 123.51
The evening peak hour model is the resulting fitted curve with AADT of adjacent street as
independent variable. The trip generation rate for the morning peak hour is 0.0107 trips/AADT of
Adjacent Street Traffic.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Both, the morning and evening models containing the GFA variable were found to have
unacceptable goodness of fit, the morning models is not conceptually valid, with an
P a g e |3
Page 101 of 433
Chick-Fil-A
equation that reflects an inverse relationship between the GFA, and the number of trips
generated by the site.
• Models using AADT of Adjacent Street as independent variable show acceptable
goodness of fit.
• The evening peak hour model is fitted curve with AADT of adjacent street as independent
variable.
• The AM model Based on AADT of adjacent street shows signs non conceptually valid
• The evaluation of the data for the morning peak hour shows that the standard deviation of
the data falls in the allowable 55% threshold according to the procedures presented on
the ITE trip generation Handbook, Chapter 9 and Appendix J, therefore, the use of
weighted average trip generation rate is acceptable.
• The trip generation rate for the morning peak hour is 0.0107 trips/AADT of Adjacent Street
Traffic.
P a g e |4
Page 102 of 433
ATTACHMENT A
Appendix
Page 103 of 433
From: Rome, Christopher <[email protected]>
To: Daniela Jurado; Rodriguez, Juan C.; Moore, Clyde
Cc: Rodrigo Meirelles; Andrew Petersen; Bridgette Ganter; Smoot-Madison,
Betty; Brown, Barrington G.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Traffic Impact Study Methodology Chick-Fil-A Cheshire Bridge
Rd & Sheridan Rd
1100 Northside Dr
• AM Peak – 262 trips in, assume 262 trips out– 524 total trips
• Noon Peak – 263 trips in, assume 263 trips out – 526 total trips
• PM Peak – 164 trips in, assume 164 trips out – 328 total trips
Have you contacted GDOT’s RTOP program or collected TMC’s already at the I-85 ramps? That data will
be more accurate than StreetLight Insight TMCs which are still in beta.
Chris Rome, PE, PTOE

Senior Multimodal Transportation Engineer
City of Atlanta Department of Transportation
470-653-3016
[email protected]

To: Rome, Christopher <[email protected]>; Rodriguez, Juan C. <[email protected]>;
Moore, Clyde <[email protected]>
Cc: Rodrigo Meirelles <[email protected]>; Andrew Petersen <[email protected]>;
Bridgette Ganter <[email protected]>; Smoot-Madison, Betty <[email protected]>;
Brown, Barrington G. <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Traffic Impact Study Methodology Chick-Fil-A Cheshire Bridge Rd & Sheridan Rd
Good Morning Chris,
Would it be possible to also pull out the Turning movements for Cheshire Bridge at I-85 ramps for the
am noon and pm?
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
Page 104 of 433

To: Daniela Jurado <[email protected]>; Rodriguez, Juan C. <[email protected]>;
Tucker is outside of our data licensing geographic limits.

I’ll pull the data from the Northside Dr site tomorrow.

470-653-3016
[email protected]

Thank you for the information. We would like to have the information for the following sites:
Location AADT
1100 Northside Dr NW 30,300
4340 Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA 30084 25,300
The reason is, we also want to evaluate the trip generation based on the AADT of adjacent street.
Sincerely,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
Page 105 of 433

I think it depends on the site characteristics if the Miami site is similar.
I used our StreetLight Data Insight platform access to look at the number of trips entering two Chick-fil-A
locations in Atlanta. This is average weekday (M-Th) information from 2 months in 2019 and February
2021 when school was in session. The 1 standard deviation from the ITE land use code trip generation
seems too low for an accurate assessment of site impact. If you have a specific site location in Atlanta
that you think will be more representative of the conditions for the proposed site at Cheshire Bridge and
Sheridan Rd, let me know and I can pull data for those locations.
2580 Piedmont Rd
2340 N Druid Hills Rd

• AM Peak – 184 trips in, 248 trips out– 432 total trips
• Noon Peak – 306 trips in, 412 trips out – 718 total trips
• PM Peak – 192 trips in, 308 trips out – 500 total trips

470-653-3016
[email protected]

Good Afternoon Chris,
Page 106 of 433

APPENDIX F
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 107 of 433
2023 NO BUILD CONDITIONS
Capacity Analysis
Page 108 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 NO BUILD - AM
1: Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way & Hugh Howell Rd
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 29 441 0 0 752 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Future Volume (vph) 29 441 0 0 752 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 474 0 0 809 11 3 0 2 20 0 33
Lane Group Flow (vph) 31 474 0 0 809 11 0 5 0 0 53 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop
Intersection Summary
Control Type: Unsignalized
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Baseline Synchro 10 Report

Page 1
Page 109 of 433

HCM 6th TWSC 2023 NO BUILD - AM
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 441 0 0 752 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Future Vol, veh/h 29 441 0 0 752 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 100 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 1 - - 1 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 10 33 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 31 474 0 0 809 11 3 0 2 20 0 33
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2

Conflicting Flow All 821 0 0 475 0 0 942 1358 238 1109 1347 406
Stage 1 - - - - - - 537 537 - 810 810 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 405 821 - 299 537 -
Critical Hdwy 4.24 - - 4.1 - - 8.16 6.5 6.9 7.7 6.5 6.9
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.16 5.5 - 6.7 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.27 - - 2.2 - - 3.83 4 3.3 3.6 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1139 - - *1369 - - *533 444 *912 *568 455 *796
Stage 1 - - - - - - *723 712 - *726 655 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *687 645 - *837 712 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1138 - - *1368 - - *500 431 *911 *554 442 *796
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *528 491 - *593 508 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *702 692 - *706 654 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *658 644 - *812 692 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 10.7 9.7
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 635 1138 - - * 1368 - - 796
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.027 - - - - - 0.042
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 8.3 - - 0 - - 9.7
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon

Page 2
Page 110 of 433

2: Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway & Hugh Howell Rd
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 49 452 12 22 799 37 24 8 33 23 5 34
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA pm+pt NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2 2 8 4
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 26.0 85.0 17.0 76.0 76.0 42.0 42.0 16.0 58.0
Total Split (%) 16.3% 53.1% 10.6% 47.5% 47.5% 26.3% 26.3% 10.0% 36.3%
Maximum Green (s) 19.8 78.9 11.7 69.9 69.9 35.5 35.5 9.9 51.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 126.1 121.8 123.8 118.1 118.1 9.6 19.0 18.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.76 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.06 0.12 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.18 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.55 0.17 0.19
Control Delay 5.0 7.1 4.5 8.0 0.1 58.3 60.5 21.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.0 7.1 4.5 8.0 0.1 58.3 60.5 21.6
LOS A A A A A E E C
Approach Delay 6.9 7.6 58.3 36.0
Approach LOS A A E D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 79 4 144 0 36 21 5
Internal Link Dist (ft) 969 335 119 430
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 115
Base Capacity (vph) 634 2603 801 2561 1202 361 147 519
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.18 0.16 0.08

Page 3
Page 111 of 433

Cycle Length: 160
Actuated Cycle Length: 160
Offset: 148.9 (93%), Referenced to phase 2:WBTL and 6:EBTL, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.55
Intersection Signal Delay: 10.7 Intersection LOS: B
Splits and Phases: 2: Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway & Hugh Howell Rd

Page 4
Page 112 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 NO BUILD - AM
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 420 11 20 743 34 22 7 31 21 5 32
Future Volume (veh/h) 46 420 11 20 743 34 22 7 31 21 5 32
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1826 1826 1900 1841 1900 1900 1900 1900 1752 1900 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 452 12 22 799 37 24 8 33 23 5 34
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
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Cap, veh/h 603 2612 69 759 2558 1177 56 17 43 148 24 161
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.76 0.76 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3452 92 1810 3497 1609 471 309 804 1668 211 1432
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 227 237 22 799 37 65 0 0 23 0 39
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1735 1809 1810 1749 1609 1583 0 0 1668 0 1642
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 5.9 5.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 5.9 5.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.51 1.00 0.87
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 603 1312 1369 759 2558 1177 116 0 0 148 0 184
V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 757 1312 1369 856 2558 1177 376 0 0 218 0 529
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.3 5.5 5.5 4.9 0.0 0.0 74.6 0.0 0.0 67.7 0.0 64.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 2.0 2.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.4 5.7 5.7 4.9 0.3 0.0 78.7 0.0 0.0 68.2 0.0 65.2
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E A A E A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 513 858 65 62
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.6 0.4 78.7 66.3
Approach LOS A A E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 123.1 24.4 8.4 127.1 9.3 15.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.2 6.1 6.5 * 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 20 69.9 51.5 * 12 78.9 9.9 35.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 2.0 5.5 2.5 7.9 4.0 8.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 13.6 0.2 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.3
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Page 5
Page 113 of 433

3: Tucker Industrial Rd & Hugh Howell Rd
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 6 394 61 38 762 26 82 7 28 7 2 10
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8
Permitted Phases 4 8
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 4 4 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.1 31.4 10.9 31.4 31.1 31.1 33.9 33.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 89.0 15.0 89.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0
Total Split (%) 9.4% 55.6% 9.4% 55.6% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
Maximum Green (s) 8.9 82.6 9.1 82.6 49.9 49.9 50.1 50.1
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.4 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.9
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 21.0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.2 116.9 9.1 127.0 17.8 18.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.73 0.06 0.79 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.18 0.42 0.29 0.72 0.10
Control Delay 67.4 9.2 85.4 5.6 85.2 38.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 67.4 9.2 85.4 5.6 85.2 38.4
LOS E A F A F D
Approach LOS A A F D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 108 39 90 110 9
Base Capacity (vph) 100 2462 101 2760 439 539
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.18 0.38 0.29 0.27 0.04

Page 6
Page 114 of 433

Cycle Length: 160
Offset: 38.6 (24%), Referenced to phase 2:WBT and 6:EBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 80
Splits and Phases: 3: Tucker Industrial Rd & Hugh Howell Rd

Page 7
Page 115 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Cap, veh/h 13 2297 353 48 2730 93 139 10 35 76 30 83
Arrive On Green 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.78 0.78 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3005 461 1640 3478 119 1099 104 378 489 333 913
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 226 229 38 386 402 117 0 0 19 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 9.6 9.7 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 9.6 9.7 11.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.06 0.70 0.24 0.37 0.53
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.17 0.17 0.80 0.28 0.28 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 1326 1324 93 1384 1440 523 0 0 545 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 0.3 0.3 25.3 0.5 0.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS F A A F A A E A A E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 132.0 20.7 10.5 128.7 20.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.1 * 6.4 6.1 * 5.9 * 6.4 * 6.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.9 * 83 49.9 * 9.1 * 83 * 50
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 11.7 13.5 5.7 2.0 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 11.8 0.6 0.0 5.8 0.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 8
Page 116 of 433

4: Dillard St & Cowan Rd
Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR

Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 53 2 7 51 4 15
Future Volume (vph) 53 2 7 51 4 15
Adj. Flow (vph) 72 3 9 69 5 20
Lane Group Flow (vph) 75 0 0 78 25 0
Sign Control Free Free Stop

Page 9
Page 117 of 433

Intersection
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 53 2 7 51 4 15
Future Vol, veh/h 53 2 7 51 4 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 1 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 74 74 74 74 74 74
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 50 0 8 0 0
Mvmt Flow 72 3 9 69 5 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1

Conflicting Flow All 0 0 75 0 162 74
Stage 1 - - - - 74 -
Stage 2 - - - - 88 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1537 - 834 993
Stage 1 - - - - 954 -
Stage 2 - - - - 940 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1537 - 828 993
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 828 -
Stage 1 - - - - 954 -
Stage 2 - - - - 933 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 8.9
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT

Capacity (veh/h) 953 - - 1537 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.006 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Page 10
Page 118 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 NO BUILD - PM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 1317 16 2 853 45 6 1 2 32 0 43

Page 1
Page 119 of 433

HCM 6th TWSC 2023 NO BUILD - PM
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 1264 15 2 819 43 6 1 2 31 0 41
Future Vol, veh/h 30 1264 15 2 819 43 6 1 2 31 0 41
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 100 - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 10
Mvmt Flow 31 1317 16 2 853 45 6 1 2 32 0 43

Stage 1 - - - - - - 1389 1389 - 857 857 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 431 902 - 721 1397 -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.1
Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.4
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *1118 - - *878 - - *187 *56 *585 *412 *62 *736
Stage 1 - - - - - - *551 *483 - *715 *626 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *715 *626 - *551 *477 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *1118 - - *876 - - *171 *54 *583 *400 *60 *736
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *343 *263 - *448 *268 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *535 *468 - *695 *624 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *672 *624 - *533 *462 -
HCM LOS C B
Capacity (veh/h) 364 * 1118 - - * 876 - - 736
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 0.028 - - 0.002 - - 0.058
HCM Control Delay (s) 15.2 8.3 - - 9.1 - - 10.2
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2
Notes

Page 2
Page 120 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 1238 45 57 772 82 55 31 58 92 38 105
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 16.0 94.0 15.0 93.0 93.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 51.0
Total Split (%) 10.0% 58.8% 9.4% 58.1% 58.1% 22.5% 22.5% 9.4% 31.9%
Maximum Green (s) 9.8 87.9 9.7 86.9 86.9 29.5 29.5 8.9 44.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 111.0 102.9 105.1 97.2 97.2 19.4 34.8 34.4
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.57 0.21 0.36 0.08 0.76 0.41 0.35
Control Delay 10.2 18.8 8.7 13.6 0.5 82.2 55.8 23.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.2 18.8 8.7 13.6 0.5 82.2 55.8 23.1
LOS B B A B A F E C
Approach Delay 17.9 12.1 82.2 35.9
Approach LOS B B F D
Queue Length 95th (ft) 85 541 m27 199 m3 201 127 109
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.57 0.19 0.36 0.08 0.52 0.40 0.29

Page 3
Page 121 of 433

Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 95
Intersection Signal Delay: 20.9 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D

Page 4
Page 122 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 NO BUILD - PM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 540 2270 82 299 2234 1004 88 45 69 255 91 252
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3470 126 1810 3526 1585 510 403 616 1795 445 1231
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 629 654 57 772 82 144 0 0 92 0 143
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 30.7 30.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 11.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 30.7 30.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 11.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.40 1.00 0.73
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.55 0.55 0.19 0.35 0.08 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 572 1153 1199 357 2234 1004 311 0 0 255 0 466
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.9 1.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8
LnGrp LOS A B B B A A E A A E A E
Approach LOS B A E E
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 9.8 86.9 44.5 * 9.7 87.9 8.9 29.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 5
Page 123 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 1084 218 57 715 6 141 1 79 29 11 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 11.1 31.4 10.9 31.4 31.1 31.1 33.9 33.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 110.0 15.0 110.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 9.4% 68.8% 9.4% 68.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9%
Maximum Green (s) 8.9 103.6 9.1 103.6 28.9 28.9 29.1 29.1
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.4 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.9
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 21.0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.2 109.2 8.7 118.6 26.2 26.4
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.56 0.65 0.28 0.89 0.18
Control Delay 90.8 6.2 104.9 7.8 94.3 54.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 90.8 6.2 104.9 7.8 94.3 54.1
LOS F A F A F D
Approach Delay 6.5 14.9 94.3 54.1
Approach LOS A B F D
Queue Length 95th (ft) m11 124 #124 196 #347 76
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.56 0.61 0.28 0.81 0.17

Page 6
Page 124 of 433

Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 80
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.5% ICU Level of Service C
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Page 7
Page 125 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Cap, veh/h 10 2023 405 71 2604 22 191 1 86 175 64 20
Arrive On Green 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.73 0.73 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1527 2926 586 1668 3583 30 1024 7 573 915 423 134
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 651 651 57 352 369 221 0 0 44 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 10.9 10.9 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 10.9 10.9 21.6 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.02 0.64 0.36 0.66 0.09
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.80 0.27 0.27 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 85 1219 1210 95 1281 1345 325 0 0 307 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 38.4 1.7 1.7 28.5 0.5 0.5 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS A B E E
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.9 * 1E2 28.9 * 9.1 * 1E2 * 29
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 8
Page 126 of 433


Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 162 7 29 105 3 34

Page 9
Page 127 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Future Vol, veh/h 149 6 27 97 3 31
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Mvmt Flow 162 7 29 105 3 34

Stage 1 - - - - 167 -
Stage 2 - - - - 164 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1420 - 668 880
Stage 1 - - - - 867 -
Stage 2 - - - - 870 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1419 - 652 877
Stage 1 - - - - 866 -
Stage 2 - - - - 850 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS A

Capacity (veh/h) 851 - - 1419 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - - 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - 7.6 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 -

Page 10
Page 128 of 433

2023 BUILD CONDITIONS
Capacity Analysis
Page 129 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD - AM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 459 17 65 773 11 16 0 44 20 0 33

Page 1
Page 130 of 433

HCM 6th TWSC 2023 BUILD - AM
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 427 16 60 719 10 15 0 41 19 0 31
Future Vol, veh/h 29 427 16 60 719 10 15 0 41 19 0 31
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 100 - - 10 - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 10 33 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 31 459 17 65 773 11 16 0 44 20 0 33

Stage 1 - - - - - - 531 531 - 904 904 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 517 915 - 292 539 -
Critical Hdwy 4.24 - - 4.1 - - 8.16 6.5 6.9 7.7 6.5 6.9
Follow-up Hdwy 2.27 - - 2.2 - - 3.83 4 3.3 3.6 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *1159 - - 1342 - - *550 338 *931 *585 341 *796
Stage 1 - - - - - - *682 689 - *609 577 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *687 569 - *854 683 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *1158 - - 1341 - - *497 313 *930 *526 315 *796
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *510 402 - *525 405 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *662 670 - *592 549 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *626 541 - *792 664 -
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.6 10 9.7
HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 510 930 * 1158 - - 1341 - - 796
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 0.047 0.027 - - 0.048 - - 0.042
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 9.1 8.2 - - 7.8 - - 9.7
HCM Lane LOS B A A - - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - 0.2 - - 0.1
Notes

Page 2
Page 131 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 49 441 48 22 776 37 70 8 46 23 5 34
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 26.0 85.0 17.0 76.0 76.0 42.0 42.0 16.0 58.0
Total Split (%) 16.3% 53.1% 10.6% 47.5% 47.5% 26.3% 26.3% 10.0% 36.3%
Maximum Green (s) 19.8 78.9 11.7 69.9 69.9 35.5 35.5 9.9 51.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 118.5 114.0 116.0 110.2 110.2 17.3 26.7 26.3
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.20 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.73 0.12 0.14
Control Delay 7.6 10.1 7.0 11.1 0.1 81.6 51.1 17.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.6 10.1 7.0 11.1 0.1 81.6 51.1 17.7
LOS A B A B A F D B
Approach Delay 9.9 10.5 81.6 30.1
Approach LOS A B F C
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.20 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.37 0.12 0.08

Page 3
Page 132 of 433

Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 95
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B

Page 4
Page 133 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 BUILD - AM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 585 2252 244 694 2408 1108 113 14 54 194 33 222
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.71 0.71 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3157 342 1810 3497 1609 805 141 558 1668 211 1432
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 241 248 22 776 37 124 0 0 23 0 39
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 7.4 7.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 7.4 7.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.37 1.00 0.87
V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 738 1237 1258 791 2408 1108 367 0 0 264 0 529
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 5
Page 134 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 9 416 64 38 784 26 87 7 28 7 2 13
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 11.1 31.4 10.9 31.4 31.1 31.1 33.9 33.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 89.0 15.0 89.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0
Total Split (%) 9.4% 55.6% 9.4% 55.6% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
Maximum Green (s) 8.9 82.6 9.1 82.6 49.9 49.9 50.1 50.1
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.4 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.9
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 21.0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.4 116.2 9.1 126.2 18.5 18.7
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.42 0.30 0.73 0.10
Control Delay 85.8 9.4 85.4 5.9 85.2 35.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 85.8 9.4 85.4 5.9 85.2 35.0
LOS F A F A F D
Approach Delay 10.8 9.5 85.2 35.0
Approach LOS B A F D
Queue Length 95th (ft) m26 187 79 216 181 36
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.20 0.38 0.30 0.28 0.04

Page 6
Page 135 of 433

Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 80

Page 7
Page 136 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Cap, veh/h 19 2290 350 48 2712 90 145 9 34 68 29 98
Arrive On Green 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.78 0.78 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3007 459 1640 3482 115 1126 93 363 406 311 1037
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 239 241 38 397 413 122 0 0 22 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 10.3 10.3 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 10.3 10.3 12.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.06 0.71 0.23 0.32 0.59
V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.18 0.18 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 1321 1318 93 1373 1429 522 0 0 548 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.1 0.3 0.3 25.3 0.5 0.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 8
Page 137 of 433


Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 30 59 65 31 99

Page 9
Page 138 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 22 44 48 23 73
Future Vol, veh/h 50 22 44 48 23 73
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Mvmt Flow 68 30 59 65 31 99

Stage 1 - - - - 83 -
Stage 2 - - - - 184 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1508 - 727 982
Stage 1 - - - - 945 -
Stage 2 - - - - 852 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1508 - 696 982
Stage 1 - - - - 945 -
Stage 2 - - - - 816 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS A

Capacity (veh/h) 894 - - 1508 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.145 - - 0.039 -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - 0.1 -

Page 10
Page 139 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD - PM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 1301 34 72 815 45 21 1 45 32 0 43

Page 1
Page 140 of 433

HCM 6th TWSC 2023 BUILD - PM
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 1249 33 69 782 43 20 1 43 31 0 41
Future Vol, veh/h 30 1249 33 69 782 43 20 1 43 31 0 41
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 100 - - 10 - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 10
Mvmt Flow 31 1301 34 72 815 45 21 1 45 32 0 43

Stage 1 - - - - - - 1382 1382 - 959 959 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 552 1004 - 713 1399 -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.1
Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.4
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - *878 - - *117 *41 *585 *271 45 *754
Stage 1 - - - - - - *551 *483 - *609 560 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *733 *526 - *551 475 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - *876 - - *101 *37 *583 *229 40 *754
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *305 *227 - *324 220 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *535 *469 - *593 514 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *635 *483 - *494 461 -
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.7 13.7 10.1
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 300 583 1145 - - * 876 - - 754
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.073 0.077 0.027 - - 0.082 - - 0.057
HCM Control Delay (s) 17.9 11.7 8.2 - - 9.5 - - 10.1
HCM Lane LOS C B A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.2 0.1 - - 0.3 - - 0.2
Notes

Page 2
Page 141 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 1226 85 57 747 82 103 31 73 92 38 105
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 16.0 94.0 15.0 93.0 93.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 51.0
Total Split (%) 10.0% 58.8% 9.4% 58.1% 58.1% 22.5% 22.5% 9.4% 31.9%
Maximum Green (s) 9.8 87.9 9.7 86.9 86.9 29.5 29.5 8.9 44.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 103.7 95.9 98.9 90.8 90.8 26.2 41.5 41.1
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.63 0.24 0.38 0.09 0.88 0.32 0.30
Control Delay 12.6 23.5 11.0 16.4 0.6 93.7 48.7 20.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.6 23.5 11.0 16.4 0.6 93.7 48.7 20.6
LOS B C B B A F D C
Approach Delay 22.4 14.6 93.7 31.6
Approach LOS C B F C
Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 580 m28 194 m3 #323 125 107
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.63 0.22 0.38 0.09 0.78 0.32 0.29

Page 3
Page 142 of 433

Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 95

Page 4
Page 143 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 BUILD - PM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 523 2044 141 261 2075 933 143 38 80 307 111 306
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.61 0.61 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3345 232 1810 3526 1585 700 241 513 1795 446 1231
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 645 666 57 747 82 207 0 0 92 0 143
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 35.9 36.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 11.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 35.9 36.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 11.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.35 1.00 0.73
V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.60 0.60 0.22 0.36 0.09 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.34
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 551 1077 1108 319 2075 933 301 0 0 311 0 466
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 2.5 2.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5
LnGrp LOS B C C B A A E A A D A D
Approach LOS C A E D
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes

Page 5
Page 144 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 8 1104 222 57 738 6 145 1 79 29 11 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 11.1 31.4 10.9 31.4 31.1 31.1 33.9 33.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 110.0 15.0 110.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 9.4% 68.8% 9.4% 68.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9%
Maximum Green (s) 8.9 103.6 9.1 103.6 28.9 28.9 29.1 29.1
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.4 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.9
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 21.0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.5 109.0 8.7 118.2 26.5 26.7
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.57 0.65 0.29 0.90 0.19
Control Delay 90.4 6.4 104.9 8.0 95.4 51.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 90.4 6.4 104.9 8.0 95.4 51.0
LOS F A F A F D
Approach Delay 6.9 14.9 95.4 51.0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.57 0.61 0.29 0.82 0.18

Page 6
Page 145 of 433

Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 90

Page 7
Page 146 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Cap, veh/h 14 2015 403 71 2583 21 195 1 86 167 63 39
Arrive On Green 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.72 0.72 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1527 2926 586 1668 3584 29 1028 7 560 853 409 252
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 663 663 57 363 381 225 0 0 48 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 11.6 11.6 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 11.6 11.6 22.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.02 0.64 0.35 0.60 0.17
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 85 1214 1204 95 1270 1333 324 0 0 312 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.1 1.8 1.8 28.5 0.6 0.5 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 8
Page 147 of 433


Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 158 30 74 101 25 101

Page 9
Page 148 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 145 28 68 93 23 93
Future Vol, veh/h 145 28 68 93 23 93
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Mvmt Flow 158 30 74 101 25 101

Stage 1 - - - - 174 -
Stage 2 - - - - 250 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1397 - 591 872
Stage 1 - - - - 861 -
Stage 2 - - - - 796 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1396 - 557 870
Stage 1 - - - - 860 -
Stage 2 - - - - 751 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS B

Capacity (veh/h) 783 - - 1396 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.161 - - 0.053 -
HCM Lane LOS B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - - 0.2 -

Page 10
Page 149 of 433

2023 BUILD IMPROVED CONDITIONS
Capacity Analysis
Page 150 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD IMP - PM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 1226 85 57 747 82 103 31 73 92 38 105
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 16.0 87.0 15.0 86.0 86.0 46.0 46.0 12.0 58.0
Total Split (%) 10.0% 54.4% 9.4% 53.8% 53.8% 28.8% 28.8% 7.5% 36.3%
Maximum Green (s) 9.8 80.9 9.7 79.9 79.9 39.5 39.5 5.9 51.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 105.5 97.1 99.5 91.4 91.4 27.9 40.3 39.9
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.62 0.24 0.37 0.09 0.82 0.34 0.31
Control Delay 12.6 23.3 11.1 16.3 0.6 83.0 49.4 18.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 12.6 23.3 11.1 16.3 0.6 83.0 49.4 18.7
LOS B C B B A F D B
Approach Delay 22.2 14.5 83.0 30.7
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.62 0.21 0.37 0.09 0.59 0.34 0.25

Page 1
Page 151 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD IMP - PM
Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 95

Page 2
Page 152 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 BUILD IMP - PM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 531 2090 145 271 2129 957 145 39 82 281 104 289
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.62 0.62 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3345 232 1810 3526 1585 699 243 513 1795 446 1231
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 645 666 57 747 82 207 0 0 92 0 143
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 34.6 34.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 11.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 34.6 34.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 11.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.35 1.00 0.73
V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.21 0.35 0.09 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.36
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 562 1102 1134 328 2129 957 392 0 0 281 0 540
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 2.3 2.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6
Approach LOS B A E D
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

Page 3
Page 153 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD I LT- AM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 49 441 48 22 776 37 70 8 46 23 5 34
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 26.0 85.0 17.0 76.0 76.0 42.0 42.0 16.0 58.0
Total Split (%) 16.3% 53.1% 10.6% 47.5% 47.5% 26.3% 26.3% 10.0% 36.3%
Maximum Green (s) 19.8 78.9 11.7 69.9 69.9 35.5 35.5 9.9 51.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 122.3 118.0 119.9 114.2 114.2 13.4 13.4 22.8 22.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.74 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.20 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.60 0.30 0.15 0.16
Control Delay 6.2 8.5 5.7 9.5 0.1 90.7 25.1 55.9 19.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.2 8.5 5.7 9.5 0.1 90.7 25.1 55.9 19.5
LOS A A A A A F C E B
Approach LOS A A E C
Queue Length 50th (ft) 12 92 5 153 0 72 8 21 4
Base Capacity (vph) 625 2485 764 2477 1167 308 403 161 519
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.20 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.23 0.13 0.14 0.08

Page 1
Page 154 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD I LT- AM
Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 95

Page 2
Page 155 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 BUILD I LT- AM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 607 2354 255 729 2520 1160 135 16 91 120 26 176
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.75 0.75 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3157 342 1810 3497 1609 1390 244 1403 1668 211 1432
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 241 248 22 776 37 70 0 54 23 0 39
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 6.6 6.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 5.1 2.0 0.0 3.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 6.6 6.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 5.1 2.0 0.0 3.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87
V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.51 0.19 0.00 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 760 1293 1315 826 2520 1160 353 0 366 190 0 529
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 3.0 0.0 3.7 0.8 0.0 0.5
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E A E E A E
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 3
Page 156 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD I LT- PM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 1226 85 57 747 82 103 31 73 92 38 105
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 16.0 94.0 15.0 93.0 93.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 51.0
Total Split (%) 10.0% 58.8% 9.4% 58.1% 58.1% 22.5% 22.5% 9.4% 31.9%
Maximum Green (s) 9.8 87.9 9.7 86.9 86.9 29.5 29.5 8.9 44.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 112.3 104.0 106.0 98.2 98.2 18.3 18.3 33.6 33.2
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.58 0.22 0.35 0.08 0.72 0.43 0.43 0.36
Control Delay 9.6 18.3 8.6 13.1 0.6 93.2 31.3 57.7 23.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 9.6 18.3 8.6 13.1 0.6 93.2 31.3 57.7 23.7
LOS A B A B A F C E C
Approach Delay 17.4 11.7 62.1 37.0
Approach LOS B B E D
Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 546 m26 194 m3 167 97 129 110
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.58 0.19 0.35 0.08 0.44 0.29 0.43 0.29

Page 1
Page 157 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD I LT- PM
Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 95

Page 2
Page 158 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 BUILD I LT- PM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 557 2224 154 297 2271 1021 172 51 119 199 87 239
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.19 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3345 232 1810 3526 1585 1262 502 1181 1795 445 1231
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 645 666 57 747 82 103 0 104 92 0 143
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 31.0 31.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 9.5 7.2 0.0 12.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 31.0 31.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 9.5 7.2 0.0 12.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.73
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.55 0.55 0.19 0.33 0.08 0.60 0.00 0.61 0.46 0.00 0.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 589 1172 1206 355 2271 1021 278 0 310 199 0 466
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.9 1.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 3.3 0.0 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.9
LnGrp LOS A B B B A A E A E E A E
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 3
Page 159 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD I RT- AM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 49 441 48 22 776 37 70 8 46 23 5 34
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA
Permitted Phases 6 2 2 8 8 4
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 8 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 26.0 85.0 17.0 76.0 76.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 16.0 58.0
Total Split (%) 16.3% 53.1% 10.6% 47.5% 47.5% 26.3% 26.3% 26.3% 10.0% 36.3%
Maximum Green (s) 19.8 78.9 11.7 69.9 69.9 35.5 35.5 35.5 9.9 51.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.5 6.1 6.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 121.3 116.9 118.8 113.1 113.1 14.5 14.5 23.9 23.5
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.20 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.63 0.17 0.15 0.15
Control Delay 6.6 8.9 6.0 9.9 0.1 91.4 1.3 54.6 19.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 6.6 8.9 6.0 9.9 0.1 91.4 1.3 54.6 19.0
LOS A A A A A F A D B
Approach LOS A A E C
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.20 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.26 0.10 0.14 0.08

Page 1
Page 160 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD I RT- AM
Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 95

Page 2
Page 161 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 BUILD I RT- AM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 604 2343 254 726 2509 1154 130 10 202 27 181
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.74 0.74 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.13
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3157 342 1810 3497 1609 1283 147 1610 1668 211 1432
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 241 248 22 776 37 78 0 0 23 0 39
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 6.7 6.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 6.7 6.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.87
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 604 1288 1310 726 2509 1154 140 0 202 0 207
V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.56 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 758 1288 1310 823 2509 1154 360 0 271 0 529
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E A E A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 538 835 78 A 62
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 3
Page 162 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD RT CH - PM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 1226 85 57 747 82 103 31 73 92 38 105
Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Perm NA Perm pm+pt NA
Permitted Phases 6 2 2 8 8 4
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 8 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 16.0 94.0 15.0 93.0 93.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 51.0
Total Split (%) 10.0% 58.8% 9.4% 58.1% 58.1% 22.5% 22.5% 22.5% 9.4% 31.9%
Maximum Green (s) 9.8 87.9 9.7 86.9 86.9 29.5 29.5 29.5 8.9 44.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.5 6.1 6.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max C-Max None None None None None
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Act Effct Green (s) 108.5 100.7 103.3 95.3 95.3 21.6 21.6 36.9 36.5
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.60 0.23 0.36 0.08 0.77 0.25 0.42 0.34
Control Delay 11.0 20.6 9.6 14.3 0.6 92.8 5.9 54.7 22.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 11.0 20.6 9.6 14.3 0.6 92.8 5.9 54.7 22.1
LOS B C A B A F A D C
Approach Delay 19.6 12.7 62.2 34.8
Approach LOS B B E C
Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 580 m28 194 m3 207 24 125 107
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.60 0.20 0.36 0.08 0.56 0.20 0.42 0.29

Page 1
Page 163 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD RT CH - PM
Cycle Length: 160
Natural Cycle: 95

Page 2
Page 164 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 BUILD RT CH - PM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 548 2177 151 288 2222 999 161 36 328 93 257
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3345 232 1810 3526 1585 1052 317 1560 1795 445 1231
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 645 666 57 747 82 134 0 0 92 0 143
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 32.3 32.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 11.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 32.3 32.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 11.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.73
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 548 1147 1180 288 2222 999 197 0 328 0 350
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.56 0.56 0.20 0.34 0.08 0.68 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.41
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 579 1147 1180 346 2222 999 292 0 328 0 466
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 2.0 2.0 0.3 0.4 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.8
LnGrp LOS A B B B A A E A E A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1459 886 134 A 235
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Page 3
Page 165 of 433

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Land Use Petitions: SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, & CV-22-0006

Date of Revised Staff Recommendation Preparation: April 13, 2022
Full Cycle Deferral - Planning Commission: April 21, 2022
Full Cycle Deferral - Mayor and City Council, 1st Read: May 9, 2022
Full Cycle Deferral - Mayor and City Council, 2nd Read: June 13, 2022
PROJECT LOCATION: 4435 Hugh Howell Road and 2239 Dillard Street
DISTRICT/LANDLOT(S): 18th District, Land Lot 214
ACREAGE: ±2.33
EXISTING ZONING DT-2 (Downtown Corridor Zone) and C-1 (Local

Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE Former Restaurant and existing contractor’s office
CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Downtown and Suburban

OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A
APPLICANT: Chick-fil-A, Inc. c/o Jennifer Santelli
OWNER: John Poulakis; Scott and Wanda Nelson
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: SLUP to allow a drive-through restaurant with four
concurrent variances for inter-parcel access, setbacks,
drive-through location, and transitional buffer
requirements
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions of SLUP-21-0004 (restaurant
with drive-through)
DENIAL of CV-21-0002 (drive-through locational
requirements)
DENIAL of CV-21-0003 (setback requirements)
APPROVAL of CV-21-0004 (inter-parcel access
requirements)
APPROVAL of CV-22-0006 (transitional buffer
requirements)
Page 166 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
UPDATE
April 13, 2022 Update:
At the March 14, 2022Mayor and City Council meeting, the applicant requested a full cycle deferral to go
back through the Land Use process (Planning Commission and two reads before Mayor and City Council)
due to a major change in the application. The major change included adding an additional parcel to their
application (2239 Dillard), which would allow for two access points to the subject property, and an
additional concurrent variance (CV-22-0006) to reduce the transitional buffer on the additional parcel. A
revised application was submitted on March 15, 2022. New information and analysis are in italics.
The original SLUP and three concurrent variances went to Planning Commission on September 16, 2021,
where the Board recommended approval of SLUP-21-0004, denial of CV-21-0002, denial of CV-21-0003,
and approval of CV-21-0004, subject to amended staff recommended conditions. The amended
conditions addressed the Planning Commission concerns regarding transportation related elements of
traffic safety. The application then went before Mayor and City Council several times:
 October 12, 2021 MCC: 1st read

 November 8, 2021 MCC: deferral
 December 13, 2021 MCC: deferral (exploration of closing Rosser Terrace begun)
 January 18, 2022 Public Information Meeting: Rosser Terrace Road Closure meeting
 January 24, 2022 MCC: 1st read
 February 15, 2022 MCC: deferral
 February 28, 2022 MCC: deferral (applicant working to add adjacent parcel to the request)
 March 14, 2022: full cycle deferral granted
Staff will note that the full cycle deferral did not require a new neighborhood meeting to be held.
However, it did require new advertising of the case (new public notice signs, letters to a revised 500’
mailing list, new legal ads).
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Chick-fil-A, Inc., is requesting a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) with four concurrent
variances for the properties located at 4435 Hugh Howell Road and 2239 Dillard Street, for a restaurant
with a drive-through configuration. The subject site consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 2.33
acres and is developed with several buildings. 4435 Hugh Howell contains a building previously occupied
by The Greater Good BBQ. 2239 Dillard Road contains a single-story building and accessory structure,
associated parking, and is used as a contractor’s office for Southland Electric Inc.
PROJECT DATA
The larger of the two parcels, is located at the southwestern intersection of Hugh Howell and Rosser
Terrace, across from ‘The Centre on Hugh Howell’ shopping center. The additional parcel is a smaller,
wide, but short, trapezoid shaped parcel. This property is approximately .28 acres and adjacent and to
the west of the original 2.05-acre parcel, and is accessed from Dillard Street. The 2.05-acre tract is zoned
PagePage
1672 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
DT-2 (Downtown Corridor Zone) and the .28 acre parcel is zoned C-1 (Local Commercial), both of which
allow restaurants without drive-throughs by right, however restaurants with a drive-through
configuration require a SLUP in the DT-2 zoning district.
The applicant is requesting relief from the requirement prohibiting drive-through facilities between the
public street and building (CV-21-0002), relief from the maximum building setback along Rosser Terrace
(CV-21-0003), relief from the requirement to provide inter-parcel access (CV-21-0004), and relief from
transitional buffer requirements on south property line of the 2239 Dillard parcel, where it abuts R-75
zoning (CV-22-0006). The proposed drive-through restaurant will be a relocation of the existing Chick-fil-
A, which is currently located at 4340 Hugh Howell Road. The applicant is proposing a relocation to a
larger site that provides adequate space for Chick-fil-A’s new design standards for drive-through
facilities.
The applicant is proposing removing the existing buildings and billboard from both properties and
constructing a new ±4,978-square foot restaurant with three lanes, two drive-through lanes and one
bypass lane, as well as order and pick up canopies. The submitted site plan shows two full-access points
from Rosser Terrace and Dillard Street and the proposed restaurant located in the northeastern corner of
the larger 2.05-acre parcel. The submitted site plan shows that the proposed drive-through lanes would
be constructed in front of the building. Pursuant to Section 46-1166, supplemental regulations for
restaurants with drive-through facilities, drive-through lanes shall be located to the side or rear of the
building. The applicant is asking for a variance for this requirement (CV-21-0002). It should be noted that
the additional commercially zoned parcel along Dillard Street is being proposed only as a full-access drive
aisle, which will connect to the parking lot of the proposed restaurant on the 2.05-acre parcel. No
structures are proposed for the 2239 Dillard parcel.
The submitted site plan shows 62 proposed parking spaces, which meets the minimum off-street parking
requirements for restaurants with seating for patrons of one space per 250 sq.ft. of floor area. The site
plan also allows room for 32 stacking spaces across the two drive-through lanes. The existing Chick-fil-A
at 4340 Hugh Howell Road has stacking for 18 vehicles and the existing Chick-fil-A at 4071 Lavista has
stacking for 17 spaces. While our code only requires stacking for 10 vehicles, Chick-fil-A generates more
traffic than the majority of other drive-through facilities. The peak stacking for Chick-fil-A during COVID
has averaged around 20-25 cars. Pre-COVID stacking numbers were closer to 18-20.
The Downtown Tucker Zoning Districts transitional buffer regulations require that any DT district
adjoining an RE, RLG, R-100, R-85, R-75, or R-60 district, must have a 50-foot transitional buffer zone.
The subject property abuts residentially zoned properties to the south and west and the site plan shows
the proposed 50-foot buffers along the property lines will be maintained. Like the transitional buffer
regulations for any DT zoning district adjacent to residentially zoned properties, commercially zoned
parcels have similar requirements when adjacent to residential properties. The applicant is requesting a
variance (CV-22-0006) to reduce the required 50’ transitional buffer to 29’, a reduction of 21’. This request
is to allow for a full-access drive aisle into the site from Dillard Street as opposed to just an access point
from Rosser Terrace.
The site plan also shows a 6-foot sidewalk and 5-foot landscape strip along Hugh Howell Road, which
complies with the regulations in Section 46-994 Streets and sidewalks for the Downtown Tucker Zoning
Districts. These improvements are not shown along Rosser Terrace but are required by code.
PagePage
1683 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Revised site plan-submitted April 1, 2022
PagePage
1694 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
CHARACTER AREA (Future Land Use)

The subject parcels are located within
the Downtown Character Area and
Suburban Character Area on the future
land use map. It should be noted that
although an access point and drive
aisle are proposed on the Dillard
parcel, the requested SLUP only
pertains to the larger parcel, zoned DT-
2, at the intersection of Rosser Terrace
and Hugh Howell Road. While a SLUP is
not required for 2239 Dillard, it had to
be added to the application as it is part
of the overall development/site plan.
That said, the parcel located at 2239
Dillard Street is within the Suburban
Character Area, and is proposed to
contain a drive-aisle for the
neighboring property.
Character Areas are generally used as a visioning guide for an area that identifies items such as primary
land uses, development strategies, and design considerations. Character Areas speak to the adopted
vision of the community as it continues to grow and develop over time.
The Downtown Character Area encourages the following commercial land uses: various residential uses,
retail and service commercial, office, vertical mixed use, incubator start-ups and shared tenant spaces,
and civic uses. One of the development strategies of the Downtown Character Area is to “encourage new
development and redevelopment that preserves downtown’s special small-town qualities, keeps Main
Street wide and open, and is designed to complement the size and style of Tucker’s older buildings.”
One of the development strategies of the Suburban Character Area is to prevent the encroachment of
higher density residential development and non-residential uses within existing neighborhoods. Although
the parcel along Dillard Street is within the Suburban Character Area, the property is zoned commercially
and will help to meet the goal of this strategy, to allow traffic to move and be routed by the existing,
more intense uses, as opposed to enabling all traffic to inundate Rosser Terrace, a relatively residential
road. The removal of the structures and the restricted use of a drive-aisle will make the property more
compatible with regards to the Suburban Character Area and the adjacent parcels.
Staff finds the special land use request for a drive-through is not consistent with the comprehensive plan,
however, it will not cause a disproportionate proliferation of drive throughs in the Downtown Character
Area, as the proposed development would be a relocation of an existing Chick-fil-A northwest of the
subject property. Additionally, the applicant is proposing two access points for the property, furthering
Goal 2 of the City of Tucker’s Comprehensive Plan to improve transportation connections. The access on
PagePage
1705 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Dillard will allow customers to travel to the light at Cowen and Hugh Howell in order to make safer left
turns than having to turn left onto Hugh Howell from Rosser Terrace.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN REPORT

The applicant hosted a community meeting at the subject property on May 25, 2021 after mailing a letter
and site plan explaining the proposed project to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel.
There were 25 people in attendance including the applicant, owner, representatives of Chick-fil-A, and
community members. The applicant’s report listed concerns and questions regarding traffic, access,
trash, a traffic signal, speed bumps, and Rosser Terrace being a cut through to Hwy 78. It does not appear
that any changes were made to the site plan as a result of the Public Participation Meeting.
NEARBY/SURROUNDING LAND ANALYSIS & ZONING

Adjacent & Surrounding Zoning Existing Land Use
Properties
DT-2
(Downtown Corridor Zone); and C-1 Tucker Plaza Shopping Center and
Nearby: North
(Local Commercial) commercial
DT-2 Drive-through Zaxby’s and empty

Adjacent: Northwest (Downtown Corridor Zone) commercial space (formerly Pizza
Hut)
Adjacent: South R-75 Single-family detached homes
Adjacent: East
C-1 Commercial & drive-through Wendy’s
(across Rosser Terrace) (Local Commercial)
Adjacent: West and west R-75 (Residential Medium Lot – 75); residential single-family detached
across Dillard Street and DT-2 (Downtown Corridor Zone homes and Enzo’s Pizza
PagePage
1716 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Zoning and Aerial Exhibits showing surrounding land uses.
SLUP-21-0004: Restaurant with drive through

CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED – SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT
Criteria (standards and factors) for special land use decisions are provided in Section 46-1594 of the City
of Tucker Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is required to address these criteria (see application); below
are staff’s findings which are independent of the applicant’s responses to these criteria.
A. Adequacy of the size of the site for the use contemplated and whether or not adequate land
area is available for the proposed use including provision of all required yards, open space, off-
street parking, and all other applicable requirements of the zoning district in which the use is
proposed to be located.
The subject site is approximately 2.33 acres. The applicant meets the requirements for off-street
parking based on the submitted site plan. Additionally, the applicant meets the required 20- foot
rear setback; however, they are seeking a variance for the required side corner setback along
Rosser Terrace. While the applicant is requesting four concurrent variances, none are a direct
impact of the size of the site. It should also be noted that the applicant is requesting a variance
for the Dillard Street parcel, to allow for a reduction in the required transitional buffer located
along the southern property line of this tract, adjacent to a residentially zoned property to
accommodate an additional drive aisle to the site.
B. Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent properties and land uses and with other
properties and land uses in the district.
PagePage
1727 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
The proposed development is compatible with the commercial land uses and commercial
development of adjacent properties as there are two other drive-through restaurants within 500
feet of the subject property, however, it is not compatible with the adjacent residential zoning to
the west and south. While the 50’ transitional buffer is being maintained completely along all
property lines adjacent to residentially zoned parcels on the larger of the two parcels within this
request, which helps to minimize the impact to these residential properties, relief is being
requested for the transitional buffer required, adjacent to the southern property line of the Dillard
Street parcel. However, no structures are being proposed on this parcel – only a drive aisle.
C. Adequacy of public services, public facilities, and utilities to serve the proposed use.
Schools. There will be no impact on public school facilities.
Stormwater management. No comments.
Water and sewer. No comments. Sewer capacity approval has already been obtained for this
project.
D. Adequacy of the public street on which the use is proposed to be located and whether or not
there is sufficient traffic-carrying capacity for the use proposed so as not to unduly increase
traffic and create congestion in the area.
The project site is located at the southwestern intersection of Hugh Howell Road and Rosser
Terrace and along Dillard Street. Hugh Howell, a major arterial road, has four travel lanes and a
center turn lane. Rosser Terrace and Dillard Street are two-lane local roads. The applicant
provided a Traffic Impact Study that was conducted in June 2021 and later revised in March of
2022 when 2239 Dillard Street was added to the application.
The previous traffic study found that the site would benefit from a right turn lane from
northbound Rosser Terrace onto eastbound Hugh Howell Road. However, this is no longer needed
with the restricted access into the development as staff is recommending that the curb cut be
right in only (no exit).
While the drive-through lanes begin immediately to the north when you enter the site from
Rosser Terrace, stacking for 32 cars has been provided across two lanes which should limit any
cars queuing on Rosser Terrace. The deceleration lane on Rosser Terrace further limits any impact
to vehicles traveling Rosser Terrace.
The addition of 2239 Dillard Street provides a second access point for the development and allows
vehicles to safely get to the signalized intersection at Cowan and Hugh Howell. This will reduce
the impact to Rosser Terrace and provide safer left turning movements onto Hugh Howell. The
additional parcel also removes the potential need to close Rosser Terrace, as previously discussed
at the January 18, 2022, public information meeting. Staff recommends that a northbound left
turn lane onto Cowan Road at Hugh Howell be added, as well as construct the corresponding
traffic signal improvements, due to the large increase in vehicle trips that will use this intersection.
PagePage
1738 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
No curb cuts are shown along Hugh Howell due to GDOT restrictions. This also minimizes impact
to a major arterial as the consolidation of curb cuts on major roads helps to reduce potential
traffic accidents.
A traffic signal at the intersection of Hugh Howell and Rosser Terrace would not be permitted by
GDOT due to the close proximity of the signal at Hugh Howell and Cowan Road.
E. Whether or not existing land uses located along access routes to the site will be adversely
affected by the character of the vehicles or the volume of traffic generated by the proposed
use.
The subject property abuts residential lots along the southern and western property lines. During
their neighborhood meeting, residents who live along Rosser Terrace expressed concern that the
introduction of a Chick-fil-A would increase the traffic queue to turn onto Hugh Howell Road from
Rosser Terrace. The applicant conducted a traffic study that found the addition of a right turn
lane from northbound Rosser Terrace on to eastbound Hugh Howell Road would help mitigate
some of the traffic. The study also found that the intersection of Hugh Howell Road and Rosser
Terrace would experience an overall increase in delay, even with the addition of the right turn
lane. As a result of the concerns expressed by neighbors and the city, the applicant has added an
additional parcel to the request. This parcel, with frontage on Dillard Street, is being proposed as
a full access point and drive aisle to accommodate and help mitigate the influx of traffic that may
access the site from Rosser Terrace. However, some traffic improvements will need to be made at
the intersection of Cowan and Hugh Howell in order to avoid adversely affecting other areas.
F. Adequacy of ingress and egress to the subject property and to all proposed buildings,
structures, and uses thereon, with particular reference to pedestrian and automotive safety
and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in the event of fire or other emergency.
The applicant is proposing one right in/left out curb cut being on Rosser Terrace and one full
access curb cut and associated drive aisle being proposed from Dillard Street. The City Engineer
has recommended that the access point along Rosser Terrace be a restricted access point (right-
in only/no exit).
The applicant is requesting a concurrent variance for relief from the requirement to have inter-
parcel access due to the limited options for connectivity from the shape of the parcel at the north
and the residential uses to the west and south. The submitted site plan shows that the only
pedestrian access being provided is from an ADA ramp that connects to the proposed sidewalk
on Rosser Terrace. A sidewalk on Rosser Terrace will be required for the proposed development
to meet the districts streetscape dimensional requirements. Dekalb Fire Department has no
comments for the proposed project.
G. Whether or not the proposed use will create adverse impacts upon any adjoining land use by
reason of noise, smoke, odor, dust, or vibration generated by the proposed use.
The proposed development will not generate excessive noise, nor will it emit smoke, odor, dust
or vibration. The proposed use includes a restaurant with a drive-through facility. No adverse
PagePage
1749 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
impacts by reason of noise, smoke, odor, dust, or vibration are anticipated. The ordering canopy
and pick up canopy are located at the north of the site, away from the residential properties.
H. Whether or not the proposed use will create adverse impacts upon any adjoining land use by
reason of the hours of operation of the proposed use.
The application states the restaurant will operate Monday through Saturday from 6 AM – 10
PM. The hours of operation are consistent with the other commercial uses along Hugh Howell.
I. Whether or not the proposed use will create adverse impacts upon any adjoining land use by
reason of the manner of operation of the proposed use.
If developed in accordance with the recommended conditions, including transportation

improvements, land uses along Rosser Terrace, Dillard Street, and Hugh Howell Road should not
be adversely affected by the manner or operation of the development.
J. Whether or not the proposed use is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the zoning
district classification in which the use is proposed to be located.
The drive-through restaurant does not specifically comply with the downtown zoning district
classification, as it does not add to the Main Street atmosphere, create a dynamic development,
or add to the walkability of the area. However, it should be noted that this is the relocation of an
existing Chick-fil-A, also located in the DT-2 zoning classification, rather than a new fast-food
restaurant with a drive-through configuration. The proposed location is located on the far eastern
edge of the Downtown Districts.
K. Whether or not the proposed use is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan.
The proposed development is not entirely consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The
subject property is located within the Downtown and Suburban Character Areas on the Future
Land Use Map. Downtown primary land uses include retail and service commercial uses provided
to the community. Suburban primary land uses include single family residential, townhomes,
lower density multi-family, and institutional. While the proposed use is not compatible with the
Suburban Character area, the property currently does not comply with its current use and C-1
zoning designation. The change to a drive aisle would be an improvement. Additionally, the
proposed use is permitted in C-1. The proposed drive-through does not comply with all of the
relevant development strategy and design considerations as it does not preserve the downtown’s
special small-town qualities, complement the style of Tucker’s older buildings, transform parking,
or promote walkability. It should be noted that although this use is not specifically referenced in
the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed development would be a relocation of an existing Chick-
fil-A with a drive-through configuration that is also designated Downtown on the Future Land Use
Map.
L. Whether or not the proposed use provides for all required buffer zones and transitional buffer
zones where required by the regulations of the zoning district in which the use is proposed to
be located.
PagePage
17510of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
The submitted site plan shows the existing 50-foot transitional buffers along the southern and
western property lines, of the parcel along Rosser Terrace, adjacent to residentially zoned
properties, as being maintained. A variance has been requested for the required 50-foot
transitional buffer adjacent to the south of the Dillard Street parcel, from 50’ to 29’.
M. Whether or not there is adequate provision of refuse and service areas.
The site plan shows a proposed dumpster and its enclosure in the southwestern corner of the
parking lot, at the rear of the site. Section 46-1339 requires all dumpster must be screened from
view on all four sides so as to not be visible from adjacent properties and the public street.
N. Whether the length of time for which the special land use permit is granted should be limited
in duration.
Staff does not recommend any limits on the length of time of the special land use permit (if
granted), so long as the applicant obtains all local licensing requirements including compliance
with approved conditions and annual occupational tax certificate renewal.
O. Whether or not the size, scale and massing of proposed buildings are appropriate in relation to
the size of the subject property and in relation to the size, scale and massing of adjacent and
nearby lots and buildings.
It is staff’s opinion that the building size, mass, and scale will be appropriate in relation to
surrounding land uses.
P. Whether the proposed use will adversely affect historic buildings, sites, districts, or
archaeological resources.
The proposed site is not near any historic buildings, sites, districts, or archaeological resources.
Q. Whether the proposed use satisfies the requirements contained within the supplemental
regulations for such special land use permit.
The applicant does not meet all of the requirements in the supplemental regulations, Sec. 46-
1166 - Drive-through facility restaurant, as shown below.
Restaurants with drive-through services shall meet the following requirements:

A. Drive-through facilities shall not be located within sixty (60) feet of a
residentially zoned property, as measured from any menu or speaker box to the
property line of adjacent residential property.
Although the property abuts residentially zoned properties, the drive-through
facilities are not located within sixty feet of them.
B. No drive-through facility shall be located on a property less than ten thousand
PagePage
17611of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
(10,000) square feet in area. Stacking spaces for queuing of cars shall be
provided for the drive-through area as required in Article 6.
The property is ±2.33 acres. There is stacking for approximately 32 cars in the
queue, which complies with Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
C. Drive-through lanes and service windows shall be located to the side or rear of
buildings. If on a corner lot, only the pickup window may be located on the side
between the principal structure and a public street.
The subject property is an assemblage of two parcels, with frontage along Rosser
Terrace, Dillard Street and Hugh Howell Road. The submitted site plan shows the
proposed drive-through lanes along both Rosser Terrace and Hugh Howell and
located in front of the building. A requirement of a drive-through facility is that its
lanes and service windows should be located to the side or rear of the building.
While corner lots may have the pickup window located on the side of the building,
between the principal structure and a public street, the proposal is for the
menu/ordering canopy and drive through lanes to be located between the building
and the public street. A concurrent variance has been requested.
D. Drive-through canopies and other structures, where present, shall be constructed
from the same materials as the primary building and with a similar level of
architectural quality and detailing.
A full review to ensure compliance of the drive-through canopy, building, and
other structures will be conducted by staff when building permits are submitted.
E. Speaker boxes shall be pointed away from adjacent residential properties.
Speaker boxes shall not play music but shall only be used for communication for
placing orders.
The speaker box is pointed towards Rosser Terrace, away from adjacent residential
properties. A full review to ensure compliance of the drive-through speaker
box(es) will be conducted by staff when building permits and sign permits are
submitted.
F. Stacking spaces shall be provided for any use having a drive-through facility or
areas having drop-off and pick-up areas in accordance with the following
requirements. Stacking spaces shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide and
twenty-five (25) feet long. Stacking spaces shall begin at the last service window
for the drive-through lane (typically the “pick-up” window).
The proposed stacking spaces appear to be in compliance.
G. Financial institutions with drive-through windows, car washes (automated or
staffed facilities), drive- through coffee sales facilities, and any other uses
with drive-through facilities with the exception of restaurants with drive-
through facilities, shall provide three stacking spaces for each window or drive-
through service facility.
Not applicable.
H. Restaurants with drive-through facilities shall provide ten (10) stacking spaces
per lane for each window or drive-through service facility.
The application is in compliance. 32 stacking spaces are provided.
I. The following general standards shall apply to all stacking spaces and drive-through
PagePage
17712of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
facilities:
a. Drive-through lanes shall not impede on and off-site traffic movements,
shall not cross or pass through off-street parking areas, and shall not create
a potentially unsafe condition where crossed by pedestrian access to a public
entrance of a building.
The drive-through lanes being located in front of the building creates a
potentially unsafe condition for pedestrians. The site plan illustrates an ADA
ramp that gives pedestrians access from the sidewalk on Hugh Howell Road to
the building’s front entrance. Pedestrians will have to cross three lanes of
traffic in order to reach the building.
b. Drive-through lanes shall be separated by striping or curbing from off-street
parking areas. Individual lanes shall be striped, marked or otherwise
distinctly delineated.
The application is in compliance.
c. All drive-through facilities shall include a bypass lane with a minimum width
of ten (10) feet, by which traffic may navigate around the drive-through
facility without traveling in the drive-through lane. The bypass lane may
share space with a parking access aisle.
J. Drive-through lanes must be set back five (5) feet from all lot lines and roadway right-of-
way lines.
R. Whether or not the proposed use will create a negative shadow impact on any adjoining lot or
building as a result of the proposed building height.
The proposed use will not produce an adverse shadow effect.
S. Whether the proposed use would result in a disproportionate proliferation of that or similar
uses in the subject character area.
The proposed development will be a relocation of the existing Chick-fil-A, located at 4340 Hugh
Howell Road. The applicant has stated the current location will close when the proposed Chick-
fil-A (4435 Hugh Howell Road) opens. The proposed use will not increase the number restaurants
with drive-through configurations being offered in the vicinity, however, there are three other
drive-through facilities in the area. Zaxby’s is located approximately 90’ to the northwest;
Wendy’s is located approximately 135’ to the southeast; and Cook Out is located approximately
535’ to the southeast. The applicant has stated the existing Chick-fil-A at 4340 Hugh Howell will
be demolished if this SLUP is approved, resulting in no net increase in drive-through facilities.
T. Whether the proposed use would be consistent with the needs of the neighborhood or the
community as a whole, be compatible with the neighborhood, and would not be in conflict with
the overall objective of the comprehensive plan.
PagePage
17813of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Downtown Character Area. While the proposal is in conflict with the intent of the Downtown
Character Area to create a more walkable downtown core and enhance downtown’s special
small-town qualities, it does comply with the other standards as this is the relocation of an
existing drive-through facility and thus would not be in conflict with the strategies of the
Downtown Character Area to encourage redevelopment or improve transportation connections.
CONCLUSION
While the proposed use is not completely consistent with the Downtown or Suburban Character Areas,
staff does not believe this use would cause a disproportionate proliferation of drive-through facilities, as
the proposed Chick-fil-A would be a relocation of an existing Chick-fil-A located just north of the subject
property. Potential impacts can be mitigated by transportation improvements.
CONCURRENT VARIANCE (CV-21-0002) – LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The City of Tucker Zoning Ordinance includes Supplemental Regulations for restaurants with drive-
through facilities. Section 46-1166(3) states “drive-through lanes and service windows shall be located
to the side or rear of buildings. If on a corner lot, only the pickup window may be located on the side
between the principal structure and a public street.” The site plan shows the menu/ordering canopy
between the building and Rosser Terrace and the drive-through lanes are located between the building
and Hugh Howell. A concurrent variance has been requested to allow a drive-through facility to be
located between two public streets and the building.
Criteria for variance approval are provided in Section 46-1633 of the City of Tucker Zoning Ordinance.
CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED – CONCURRENT VARIANCE
1. By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of

exceptional topographic and other site conditions (such as, but not limited to, floodplain, major
stand of trees, steep slopes), which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict
application of the requirements of this chapter would deprive the property owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district.
While the subject property is not unusual in size, narrowness, or shallowness, it is somewhat
unusual in shape. Development options are limited with the corner lot and the high number of
stacking spaces required by Chick-fil-A. The applicant has made modifications to their standard
menu/ordering canopy to improve aesthetics along the frontage.
2. The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the zoning district in which the subject property is located.
PagePage
17914of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
The requested variance does go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief by allowing the
drive-through to be located in front of the building. The other drive-through restaurants located
along Hugh Howell, including the existing Chick-fil-A at 4340 Hugh Howell Road, have their
drive-through facilities located on the side and rear of the buildings. Section 46-1166 (3) states
that drive-through lanes and service windows shall be located to the side or rear of the
buildings.
3. The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located.
The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare, per Section 46-1166(9)a
which states, “drive-through lanes shall not create a potentially unsafe condition where crossed
by pedestrian access to a public entrance of a building.”
4. The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship.
The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of
this chapter would not cause undue and unnecessary hardship as there is space to locate the
drive-through lanes behind the building, however, it would push the building back away from
Hugh Howell which is not in line with the Downtown Zoning District.
5. The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this chapter and the
Comprehensive Plan text.
The proposed variance would not be in line with the Downtown Character Area’s intent to
promote walkability with design elements that privilege pedestrian and bicyclist over the
automobile and incentivize new walkway connectivity. The proposed location of the drive-
through in front of the building does not privilege pedestrians and bicyclists over the automobile.
The submitted site plan shows only one pedestrian access from Hugh Howell Road. Pedestrians
would then have to cross three lanes to enter the building. However, the installation of
streetscape requirements along both frontages does improve pedestrian elements within the
city.
Conclusion: Staff recommends DENIAL of CV-19-0002.
CONCURRENT VARIANCE (CV-21-0003) – SETBACK REQUIREMENTS

The City of Tucker Zoning Ordinance includes dimensional requirements for the Downtown Districts
which includes a 5’ minimum setback/no maximum setback along Hugh Howell and a 0’ minimum/20’
maximum along Rosser Terrace. Section 46-986 Dimensional requirements for Downtown Districts
explains that a maximum front setback can be increased when an open space, such as a park or plaza,
is provided between the respective building and the adjacent street. The applicant’s submitted site
plan does not meet this provision for an increased setback.
PagePage
18015of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
A concurrent variance has been requested to increase the maximum building setbacks along Rosser
Terrace to 65’.

unusual in shape; however, the parcel could be developed with the building pushed closer to
Rosser Terrace. The need for two drive-through lanes and a by-pass lane pushes the building past
the 20’ maximum front building setback along Rosser Terrace.
The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief by allowing
the proposed restaurant to be setback more than the maximum along Rosser Terrace as the
applicant is only asking to increase the maximum setback to 65’.
The granting of the variance may be detrimental to improvements in the zoning district. The
Downtown Character Area encourages developments be built closer to the street to create a
better pedestrian experience. The applicant is asking for this variance in order to place drive-
through lanes between the building and Rosser Terrace. This creates a potential unsafe condition
for pedestrians.
this chapter would not cause undue and unnecessary hardship as Section 46-986 states that when
a maximum front setback applies it may be increased when an open space, such as park or plaza,
is provided between the respective building and the adjacent street. The applicant is requesting
to increase the maximum setback in order to locate drive-through lanes between the building
and street. It should be noted that there is no setback maximum for Hugh Howell Road.
PagePage
18116of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
The intent for the Downtown Character Area of the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage greater
density, including allowances for zero-lot line development for both commercial and residential
uses. The design considerations for the Downtown Character Area encourage buildings to be
closer to street frontage and require parking in the rear. While the proposed site plan meets the
parking standards, the requested variance for increased setbacks would not be in line with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion: Staff recommends DENIAL of CV-19-0003.
CONCURRENT VARIANCE (CV-21-0004) – REQUIRED INTER-PARCEL ACCESS

The City of Tucker Zoning Ordinance requires inter-parcel access for all new developments in the
Downtown Tucker Zoning Districts. Section 46-989 (b) states “Inter-parcel access for vehicles between
abutting and nearby properties must be provided so that access to individual properties can be
achieved between abutting and nearby developments as an alternative to forcing all movement onto
highways and public roads, unless the community development director during the land disturbance
permitting process determines that it is unnecessary to provide inter-parcel access due to the
unlikelihood of patrons traveling among abutting or nearby sites, or due to inability after reasonable
efforts by the property owner to obtain legal permission.” A concurrent variance has been requested
for relief from the requirement to provide inter-parcel access.

unusual in shape. Inter-parcel access to the west is not possible because of how the properties
are developed with buildings at the rear. Connectivity to the northwest is challenged due to the
shape and limited size of the parcel.
PagePage
18217of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
the parcel to be developed without inter-parcel access due to the challenges with the commercial
properties to the northwest and west and the remaining residential properties.
The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare, as it will force all
movements onto Hugh Howell and Rosser Terrace. However, transportation improvements such
as a deceleration lane and right turn lane will help limit the impact.
this chapter could cause undue and unnecessary hardship given the challenges with interparcel
connectivity with the surrounding parcels.
While the spirit and purpose of the proposal may be consistent with much of the comprehensive
plan text, the regulation regarding inter-parcel access is to allow access for vehicles between
properties as an alternative to forcing all movement onto highways.
Conclusion: Staff recommends APPROVAL of CV-19-0004.
CONCURRENT VARIANCE (CV-22-0006) –TRANSITIONAL BUFFER REQUIREMENTS

Section 46-1338 requires transitional buffers when nonresidential, mixed use, or higher intensity
residential developments are adjacent to single-family residential land uses. These transitional buffers
create a visual screen and help diminish the potential negative impacts of the adjacent use. Buffer widths
are established in Table 5.2. When C-1 abuts residential, such as the case of 2239 Dillard abutting 2233
Dillard, a 50’ transitional buffer is required.
A concurrent variance has been requested to reduce the 50’ transitional buffer to 29’ in order to
construct a drive aisle Chick-fil-A. Staff will note that no transitional buffer exists today between the
two properties. If this application and concurrent variances are approved, the existing principal
PagePage
18318of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
structure and large warehouse building on 2239 Dillard will be demolished and 29’ of planted buffer
will be installed adjacent to the drive aisle.

The subject property (2239 Dillard Street) is exceptionally narrow. The rear property line is
approximately 69’, which would only leave 19’ of width outside of the 50’ transitional buffer area.
Additionally, while a drive aisle does not have to comply with building setbacks, the side interior
setback in C-1 is 20’. These dimensional requirements make the lot undevelopable, and therefore,
some relief has to be granted. The lot is currently nonconforming with no transitional buffer. If
approved, the lot will improve with 29’ of transitional buffer installed.
the parcel to be developed with a full access drive and a reduction of 21’ of the required
transitional buffer adjacent to the residential property to the south. If improved, the lot will gain
more compliance than it has now.
The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare as only a drive aisle
is proposed for this parcel. Additional mitigation will be provided by a fence, as required by the
code.
The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of this
chapter would cause undue and unnecessary hardship given the challenges with the narrowness
of the subject property.
PagePage
18419of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
The proposed access point and reduction of the required transitional buffer, while not entirely
consistent with the comprehensive plan text will help to improve traffic connections by allowing
customers to get to a traffic signal.
Conclusion: Staff recommends APPROVAL of CV-22-0006.
PagePage
18520of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Staff Recommendation
Based on the findings and conclusions herein, Staff recommends APPROVAL of Land Use Petition SLUP-
21-0004, DENIAL of CV-21-0002, DENIAL of CV-21-0003, APPROVAL of CV-21-0004, and APPROVAL of
CV-22-0006 subject to the following conditions.
Should the board(s) want to approve the request as submitted, all concurrent variances would need to
be approved. Additional conditions would be needed for CV-21-0002 and CV-21-0003.
1. The property should be developed in general conformance with the site plan submitted on April
1, 2022, with revisions to meet these conditions.
2. A landscape plan shall be submitted with the Land Disturbance Permit, subject to the review and
approval of the Planning and Zoning Director.
3. A mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be planted in the landscape strip between the
drive-through restaurant and both Hugh Howell Road and Rosser Terrace to screen the
appearance of the drive-through lanes from the street.
4. The drive-through canopies, windows, and lanes shall comply with the requirements of Section
46-995 and Section 46-1166.
5. Outdoor dining shall meet the requirements outlined in Section 46-998.
6. The drive-through establishment shall close no later than 10:00 p.m.
7. The Special Land Use Permit shall not be able to be transferred to another business.
8. Owner/ Developer shall provide direct pedestrian entrances from Hugh Howell Road and Rosser
Terrace. The required pedestrian entrances must face the public street and provide ingress and
egress.
9. Owner/Developer shall remove the existing billboard located on the northwestern portion of the
property.
10. Inter-parcel access is not required (CV-21-0004).
11. The transitional buffer along the southern property line of 2239 Dillard Street shall be reduced
from 50’ to 29’ (CV-22-0006). A 6’ tall wood fence shall be installed on or near the southern
property line.
12. Owner/Developer shall install six foot (6’) wide sidewalk with a five foot (5’) wide landscape
strip along the entire frontage of Rosser Terrace and Hugh Howell Road.
13. The development shall be limited to one (1) limited access driveway on Rosser Terrace (right in
only/no exit) and one (1) full access driveway on Dillard Street. Curb cut locations are subject the
PagePage
18621of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
sight distance requirements and the approval of the City Engineer. Further, Owner/Developer shall
add a “No Left Turn” sign and a raised median at the Rosser Terrace curb cut to restrict all turning
movements except a right turn in.
14. Owner/Developer shall construct a southbound deceleration lane on Rosser Terrace at the new
entrance, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
15. Owner/Developer shall construct a northbound left turn lane on Cowan Road at Hugh Howell
Road, and construct the corresponding traffic signal improvements, subject to the approval of
the City Engineer. Said improvements will be at no cost to the City of Tucker.
16. Owner/Developer shall dedicate at no cost to the City of Tucker such additional right-of-way as
required to construct the above improvements and have a minimum of two feet (2’) from the
back of the future sidewalk.
17. Owner/Developer shall provide ADA compliant pedestrian connectivity between the sidewalks
along both frontages and the building entrance.
18. Owner/Developer shall comply with Section 14-39 of the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances
concerning tree protection and replacement. A minimum tree density of thirty (30) units/acre
shall be required. Any specimen trees removed during the redevelopment shall require
additional tree replacement units as required in the ordinance.
19. Owner/Developer shall provide stormwater management in compliance with Tucker’s Post
Construction Stormwater Management Ordinance.
PagePage
18722of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
DEKALB COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
No comments. Sewer capacity approval has already been obtained for this project.
DEKALB COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL OFFICE

No comments.
DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM

Not applicable.
CITY ENGINEER
Traffic Study Comments
1. The traffic study should be signed by a registered engineer.

2. The 35% trip distribution from Dillard turning left onto Cowan seems high.
3. Cowan Rd @ Hugh Howell Rd – the Build volumes on the northbound approach are double the
2022 volumes. However, Table 8 shows no change in Level of Service or Delay with no
improvements to the intersection.
Recommended Conditions
1. The development shall be limited to one (1) limited access driveway on Rosser Terrace (right in
only) and one (1) full access driveway on Dillard Street. Curb cut locations are subject the sight
distance requirements and the approval of the City Engineer. Further, Owner/Developer shall add
a “No Left Turn” sign and a raised median at the Rosser Terrace curb cut to restrict all turning
movements except a right turn in.
2. Owner/Developer shall install a 5’ sidewalk along the entire frontage of Rosser Terrace.
3. Owner/Developer shall construct a right turn lane from Hugh Howell Road onto Rosser Terrace,
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Georgia Department of Transportation.
4. Owner/Developer shall construct a northbound left turn lane on Cowan Road at Hugh Howell
Road, and construct the corresponding traffic signal improvements, subject to the approval of
the City Engineer. Said improvements will be at no cost to the City of Tucker.
5. Owner/Developer shall dedicate at no cost to the City of Tucker such additional right-of-way as
required to construct the above improvements and have a minimum of two feet (2’) from the
back of the future sidewalk.
6. Owner/Developer shall provide ADA compliant pedestrian connectivity between the sidewalks
along both frontages and the building entrance.
7. Owner/Developer shall comply with Section 14-39 of the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances
concerning tree protection and replacement. A minimum tree density of thirty (30) units/acre
shall be required. Any specimen trees removed during the redevelopment shall require
additional tree replacement units as required in the ordinance.
PagePage
18823of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
8. Owner/Developer shall provide stormwater management in compliance with Tucker’s Post

Construction Stormwater Management Ordinance.
PagePage
18924of 433
Planning and Zoning
1975 Lakeside Parkway, Suite 350
Tucker, GA 30084 Land Use Petition
Phone: 678-597-9040
Email: [email protected] Application
Website: www.tuckerga.gov
Type of Application: ☐ Rezoning ☐ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ☐ x Special Land Use Permit
x Concurrent Variance
☐ x
☐ Modification
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant is the: ☐ Property Owner ☐ Owner’s Agent ☐
x Contract Purchaser
Name: Chick-fil-A, Inc.
Address: 5200 Buffington Road
City: Atlanta State: GA Zip: 30349
Contact Name: Jennifer Santelli
Phone: 770-324-5282 Email: [email protected]
OWNER INFORMATION
Name: John Poulakis
Address: 1610 DeKalb Avenue
Contact Name: John Poulakis
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Property Address: 4435 Hugh Howell Road Tucker, GA 30084
Present Zoning District(s): DT-2 Requested Zoning District(s):
Present Land Use Category: Downtown Corridor Requested Land Use Category:
Land District: 18 Land Lot(s): 214 Acreage: 2.05
Proposed Development: Chick-fil-A Restaurant
Concurrent Variance(s): N/A
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
No. of Lots/Dwelling Units: Dwelling Unit Size (Sq. Ft.): Density:
NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
No. of Buildings/Lots: 1 Total Building Sq. Ft.: 4,989 Density: .056
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
LAND USE PETITION APPLICATION - REVISED JULY 15, 2020
03/18/2022
Page 190 of 433 PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Planning and Zoning
Tucker, GA 30084 Land Use Petition
Phone: 678-597-9040
Website: www.tuckerga.gov Application
Type of Application: ☐ Rezoning ☐ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ☐ x Special Land Use Permit
☐
x Concurrent Variance x Modification
☐
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant is the: ☐ Property Owner ☐ Owner’s Agent ☐
x Contract Purchaser
Name: Chick-fil-A, Inc
Address: 5200 Buffington Road

Contact Name: Jennifer Santelli
OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Scott and Wanda Nelson
Address: 4874 Five Forks Trickum Rd SW

City: Lilburn State: GA Zip: 30047
Contact Name: Wanda Nelson
(770) 493-7068 [email protected]
Phone: Email:
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Property Address: 2239 Dillard St
Present Zoning District(s): C-1 Requested Zoning District(s):

Present Land Use Category: Local Commercial Requested Land Use Category:
Land District: Land Lot(s): Acreage: 0.28
Proposed Development: Chick-fil-A restaurant
Concurrent Variance(s): CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, and CV-21-0004, plus added variance for residential buffer
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
No. of Lots/Dwelling Units: Dwelling Unit Size (Sq. Ft.): Density:
NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1 2,500 SF .205
No. of Buildings/Lots: Total Building Sq. Ft.: Density:
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
LAND USE PETITION APPLICATION - REVISED DECEMBER 2021
03/18/2022

DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006

Planning and Zoning
Tucker, GA 30084
Phone: 678-597-9040 Land Use Petition
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.tuckerga.gov Application Checklist
FOR ALL REZONINGS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, SPECIAL LAND USE PERMITS,
MODIFICATIONS, AND CONCURRENT VARIANCES
REQUIRED ITEMS NUMBER OF COPIES CHECK √
One (1) digital copy of all submitted materials • One (1) flash drive or CD in .JPEG, .PDF format X
Pre-Application Meeting Form • One (1) Copy
Public Participation Report • One (1) Copy X
Application, Signature Pages, Disclosure Form • One (1) Copy each X
Written Legal Description • One (1) 8 ½“ x 11” Legal Description X
Boundary Survey and Proposed Site Plan • Five (5) Full-Size (24” x 36”) Copies of each
(See Page 9 for Requirements) • One (1) 8 ½“ x 11” or 11x17 Site Plan of each X
Building Elevations (renderings or architectural drawings
• One (1) Copy X
to show compliance with Article 5)
Letter of Intent • One (1) Copy X
Analysis of Standards/Criteria (See page 5) • One (1) Copy X
Environmental Site Analysis Form • One (1) Copy X
Trip Generation Letter (ITE Trip Generation Manual) • One (1) Copy X
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MAY BE REQUIRED
Traffic Impact Study (See Sec. 46-1309) • Three (3) Copies X
Development of Regional Impact Review Form • Three (3) Copies
Environmental Impact Report • Three (3) Copies
Noise Study Report • Three (3) Copies
Other items required per the Zoning Ordinance • Three (3) Copies
LAND USE PETITION FEE SCHEDULE

Residential Rezoning $500
Multifamily Rezoning $750
Non-Residential Rezoning $750
Special Land Use Permit $400 X
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1000
Modification $250 X
Variance (includes Concurrent Variance) $300 X
Public Notice Sign Fee $80 (per required sign) X
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022

DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006 RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022

DEPARTMENT
CITY OF TUCKER
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
03/18/2022
RECEIVED
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

Page 194 ofCV-21-0003,
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, 433 CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006 DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002,
Page 195 of 433 CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 196 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS/CRITERIA
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CRITERIA

Section 46-1560 of the City of Tucker Zoning Ordinance lists standards and factors that are found to be relevant to the
exercise of the city's zoning powers and shall govern the review of all proposed amendments to the Official Zoning Map.
The applicant shall write a detailed written analysis of each standard and factor as it relates to their proposed project.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT CRITERIA

Section Sec. 46-1559 of the City of Tucker Zoning Ordinance lists standards and factors that are found to be relevant for
evaluating applications for amendments to the comprehensive plan map and shall govern the review of all proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan map. The applicant shall write a detailed written analysis of each standard and
factor as it relates to their proposed project.
SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT CRITERIA

Section 46-1594 and 46-1595 of the City of Tucker Zoning Ordinance lists specific criteria that shall be considered by the
planning and zoning department, the planning commission, and the mayor and city council in evaluating and deciding any
application for a special land use permit. No application for a special land use permit shall be granted by the mayor and
city council unless satisfactory provisions and arrangements have been made concerning each of the following factors, all
of which are applicable to each application, and the application is in compliance with all applicable regulations in Article
4. The applicant shall write a detailed written analysis of criteria as it relates to their proposed project.
CONCURRENT VARIANCE CRITERIA

Section 46-1633 of the City of Tucker Zoning Ordinance lists specific criteria the board shall use in determining whether
or not to grant a variance. The applicant shall provide a written analysis of how the request complies with this criteria, if
they are requesting a concurrent variance.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 197 of 433
LAND USE PETITION APPLICATION - REVISED DECEMBER 9, 2020
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ANALYSIS FORM
Analyze the impact of the proposed rezoning and provide a written point-by-point response to Points 1 through 3:
1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Describe the proposed project and the existing environmental
conditions on the site. Describe adjacent properties. Include a site plan that depicts the proposed project.
Describe how the project conforms to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Include the portion of the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map which supports the project’s conformity to the Plan. Evaluate the proposed project with respect
to the land use suggestion of the Comprehensive Plan as well as any pertinent Plan policies.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. For each environmental site feature listed below, indicate
the presence or absence of that feature on the property. Describe how the proposed project may encroach or
adversely affect an environmental site feature. Information on environmental site features may be obtained from
the indicated source(s).
a. Wetlands
• U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory
(http://wetlands.fws.gov/downloads.htm)
• Georgia Geologic Survey (404-656-3214)
• Field observation and subsequent wetlands delineation/survey if applicable
b. Floodplain
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (http://www.fema.org)
• Field observation and verification
c. Streams/stream buffers
d. Slopes exceeding 25 percent over a 10-foot rise in elevation

• United States Geologic Survey Topographic Quadrangle Map
e. Vegetation
• United States Department of Agriculture, Nature Resource Conservation Service
• Field observation
f. Wildlife Species (including fish)

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
• Georgia Department of Natural Services, Wildlife Resources Division, Natural Heritage Program
• Field observation
g. Archeological/Historical Sites
• Historic Resources Survey
• Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 198 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ANALYSIS FORM (CONTINUED)
3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES. Describe how the project implements each of the measures listed below as
applicable. Indicate specific implementation measures required to protect environmental site feature(s) that may
be impacted.
a. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas, i.e., floodplain, slopes exceeding 25 percent, river
corridors.
b. Protection of water quality
c. Minimization of negative impacts on existing infrastructure
d. Minimization on archeological/historically significant areas
e. Minimization of negative impacts on environmentally stressed communities where environmentally

stressed communities are defined as communities exposed to a minimum of two environmentally
adverse conditions resulting from public and private municipal (e.g., solid waste and wastewater
treatment facilities, utilities, airports, and railroads) and industrial (e.g., landfills, quarries and
manufacturing facilities) uses.
f. Creation and preservation of green space and open space
g. Protection of citizens from the negative impacts of noise and lighting
h. Protection of parks and recreational green space
i. Minimization of impacts to wildlife habitats
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 199 of 433
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006

Page 200 of 433
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

Page 201 of 433 DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006

RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006

RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002,
203 of 433CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
PLANNING & ZONING
DEPARTMENT
Page
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 204 of 433

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
All items must be included on the Site Plan; separate Site Plans may be necessary to address all items
1. Key and/or legend and site location map with North arrow
2. Boundary survey of subject property which includes dimensions along property lines that match the metes and
bounds of the property’s written legal description and clearly indicates the point of beginning
3. Acreage of subject property
4. Location of land lot lines and identification of land lots
5. Existing, proposed new dedicated and future reserved rights-of-way of all streets, roads, and railroads adjacent to
and on the subject property
6. Proposed streets on the subject site
7. Posted speed limits on all adjoining roads
8. Current zoning of the subject site and adjoining property
9. Existing buildings with square footages and heights (stories), wells, driveways, fences, cell towers, and any other
structures or improvements on the subject property
10. Existing buildings with square footages and heights (stories), wells, driveways, fences, cell towers, and any other
structures or improvement or adjacent properties within 400 feet of the subject site based on the City’s aerial
photography or an acceptable substitute as approved by the Director
11. Location of proposed buildings (except single family residential lots) with total square footage
12. Layout and minimum lot size of proposed single family residential lots
13. Topography (surveyed or City) on subject site and adjacent property within 200 feet as required to assess runoff
effects
14. Location of overhead and underground electrical and pipeline transmission/conveyance lines
15. Required and/or proposed setbacks
16. 100 year flood plain horizontal limits and flood zone designations as shown on survey or FEMA FIRM maps
17. Required landscape strips, undisturbed buffers, and any other natural areas as required or proposed
18. Required and proposed parking spaces; Loading and unloading facilities
19. Lakes, streams, and waters on the state and associated buffers
20. Proposed stormwater management facilities
21. Community wastewater facilities including preliminary areas reserved for septic drain fields and points of access
22. Availability of water system and sanitary sewer system
23. Tree lines, woodlands and open fields on subject site
24. Entrance site distance profile assuming the driver’s eye at a height of 3.5 feet
25. Wetlands shown on the County’s GIS maps or survey.
RECEIVED
26. Mail kiosk location. CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 205 of 433

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
LAND USE PETITION CALENDAR
*Application Planning M&CC M&CC

Deadline Commission 1st Read 2nd Read
11/9/2020 12/17/2020 1/11/2021 2/8/2021
12/14/2020 1/21/2021 2/8/2021 3/8/2021
1/11/2021 2/18/2021 3/8/2021 4/12/2021
2/8/2021 3/18/2021 4/12/2021 5/10/2021
3/8/2021 4/15/2021 5/10/2021 6/14/2021
4/12/2021 5/20/2021 6/14/2021 7/12/2021
5/10/2021 6/17/2021 7/12/2021 8/9/2021
6/14/2021 7/15/2021 8/9/2021 9/13/2021
7/12/2021 8/19/2021 9/13/2021 10/12/2021
8/9/2021 9/16/2021 10/12/2021 11/8/2021
9/13/2021 10/21/2021 11/8/2021 12/13/2021
10/12/2021 11/18/2021 12/13/2021 TBD
11/8/2021 12/16/2021 TBD TBD
*Incomplete applications will not be accepted.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND REPORT

See separate document.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 46-1526 details the public notice requirements for land use petitions, which include public notice sign(s),
advertisement in The Champion newspaper, and written notice to everyone within 500’.
• The applicant is responsible for posting the public notice sign(s). City of Tucker Staff will order the
signs(s) and provide the required timeframe for posting.
• The City of Tucker is responsible for placing the legal ad in The Champion newspaper
• The City of Tucker is responsible for mailing the written notification to surrounding property owners.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 206 of 433

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
PROPERTY COMPLIANCE
All Occupational Tax payments must be paid in-full and any and all
outstanding code violations on the property must be rectified prior to the public hearing.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 207 of 433

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Concurrent Variance Criteria
Chick-fil-A Tucker
4435 Hugh Howell Road
Tucker, GA 30084
VARIANCE #1 REQUEST: ALLOW DRIVE-THROUGH FACILTY BETWEEN STREET AND BUILDING
Section 46-1166 of the City of Tucker municipal code prohibits the locations of drive-through restaurant
facilities between the building and the street in the DT-2 Downtown Corridor zoning district.
Criteria in support of Chick-fil-A’s site layout, which locates drive-through facilities between the building
and Hugh Howell Road, as well as Rosser Terrace Road:
a. By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific lot, or by reason of exceptional

topographic and other site conditions (such as, but not limited to, floodplain, major stand of trees, steep
slope), which were not created by the owner or applicant, the strict application of the requirements of
this division would deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners
in the same zoning district.
The subject parcel abuts Hugh Howell Road to the north, Rosser Terrace to the east and residentially
zoned properties to the west and south. Section 46-1166 requires that drive-through restaurant
facilities be located a minimum of 60 feet from residentially zoned parcels. Since the lot is
rectangular, the available area for the drive-through is confined to a narrow section in the center of
the parcel. This configuration does not provide adequate space for vehicles to circulate and greatly
diminishes the available length for drive-through queue. The geometry of the parcel and the zoning
designation of the adjacent parcels were not created by the owner or applicant. Strict application of
these requirements will deprive Chick-fil-A of an efficient drive-through operation, which is enjoyed
by nearby property owners whose businesses are not located at street intersections and do not abut
residential properties.
b. The requested variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief, and does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
zoning district in which the subject property is located.
Request of this variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief since drive-
through design is adhering to City of Tucker ordinance requirements as much as possible. The
proposed drive-through facilities are a minimum of 60 feet from residentially zoned adjacent
properties and provide a bypass lane, in addition to the extra lane design employed by Chick-fil-A.
Chick-fil-A will provide a vegetative screen designed to block vehicles from view, while keeping the
building visible. Special privilege is not being granted.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
950 North Point Parkway, Suite 200, Alpharetta, GA 30005
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

Page 208 of 433
DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004,CV-22-0006

c. The grant of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the zoning district in which the subject property is located.
Grant of this variance to allow drive-through facilities between the building and streets will not be
detrimental to the public, however it will allow drive-through operations to proceed expediently
according to the design principles Chick-fil-A has researched and is implementing across the country
to ensure that adequate stack is provided in drive-through lanes and that vehicles may enter, be
served, and exit as quickly as possible without queue spill over into adjacent roadways. Chick-fil-A
has a history and reputation for maintaining properties to very high standards and will be an asset to
the community.
d. The literal interpretation and strict application of the applicable provisions or requirements of this
division would cause undue and unnecessary hardship.
Literal interpretation and strict application of the requirement that prohibits drive-through facilities
between the building and street would prohibit Chick-fil-A from operating a drive-through on this
parcel.
e. The requested variance would be consistent with the spirit and purpose of this division and the
comprehensive plan text.
The requested variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, while maintaining the spirit and
purpose of the DT-2 zoning district intent to provide a mixed-use community, with a focus on
walkability and pedestrian access. Chick-fil-A proposes to locate drive-through facilities as far as
possible from adjacent residential parcels and is proposing two patio areas near the street with sidewalk
connectivity to the street to promote community and walkability.
RECEIVED
2
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
Page 209 of 433

PLANNING & ZONING
DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006

VARIANCE #2 REQUEST: RELIEF FROM MAXIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS FROM HUGH HOWELL ROAD AND
ROSSER TERRACE
Section 46-986 and Table 3.2 of the City of Tucker municipal code require a maximum building setback of
20 feet from Hugh Howell Road and Rosser Terrance in the DT-2 Downtown Corridor zoning district.
Criteria in support of Chick-fil-A’s site layout proposing a building setback of 45 feet from Hugh Howell
Road and 65 feet from Rosser Terrace:

Due to the geometry of the parcel and adjacent residential parcels, the proposed drive-through is
located between the building and both Hugh Howell Road and Rosser Terrace. Chick-fil-A’s dual lane
drive-through design serves customers efficiently and prevents queue spill on to adjacent roadways.
The dual lane drive-throughs are a minimum of 20 feet in width. In addition, Section 46-1166 requires
that all drive-through restaurant facilities provide an additional bypass lane. The extra lane, in
addition to a 5 feet landscape buffer prohibit movement of the building closer to Hugh Howell Road.
Likewise, the same drive-through lanes travel between the building and Rosser Terrace. The building
setback is greater in this instance because a patio and sidewalk are provided for street connectivity.
The geometry of the parcel and the zoning designation of the adjacent parcels were not created by
the owner or applicant. Strict application of these requirements will deprive Chick-fil-A of an efficient
drive-through operation, which is enjoyed by nearby property owners who do have locations at street
intersections and abut residential properties.
Request of this variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief as drive-through
design is adhering to City of Tucker ordinance requirements as much as possible. The proposed
drive-through facilities are a minimum of 60 feet from residentially zoned adjacent properties and
provide a bypass lane, in addition to the extra lane design employed by Chick-fil-A. Chick-fil-A is
proposing two patios near the streets in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance to
promote community, walkability, and connection to the City streets.
Granting of this variance to exceed the maximum building setbacks will not be detrimental to the
public, however it will allow drive-through operations to proceed expediently according to the design
3
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022

DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006

principles Chick-fil-A has researched and is implementing across the country to ensure that adequate
stack is provided in drive-through lanes and that vehicles may enter, be served, and exit as quickly as
possible to avoid queue spill over into adjacent roadways. Chick-fil-A is providing two outdoor dining
patios with sidewalk connectivity to the Hugh Howell streetscape to promote community and
walkability.
Literal interpretation and strict application of the requirement would severely diminish drive-through
efficiency due to decreased stack length if the drive-through lanes were to be located at the interior
of the site. Spatially, two drive-through lanes, a bypass lane, and landscape buffer will not fit into a 25
feet setback, so strict adherence would force diminished drive-through efficiency.
The requested variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, while maintaining the spirit and
purpose of the DT-2 zoning district intent to provide a mixed-use community, with a focus on
walkability and pedestrian access. Chick-fil-A proposes to locate drive-through facilities as far as
possible from adjacent residential parcels and is proposing two patio areas near the street with sidewalk
connectivity to the street to promote community and walkability.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER 4
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 211 of 433

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
VARIANCE #3 REQUEST: RELIEF FROM INTERPARCEL ACCESS
Section 46-989 of the City of Tucker municipal code requires inter-parcel access between abutting
properties in the DT-2 Downtown Corridor zoning district
Criteria in support of Chick-fil-A’s site layout, which does not provide inter-parcel access with abutting
parcel.

Due to the geometry of the parcel and adjacent residential parcels, the proposed drive-through is
located between the building and both Hugh Howell Road and Rosser Terrace. Chick-fil-A’s dual lane,
isolated drive-through design serves customers efficiently and prevents queue spill on to adjacent
roadways. Since the parcel is rectangular with the smallest length frontage along Hugh Howell Road,
space does not exist for a drive to provide inter-parcel access outside of the drive-through lanes. Due
to the geometry of the parcel, inter-parcel access would need to be achieved by allowing vehicles to
enter the drive-through near the order pick up point, which would greatly dimmish drive-through
efficiency. Inter-parcel access currently does not exist on this site. The constraints of the lot were not
created by the owner or the applicant. Strict adherence to the requirement for inter-parcel access
deprives Chick-fil-A of an efficient drive-through.
Request of this variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary to afford relief as drive-through
design is adhering to City of Tucker ordinance requirements as much as possible. The proposed
drive-through facilities are a minimum of 60 feet from residentially zoned adjacent properties and
provide a bypass lane, in addition to the extra lane design employed by Chick-fil-A.
Granting of this variance for relief from inter-parcel access will not be detrimental to the public,
however it will allow drive-through operations to proceed expediently according to the design
principles Chick-fil-A has researched and is implementing across the country to ensure that adequate
stack is provided in drive-through lanes and that vehicles may enter, be served, and exit as quickly as
possible to avoid queue spill over into adjacent roadways Inter-parcel access does not currently exist.
Additionally, the current access off Rosser Terrace moves Chick-fil-A trips off Hugh Howell Road. If
inter-parcel access were provided at the west adjacent parcel, vehicles bound for Chick-fil-A could
enter the site from Hugh Howell Road through the adjacent parcel.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
5
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 212 of 433

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Literal interpretation and strict application of the requirement would severely diminish drive-through
efficiency due to decreased stack length if the drive-through lanes were to be located at the interior
of the site. Spatially, two drive-through lanes, a bypass lane, and landscape buffer will not fit into the
frontage provided on Hugh Howell Road, so strict adherence would force diminished drive-through
efficiency.
The requested variance maintains the spirit and purpose of the DT-2 zoning district intent through
proposed patio areas and sidewalk and street connectivity for pedestrians. Relief from the requirement
to provide inter-parcel access allows Chick-fil-A to operate an efficient drive-through that avoids queue
migration to adjacent parcels and roadways.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER 6
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
Page 213 ofCV-21-0002,

SLUP-21-0004, 433 CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004,CV-22-0006
VARIANCE #4 REQUEST: RELIEF FROM RESIDENTIAL TRANSITIONAL BUFFER
Section 46-1338 of the City of Tucker municipal code requires a 50 feet transitional buffer between
residentially zoned properties and commercially zoned properties. The buffer must consist of natural or
planted screening material. Chick-fil-A is requesting a variance to reduce the required buffer to 29 feet.
Criteria in support of Chick-fil-A’s site layout, which reduces the required transitional buffer from 50 feet to
29 feet:

The parcel width is only 50.9 feet where it is adjacent to a residentially zoned property at 2233 Dillard
St. The 50 feet transitional buffer requirement precludes any use or improvement. The constraints of
the lot were not created by the owner or the applicant. Strict adherence to the requirement for a 50
feet transitional buffer deprives Chick-fil-A of use of this portion of property, including a proposed
access on Dillard St.
Request of this variance does not go beyond the minimum necessary as the minimum width needed
for a driveway, 25 feet (with curb), is placed as far from the residential zoned property as possible,
allowing a transitional buffer of 29 feet.
Granting partial relief from the transitional buffer requirement will not be detrimental to the public, as
Chick-fil-A’s building and drive-through operations are not located within 50 feet of residentially
zoned properties. Additionally, Chick-fil-A will provide and maintain professional landscaping and
screening according to City of Tucker municipal code Section 46-1338.
Literal interpretation and strict application of the requirement would severely diminish use of the
property to allow an access to Dillard St and the traffic signal at Cowan Rd.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
7
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004,CV-22-0006

The requested variance maintains the spirit and purpose of the ordinance by providing a substantial
residential buffer and locating the commercial building, drive-through facilities, and parking at least 50
feet from residentially zoned properties.
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER 8
03/18/2022
PLANNING & ZONING

DEPARTMENT
PageCV-21-0002,
SLUP-21-0004, 215 of 433CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004,CV-22-0006
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUCKER
03/18/2022
PLANNING
Page 216 of & ZONING
433
DEPARTMENT
SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003, CV-21-0004, CV-22-0006
Tucker, Georgia
March 15, 2022
Prepared for:
Chick-fil-A, Inc.
Page 217 of 433

Tucker, Georgia
Prepared March 15, 2022
Prepared for:
Chick-fil-A, Inc.
5200 Buffington Road
Atlanta, GA 30349
Phone: 404.214.9934
Prepared by:
Bowman Consulting Group

4450 W. Eau Gallie Blvd., Suite 144
Melbourne, FL 32934
Phone: (321) 255-5434
Fax: (321) 255-7751
Analysts: Daniela Jurado

Rodrigo Meirelles
Project Manager: Andrew Petersen, PE
03/15/2022
Bowman Job # 120005-01-049
Page 218 of 433

Page i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ii
1.Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.Background Information ............................................................................................................................. 1
Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................ 2
3.Roadway Network ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Intersection Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 2
4.Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................... 4
5.Traffic Forecast and Background Traffic .................................................................................................... 4
6.Trip Generation .......................................................................................................................................... 5
7.Trip Distribution .......................................................................................................................................... 5
8.Turn Lane Warrant Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 6
9.Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Conditions (Year 2023)................................................ 8
Proposed Improvements ............................................................................................................................. 10
Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Improved Conditions .................................................. 10
Queueing Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 11
10.Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 12
List of Figures
Figure 1. Site location. .................................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2. Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 6
List of Tables
Table 1 Historical AADT and Annual Growth Rates ..................................................................................... 4
Table 2 Site Trip Generation ......................................................................................................................... 5
Table 3 Right Turn Lane Warrant Criteria ..................................................................................................... 6
Table 4 HCM Level of Service Criteria .......................................................................................................... 7
Table 5 2022 AM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................... 8
Table 6 2023 PM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................... 9
Table 7 2022 Morning Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Comparison No Build vs Improved Conditions ....... 10
Table 8 2022 Evening Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Comparison No Build vs Improved Conditions ....... 11
Table 9 Queueing Analysis Comparison..................................................................................................... 12
Appendices
Appendix A: Site Plan
Appendix B: Scope/Methodology
Appendix C: Traffic Counts
Appendix D: Traffic Volume and Traffic Distribution Exhibits
Appendix E: Chick-Fil-A Trip Generation Assessment
Appendix F: Capacity Analysis Reports

P: (321) 255-5434 | F: 321.270.8977
Bowman.com
Page 219 of 433
Page ii
Executive Summary
Consulting (Bowman) for the proposed 4,989 SF Chick-fil-A development with 40 Car Stack
Chick-fil-A development to be located at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Hugh
Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace in the City of Tucker, Georgia.
Access to the site will be provided by one (1) right-in only driveway along Rosser Terrace and
one (1) full-access driveway along Dillard St.
representatives from the City of Tucker and the Georgia Department of Transportation.
Turning movement counts were collected for the morning and evening peak hours at the
intersections of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd, Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace, Hugh Howell
Rd & Tucker Industrial Rd, and Cowan Rd & Dillard St.
Based on the results of the trip generation assessment prepared by Bowman Consulting, the
proposed development is expected to generate a total of 261 trips during the morning peak
hour and 285 trips during the evening peak hour. It is anticipated that during the morning peak
hour 128 of these are existing trips, the remaining 133 are expected to be primary trips. During
the evening peak hour, it is anticipated that 143 are existing trips and 142 are new trips.
constructed and fully operational by the year 2023.
The following scenarios were evaluated as part of this study: 2023 No Build, 2023 Build and
2023 Build with Improvements.
A Turn Lane Warrant Analysis was conducted based on the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances
Sec. 22-284 – Access Management. The results show a right turn lane is warranted at the
eastbound approach of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace.
Capacity Analyses comparison No Build Vs Build conditions were conducted for the analysis
intersections to identify areas impacted by the proposed development. The results indicate
the following:
• During the morning peak hour: all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable
overall LOS B or better during the No Build and Build Conditions. No changes in LOS and
minimal increases in delays are expected on all approaches of the analysis intersection.
• During the evening peak hour: all intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable
overall LOS C or better during the No Build and Build Conditions.
P: (321) 255-5434 | F: 321.270.8977
Bowman.com
Page 220 of 433
Page iii
The northbound approach of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd with Cowan Rd is

expected to degrade from LOS E under No Build Conditions to LOS F under Build
Conditions, with an increase in delay of 10.6 seconds.
Based on the results of the capacity and turn lane warrant analysis the following improvements
are proposed:
- Optimize signal timings at Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd during evening
Peak Hour.
- Provide an eastbound right-turning lane at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser
Terrace.
Capacity Analyses comparison No Build Vs Build Improved conditions were conducted for the
analysis intersections to evaluate the proposed improvements. The results indicate the
following:
• During the morning peak hour: The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace is
expected to experience acceptable overall LOS A under Build Improved conditions. All
approaches and turning movements are expected to maintain acceptable LOS.
• During the evening peak hour: The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace is
expected to experience acceptable overall LOS A under Build Improved conditions. All
approaches and turning movements are expected to maintain acceptable LOS.
The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway is expected to
experience acceptable overall LOS C under Build Improved conditions. The northbound
approach is anticipated to operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build Improved
Conditions with no increase in delay. All other approaches and movements in this
intersection are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Build
Improved Conditions.
Based on the results of the capacity, turn lane and queueing analysis, the proposed Chick-Fil-
A at 4431 Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding
roadway network provided the proposed improvements mentioned on this report.

P: (321) 255-5434 | F: 321.270.8977
Bowman.com
Page 221 of 433
1. Introduction
Consulting (Bowman) for the proposed Chick-fil-A development to be located at the Southwest
corner of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace in the City of Tucker, Georgia.
2. Background Information
The proposed development entails a 4,989 SF Chick-fil-A development with 40 Car Stack to
be constructed at 4431 Hugh Howell Rd, in the City of Tucker, Georgia. Figure 1 depicts the
site location.
Figure 1. Site location.
Access to the development will be provided by one (1) right-in only driveway along Rosser
Terrace and one (1) full-access driveway along Dillard St, no access driveways are proposed
on Hugh Howell Rd. The latest Concept Plan is presented in Appendix A.
Page |1
Bowman.com
Page 222 of 433
Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology
representatives from the City of Tucker and the GDOT DeKalb County Division. A copy of the
approved Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Statement and proof of the coordination is
contained in Appendix B.
To assess the traffic operation at the study Intersections, the following tasks were undertaken:
• Turning movement counts were collected during an average weekday for the morning
(7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak periods.
• Trip generation Assessment for Chick-Fil-a (CFA) facilities.
• Trip Distribution for the proposed development.
• Capacity and queuing analyses at study intersections.
3. Roadway Network
Hugh Howell Rd (GA 236): Within the identified study area is a State-maintained four-lane
Minor Arterial according to the Georgia Department of Transportation State Functional
Classification Map Online. Hugh Howell Rd has a continuous two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL), a
southeast-northwest alignment and a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour.
Rosser Terrace: Within the identified study area is a city-maintained two-lane undivided
roadway identified as a Local Road according to the City of Tucker 2019, Strategic
Transportation Master Plan. Rosser Terrace has a north-south alignment and a posted speed
limit of 25 miles per hour.
Tucker Industrial Rd: Within the identified study area is a city-maintained two-lane undivided
roadway identified as a Local Road according to the City of Tucker Strategic 2019,
Transportation Master Plan. Tucker Industrial Rd has a north-south alignment with a posted
speed limit of 35 miles per hour.
Cowan Rd: Within the identified study area is a city-maintained two-lane undivided roadway
Plan. Cowan Rd has a northeast-southwest alignment with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per
hour.
Dillard St: Within the identified study area is a city-maintained two-lane undivided roadway
Plan. Dillard St has a north-south alignment with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour.
Intersection Characteristics
1. Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way
This intersection is currently a four-legged unsignalized intersection where Hugh Howell Rd
has a southeast-northwest alignment and Rosser Terrace and Fuller way have a north-south
alignment.
Page |2
Bowman.com
Page 223 of 433
The northwest approach (Hugh Howell Road eastbound) consists of an exclusive through lane,
one shared through/right-turn lane and a continuous TWLTL. The southeast approach (Hugh
Howell Road westbound) consists of two exclusive through lanes, one exclusive right-turn lane
and a continuous TWLTL. The northbound approach (Rosser Terrace) consists of one shared
left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The southbound approach (Fuller Way) consists of one
shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane.
2. Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway

a southeast-northwest alignment and Cowan Rd has a northeast-southwest alignment.
The northwest approach (Hugh Howell Road eastbound) consists of one exclusive left-turn
lane, one exclusive through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The southeast
approach (Hugh Howell Road westbound) consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, two exclusive
through lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. The southwest approach (Cowan Road
Northbound) consists of one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane. The northeast approach
(Publix Driveway southbound) consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, and one shared
through/right-turn lane.
3. Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd

an east-west alignment and Tucker Industrial Rd has a north-south alignment.
The eastbound and westbound approaches consist of one exclusive left-turn lane, one
exclusive through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. The northbound and
southbound approaches have one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane.
4. Intersection of Cowan Rd & Dillard St

This intersection is currently a three-legged unsignalized intersection where Hugh Howell Rd
has a northeast-southwest alignment and Dillard St has a north-south alignment.
The northeast approach consists of a single lane with left-turn and through movements
allowed. The southwest approach consists of a single lane with through and right-turn
movements allowed. The northbound approach consists of a single lane with left-turn and
right-turn movements allowed.
Proposed conditions.
As mentioned before, access to the development will be provided by one (1) right-in driveway
along Rosser Terrace and one (1) full-access driveway along Dillard St. No access is proposed
on Hugh Howell Road.
Page |3
Bowman.com
Page 224 of 433
4. Data Collection
• Inspections were conducted to obtain an inventory of existing roadway geometry, traffic

control devices, and location of existing and proposed driveways.
• Published GDOT AADT counts and functional classification information.
• Turning movement counts were collected at the following intersections:
- Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd
- Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace
- Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd
- Cowan Rd & Dillard St
The traffic counts were completed during an average weekday, Tuesday, June 15, 2021, for
the intersections of Hugh Howell Rd with Cowan Rd, Rosser Terrace, and Tucker Industrial Rd,
and on Tuesday, March 1, 2022, for the intersection of Cowan Rd with Dillard St for the morning
(7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak periods. The turning movement
counts are presented in Appendix C.
5. Traffic Forecast and Background Traffic

constructed and fully operational by the year 2023. The following scenarios were evaluated as
part of this study:
• Future Conditions (2023) without the proposed development (No Build)

• Future Conditions (2023) with the proposed development (Build)
• Improved Future Conditions (2023) with the proposed development (Build with
Improvements)
To develop the 2022 and the 2023 traffic volumes, the first step was to determine a background
growth rate applicable for the study area roadway segments. For each roadway segment, the
annual growth rate was calculated using the historical AADT information provided by the
GDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic & Historical Counts 2015-2019 information. A 0.5%
minimum average annual growth rate was used for all traffic in the study area.
The historical study area roadway AADT information, as well as the applied growth rates
utilized for the analysis, are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Historical AADT and Annual Growth Rates
Source: GDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic & Historical Counts 2015-2019
Page |4
Bowman.com
Page 225 of 433
The growth rates presented in Table 1 were applied to the 2021 Turning Movement Counts to
develop the 2022 Existing Volumes. The 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes are presented in
Appendix D, Exhibit 1.
The 2023 No Build Traffic Volumes were developed applying one year growth to the 2022
Existing Traffic Volumes, see Exhibit 2 in Appendix D.
6. Trip Generation
The applicant is proposing to develop the site with the following land uses generating site
traffic:
• 4,989 SF Chick-fil-A Restaurant with drive-thru window (Proposed)
Considering Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurants generate larger number of trips than ITE
comparable land uses. Bowman conducted a Trip Generation Assessment based on trip
generation data provided by the Atlanta Department of Transportation for three similar Chick-
fil-A facilities. The trip generation assessment is presented Appendix E.
Table 2 displays the trip generation for the proposed development and includes the morning
and evening peak hour.
Table 2 Site Trip Generation
The proposed development is expected to generate a total of 261 trips during the morning
peak hour and 285 trips during the evening peak hour. It is anticipated that during the morning
peak hour 128 of these are existing trips, the remaining 133 are expected to be primary trips.
During the evening peak hour, it is anticipated that 143 are existing trips and 142 are new trips.
7. Trip Distribution
The proposed trip distribution for the site was developed based on the AADT information of
the surrounding roadway network, he population and employment centers in the area, and the
access conditions of the site. The trip distribution for this site is presented in Figure 2.
Page |5
Bowman.com
Page 226 of 433
Figure 2. Trip Distribution
The Primary and Pass-By trip distributions are presented in Exhibits 3 and 4 in Appendix D.
The Primary and Pass-By trips are presented in Exhibits 5 and 6 in Appendix D.
The CFA Site Trips are presented in Exhibits 7 in Appendix D.
The CFA Site Trips were added to the 2022 No Build Traffic Volumes to yield the 2022 Build
Traffic Volumes presented in Exhibit 8 in Appendix D.
8. Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
A Turn Lane Warrant Analysis was conducted based on the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances.
Per Sec. 22-284 – Access Management, a deceleration lane shall be required at each project
driveway or subdivision street entrance, as applicable, that meets either the average daily
traffic (ADT) or right turning volumes shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Right Turn Lane Warrant Criteria
For driveways, right-turn lanes shall be required at all driveways where the right-turning volume
exceeds 300 vehicles per day.
Page |6
Bowman.com
Page 227 of 433
The following number of entering right turns are anticipated at each unsignalized
intersection/driveway under 2023 Build Conditions:
• Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace

• Cowan Rd and Dillard St

• Rosser Terrace and Site Driveway 1

Based on the thresholds for a right-turn lane provided on the City of Tucker Code of
Ordinances, a right turn lane is warranted at the eastbound approach of the intersection of
Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace.
Based on the posted speed limit of Cowan Rd, Dillard St and Rosser Terrace (25 mph) a right-
turn deceleration lane is not warranted as the threshold is not applicable for roads with speed
limits smaller than 35 mph.
9. Capacity Analysis
The study intersections were analyzed for each scenario following the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM 6th edition) methodologies using the computer software Synchro 10. The analysis
uses capacity, Level of Service, and control delay as the criteria for the performance of the
driveways.
Capacity, as defined by the HCM, is a measure of the maximum number of vehicles in an hour
that can travel through an intersection or section of roadway under typical conditions. Level of
Service (LOS) is a marker of the driving conditions and perception of drivers while traveling
during the given time period. LOS ranges from LOS A which represents free flow conditions,
to LOS F which represents breakdown conditions.
Table 4 shows the LOS for unsignalized intersections as defined by the HCM.
Table 4 HCM Level of Service Criteria
Page |7
Bowman.com
Page 228 of 433
Control delay is a measure of the total amount of delay experienced by an individual vehicle
and includes delay related to deceleration, queue delay, stopped delay, and acceleration.
Table 4 displays the amount of control delay (in seconds per vehicle) that corresponds to the
LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Conditions (Year 2023)
Capacity Analyses were conducted for the No Build and Build conditions (year 2023). The
primary purpose for this approach was to compare the results to identify areas impacted by
the proposed development. The capacity results are included in Appendix F.
Table 5 2022 AM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis

No Build Build Build Improved
L 8.3 A 8.2 A 8.2 A
T 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
EB
TR 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
L 0.0 A 7.8 A 7.8 A
1 Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way T 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
WB
R 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
NB Approach 10.7 B 10.9 B 10.9 B
SB Approach 9.7 A 9.7 A 9.7 A
Intersection - 0.6 A 0.9 A 0.9 A
L 4.4 A 7.6 A
T 5.7 A 9.7 A
EB
TR 5.7 A 9.7 A
L 4.9 A 8.3 A
T 0.3 A 0.4 A
WB
L 68.2 E 57.5 E
SB TR 65.2 E 54.6 D
Approach 66.3 E 55.7 E
Intersection - 8.3 A 13.6 B
L 100.8 F 96.0 F
T 0.3 A 0.3 A
EB
TR 0.3 A 0.3 A
L 102.5 F 102.5 F
WB
TR 5.2 A 5.6 A
Page |8
Bowman.com
Page 229 of 433
Based on the results of the capacity analysis during the morning peak hour, all intersections
are projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the No Build and Build
Conditions.
Cowan Rd are expected to operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build Conditions. The
northbound and southbound approaches of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker
Industrial Rd are expected to operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build Conditions. The
eastbound and westbound left-turning movements of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd with
Tucker Industrial Rd are expected to operate at a LOS F during both No Build and Build
Conditions, minimal increases in delays are expected at the above-mentioned turning
movements and approaches.
Table 6 2023 PM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis

No Build Build Build Improved
L 8.3 A 8.2 A 8.2 A
T 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
EB
TR 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
L 9.1 A 9.6 A 9.6 A
1 Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way T 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
WB
R 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
NB Approach 15.2 C 16.7 C 16.7 C
SB Approach 10.2 B 10.1 B 10.1 B
Intersection - 0.5 A 0.8 A 0.8 A
L 9.3 A 13.7 B 13.2 B
T 16.7 B 24.5 C 23.6 C
EB
TR 16.7 B 24.5 C 23.5 C
Approach 15.9 B 23.4 C 22.5 C
L 12.1 B 18.1 B 17.4 B
T 0.4 A 0.5 A 0.5 A
WB
2 Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway R 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A
NB Approach 74.2 E 84.8 F 74.1 E
L 57.6 E 48.1 D 49.2 D
SB TR 56.1 E 46.4 D 47.4 D
Approach 56.7 E 47.1 D 48.1 D
Intersection - 17.6 B 24.3 C 22.9 C
L 117.2 F 108.3 F
T 1.7 A 1.8 A
EB
TR 1.7 A 1.8 A
L 104.4 F 104.4 F
WB
TR 8.0 A 8.4 A
Approach 15.0 B 15.3 B
Page |9
Bowman.com
Page 230 of 433
Based on the results of the capacity analysis during the evening peak hour, all intersections are
projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the No Build and Build
Conditions.
The northbound approach of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd with Cowan Rd is expected
to degrade from LOS E under No Build Conditions to LOS F under Build Conditions, with an
increase in delay of 10.6 seconds.
Tucker Industrial Rd are expected to operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build
Conditions; the eastbound and westbound left-turning movements of the intersection of Hugh
Howell Rd with Tucker Industrial Rd are expected to operate at a LOS F during both No Build
and Build Conditions, minimal increases in delays are expected at the above-mentioned
turning movements and approaches.
Proposed Improvements
Based on the results of the capacity analysis comparison between No Build and Build
Conditions, the following improvements are proposed:
Peak Hour.
Terrace.
Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Improved Conditions
A Capacity Analyses comparison was conducted for the No Build and Build Improved
conditions (year 2023). The primary purpose for this approach was to compare the results in
order to evaluate the effect of the proposed improvements. The capacity results are included
in Appendix F.
Table 7 2022 Morning Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Comparison No Build vs Improved Conditions
No Build Build Improved
L 8.3 A 8.2 A
T 0.0 A 0.0 A
EB
TR 0.0 A 0.0 A
L 0.0 A 7.8 A
1 Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way T 0.0 A 0.0 A
WB
R 0.0 A 0.0 A
NB Approach 10.7 B 10.9 B
SB Approach 9.7 A 9.7 A
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, during the morning peak hour, the intersection of
Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace is expected to experience acceptable overall LOS A under
P a g e | 10
Bowman.com
Page 231 of 433
Build Improved conditions. All approaches and turning movements are expected to maintain
acceptable LOS.
Table 8 2022 Evening Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Comparison No Build vs Improved Conditions
No Build Build Improved
L 8.3 A 8.2 A
T 0.0 A 0.0 A
EB
TR 0.0 A 0.0 A
L 9.1 A 9.6 A
1 Hugh Howell Rd & Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way T 0.0 A 0.0 A
WB
R 0.0 A 0.0 A
NB Approach 15.2 C 16.7 C
SB Approach 10.2 B 10.1 B
L 9.3 A 13.2 B
T 16.7 B 23.6 C
EB
TR 16.7 B 23.5 C
Approach 15.9 B 22.5 C
L 12.1 B 17.4 B
T 0.4 A 0.5 A
WB
L 57.6 E 49.2 D
SB TR 56.1 E 47.4 D
Approach 56.7 E 48.1 D
Intersection - 17.6 B 22.9 C
Based on the results of the capacity analysis, during the evening peak hour, the intersection of
Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace is expected to experience acceptable overall LOS A under
Build Improved conditions. All approaches and turning movements are expected to maintain
acceptable LOS.
During the evening peak hour, the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre
Driveway is expected to experience acceptable overall LOS C under Build Improved
conditions. The northbound approach is anticipated to operate at LOS E under both No Build
and Build Improved Conditions with no increase in delay. All approaches and turning
movements are expected to maintain acceptable LOS.
Queueing Analysis
The queue length of the turn lanes was analyzed to observe if it exceeded the storage length
of the turn lanes. The queue length was extracted from the Synchro 10 HCM 6th Edition Reports
P a g e | 11
Bowman.com
Page 232 of 433
using the 95th Percentile Queue. The queue lengths are presented in Appendix F. Table 9
summarizes the queue results.
Table 9 Queueing Analysis Comparison
Based on the 95th% queue results, for the morning peak hour, no storage lengths are exceeded
with the inclusion of the proposed development.
Based on the 95th% queue results, for the evening peak hour the storage length of the
southbound left-turn lane of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Cowan Rd/The Centre
Driveway is expected to be exceeded under No Build, Build and Build Improved Conditions,
with no increase in queue length. During the evening peak hour, the westbound left-turn lane
of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd & Tucker Industrial Rd is expected to be exceeded under
both No Build and Build Conditions, with no increase in queue length under Build Conditions.
10. Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results of the trip generation assessment prepared by Bowman Consulting, the
proposed development is expected to generate a total of 261 trips during the morning peak
hour and 285 trips during the evening peak hour. It is anticipated that during the morning peak
hour 128 of these are existing trips, the remaining 133 are expected to be primary trips. During
the evening peak hour, it is anticipated that 143 are existing trips and 142 are new trips.
The study found that based on the City of Tucker Code of Ordinances, a right turn lane is
warranted at the eastbound approach of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser
Terrace.
The results of the No Build Vs Build conditions capacity analysis comparison indicate the
following:
All intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during
the No Build and Build Conditions. No changes in LOS and minimal increases in delays are
expected on all approaches of the analysis intersection.
P a g e | 12
Bowman.com
Page 233 of 433
All intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during
the No Build and Build Conditions.
The northbound approach of the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd with Cowan Rd is

expected to degrade from LOS E under No Build Conditions to LOS F under Build
Conditions, with an increase in delay of 10.6 seconds.
The following improvements are proposed:

Peak Hour.
Terrace.
The results of the No Build Vs Build Improved conditions capacity analysis indicate the
following:

The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace is expected to experience
acceptable overall LOS A under Build Improved conditions. All approaches and turning

The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace is expected to experience
acceptable overall LOS A under Build Improved conditions. All approaches and turning
The intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway is expected to
experience acceptable overall LOS C under Build Improved conditions. The northbound
approach is anticipated to operate at LOS E under both No Build and Build Improved
Conditions with no increase in delay. All other approaches and movements in this
intersection are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Build
Improved Conditions.
Based on the results of the capacity, turn lane and queueing analysis, the proposed Chick-Fil-
A at 4431 Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA is not expected to adversely impact the surrounding
roadway network provided the proposed improvements mentioned on this report.
P a g e | 13
Bowman.com
Page 234 of 433
APPENDIX A
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 235 of 433
D ST
R
DILLA
H
R
U
E
LLAY
G
H
FUW
(G
EO V D
H
SP
RGAR LI
(
Chick-fil-A
O
EE
IAIAB MI
5200 BUFFINGTON RD
W
H LE T: 4
IG R 5
EL
H /W M
2998
W ) PH
AY
L
35
23
RO
.0
'
0'
6)
.
34
AD

TOMANELLI, LLC

Phone: (678) 374-6687
59
4,9 ARK E: X
P1 S.F. 40 C XX'
P FF
89 S - XX.
3-S - 1 AR
E-L 04 ST
AR SEA AC
GE TS K
12.0'
12.0'
24.0'
SCOTT L. NELSON
T
WANDA H. NELSON
10
CHICK-FIL-A
.0'
24

7
RACE
LARRY SHAMBLIN
RELOTUCKER FSU
TUCKER, GA 30084
BETTY H. SHAMBLIN 34.0'
9 7
PH
8
ROSSER TER
18.0'
: 25 M
26.0' 18.0' 18.0' 26.0' 18.0'
(50' R/W)
SPEED LIMIT
5
FSU# 04959
15.0'
24.0'
REVISION SCHEDULE
7 6
DATE February 14, 2022

PERMIT
DRAWN BY
BCG
SHEET
DILLARD ST
ACCESS EXHIBIT
SHEET NUMBER
EX-1.1
Page 236 of 433
APPENDIX B
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 237 of 433
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CHICK-FIL-A, TUCKER, GA
Scoping Meeting Date: Electronic Coordination
Applicant's Consultant: Bowman Consulting Group
Applicant's Contact information: Andrew J Petersen (321 -270 - 8987 / [email protected])
Daniela Jurado (321 -270 - 8977 / [email protected])
(1) LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: 4431 Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA 30084, See Figure 1.
Municipality: City of Tucker, GA
County DeKalb County
(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:

The proposed development comprises a 4,989 square feet Fast-food restaurant with drive-thru window with 44 car stack, located at 4431
Hugh Howell Rd in the city of Tucker, Georgia. Access to the development will be provided by one (1) full-access driveway along Rosser
Terrace.
Trip generation rates were extracted from the Institute of Transportation Engineers 10th Edition. The trip generation is presented in Table
1. The proposed Trip Distribution is presented in Figure 2.
(3) PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT:

The purpose for the study is threefold: to determine the number of trips generated by the proposed site; to determine the potential
impact, if any, of the proposed development on the roadway network; to propose improvements, if required.
Capacity analyses will be prepared for the No Build, Build conditions, and Build Conditions with Improvements (if required). Turn lane
warrant analyses will be completed at the intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace. The results of the study will be summarized
in a report document with graphics and back up data.
(4) DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE:
Anticipated Opening Date: 2022
Analysis Date: 2022
(5) STUDY INTERSECTIONS (See Figure 2):

-Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd (Signalized Intersection)
-Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd (Singalized Intersection)
(6) STUDY AREA TYPE: Urban: x Rural:
(7) ANALYSIS PERIODS AND TIMES:

AM Peak hour 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
PM Peak hour 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
1 ........
Page 238 of 433

(8) TRAFFIC ADJUSTMENT FACTORS:
(a) Seasonal Adjustment: To be determined upon coordination
Approximate Growth average from AADT's

(b) Annual Base Traffic Growth: See Table 2 Source: GDOT Traffic Count Data online
(9) OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN STUDY AREA TO BE ADDED TO BASE TRAFFIC:
To be determined upon coordination
(10) APPROVAL OF DATA COLLECTION ELEMENTS AND METHODOLOGIES:

Proposed Location Period (Avg Day) Type
-Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace AM/PM Turning Movement Counts
-Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd AM/PM Turning Movement Counts
-Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd AM/PM Turning Movement Counts
(11) CAPACITY/LOS ANALYSIS

Location Period (Avg Day) Type
-Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace AM/PM Synchro (HCS)
-Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd AM/PM Synchro (HCS)
-Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd AM/PM Synchro (HCS)
(12) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS/MODIFICATIONS BY OTHERS TO BE INCLUDED:
To be determine upon coordination
(13) OTHER NEEDED ANALYSES:
(a) Signal Warrant Analysis:

No
(b) Required Signal Phasing/Timing Modifications:

TBD
(c) Analysis of the Need for Turning Lanes:

(d) Turning Lane Lengths:

95th Percentile Synchro Queue
(14) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT:
2 ........
Page 239 of 433

FIGURE 1
2021 © Google Earth
FIGURE 2 Proposed trip distribution
2020 © Google Maps
3 ........
Page 240 of 433

TABLE 1
Land Use Peak Hour Trips Pass by(2) Primary
Land Use Size Daily Trips Period
Code(1) In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
AM 102 99 201 50 49 99 52 50 102
Fast Food restaurant with Drive thru 934 4,989 SF 2,350
PM 85 78 163 43 39 82 42 39 81
(1) Pass-By rates of 49% for the AM Peak Hour and 50% for the PM Peak Hour were extracted from the ITE Trip Generation Handb ook, 3rd Edition
TABLE 2
Avg Growth Applied
Roadway From to 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019
rate Growth rate
Hugh Howell Rd Lawrenceville Hwy Mountain Industrial Blvd 21,700 22,400 25,600 25,600 24,400 3.2% 14.3% 0.0% -4.7% 3.2% 3.2%
Rosser Terrace N/A N/A - - - - - - - - - No Data 0.5%
Tucker Industrial Rd N/A N/A - - - - - - - - - No Data 0.5%
Cowan Rd N/A N/A - - - - - - - - - No Data 0.5%
Source: Approximate Growth average from 2015-2019 AADT's GDOT Traffic Count Database System (TCDS).
https://gdottrafficdata.drakewell.com/publicmultinodemap.asp
A 0.5% minimum growth rate for the roads was assumed based on the City of Tucker population growth rate.
4 ........
Page 241 of 433

Rodrigo Meirelles

To: Daniela Jurado
Cc: Andrew Petersen; Rodrigo Meirelles
Yes, these will be a good representation.

CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645

Good Afternoon Ken,
We received some trip generation information today of some CFA locations in the Great Atlanta area, average weekday
(M-Th) information from 2 months in 2019 and February 2021 when school was in session. The locations are the
following:
1- 2580 Piedmont Rd
2- 2340 N Druid Hills Rd
3- 1100 Northside Dr
Sincerely,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762

1
Page 242 of 433
What is the ADT on the street in Miami?

Is it a comparable site?

CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645

Good Afternoon Ken,
For the trip generation of the CFA we have conducted a trip generation study for a CFA in the Miami Dade area. Is it
possible for us to use this trip generation study results to evaluate the trip generation for this site?
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
From: Daniela Jurado

Subject: RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
2
Page 243 of 433
DeKalb County maintains our traffic signals. You may be able to get this information from Demetria Allen.
[email protected]

CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645

Subject: [External]RE: [External]RE: [External]RE: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Good Morning Ken,
Is there a way we can get the signal phasing and timings for the intersections of Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd
and Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd?
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762

No further comments at this time.
3
Page 244 of 433
CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645

Thank you Ken,
We will start working on the best locations to get this data collected. Besides the trip generation, is there any other
comments on the proposed methodology?
Sincerely,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762

Again, I think that a Chick fil-A is a different animal and is not accurately represented in this trip generation category.

CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645
4
Page 245 of 433
Good Morning Ken,
Would it be possible for us to use the ITE mean values plus one standard deviation. That would leave the following trip
generation:
Would you agree with this approach?
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762

To: Rodrigo Meirelles <[email protected]>; Courtney Smith <[email protected]>; Kylie Thomas
<[email protected]>
Rodrigo,
A Chick fil-A restaurant is rather unique and does not fit in the mold of Code 934 for a Fast Food Restaurant. Actual trip
generation will be significantly higher. A more accurate estimate would be to provide counts at an existing comparably
sized Chick fil-A.
You can call me at the number below with any questions.
5
Page 246 of 433
CITY ENGINEER
M: 770-865-5645

Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:18 AM
To: Ken Hildebrandt <[email protected]>; Courtney Smith <[email protected]>; Kylie Thomas
<[email protected]>
Subject: [External]Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination
Good Morning Ken, Courtney, and Kylie,
a Current Site Plan.
We want to schedule a meeting with the City of Tucker to verify that our methodology for this Traffic Impact Study is
Sincerely,

Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
6
Page 247 of 433
Rodrigo Meirelles

To: Mathis, Renaldo M
Cc: Daniela Jurado; Andrew Petersen
That will work, thank you very much Renaldo. Can you please include Daniela Jurado ([email protected]) and
Andrew Petersen ([email protected]) to the meeting invite as well?
Sincerely,

Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
[email protected]

I will set the meeting on Microsoft teams for Tuesday at 1.
Thanks,
Renaldo M. Mathis
Civil Engineer II

Chamblee, GA, 30341
770.216.3993 office
404.655.8946 mobile

Hello Renaldo,
1
Page 248 of 433
Sorry for misspelling your name at first. Either one of these days will work for us. Let us know what time works best for
you and your manager.
Thank you,

Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
[email protected]

Good morning Rodrigo,
I can set a meeting for sometime early next week if that works for you. I m going to speak with my manager to see what
times work best based on the day you prefer. I’m thinking sometime Monday or Tuesday. How does these dates sound
to you?
Thanks,
Renaldo M. Mathis
Civil Engineer II

Chamblee, GA, 30341
770.216.3993 office
404.655.8946 mobile

I wanted to follow up on my previous email and see if you received my previous email with the attached methodology
for this project, and if there is any additional information you require for the TIA of this project.
Please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you in advance,
2
Page 249 of 433
Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
[email protected]

Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 2:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Chick-fil-A Tucker Methodology Coordination - GDOT
the most recent Site Plan.
We want to schedule a meeting with the GDOT to verify that our methodology for this Traffic Impact Study is
Sincerely,

Engineer I | BOWMAN
O: (321) 270-8905
Georgia is a state of natural beauty. And it’s a state that spends millions each year cleaning up litter that not only mars
that beauty, but also affects road safety, the environment and the economy. Do your part – don’t litter. How can you play
an active role in protecting the splendor of the Peach State? Find out at http://keepgaclean.com/.
3
Page 250 of 433
APPENDIX C
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 251 of 433
50 36 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 4 8.3

Peak 15-Min: 8:30 AM -- 8:45 AM
31 0 19 0 0 10.5
741 27 10 716 2.3 7.4 10 2.4

414 0.93 706 3.4 2.3
441 0 0 435 3.6 0 0 3.7
3 0 2 33.3 0 0
0 5 0 20
1
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0
1 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
7:00 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 1 59 0 0 0 118 5 0 194
7:15 AM 2 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 1 87 0 0 0 124 2 0 226
7:30 AM 2 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 11 60 0 0 1 167 3 0 252
7:45 AM 4 0 1 0 5 0 12 0 2 98 1 0 0 165 3 0 291 963
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 4 100 0 0 0 170 2 0 286 1055
8:15 AM 1 0 1 0 4 0 8 0 6 103 0 0 0 168 4 0 295 1124
8:30 AM 1 0 0 0 7 0 8 0 5 107 0 0 0 196 2 0 326 1198
8:45 AM 1 0 1 0 5 0 8 0 11 104 0 1 0 172 2 0 305 1212
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 4 0 0 0 28 0 32 0 20 428 0 0 0 784 8 0 1304
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 4 0 24
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
2521 ofof1 433
72 69 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM 5.6 5.8

Peak 15-Min: 4:00 PM -- 4:15 PM
41 0 31 9.8 0 0
817 28 41 812 3.2 3.6 7.3 3.1

1187 0.96 769 3.4 2.9
1230 15 2 1220 3.3 0 0 3.3
6 1 2 0 0 0
17 9 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 11 0 3 315 3 0 0 203 8 0 552
4:15 PM 2 0 0 0 9 0 6 0 12 294 3 0 1 196 12 0 535
4:30 PM 3 0 1 0 6 0 11 0 4 329 6 0 0 169 11 0 540
4:45 PM 1 1 1 0 7 0 13 0 8 249 3 1 1 201 10 0 496 2123
5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 6 0 11 0 2 285 6 0 0 187 9 0 507 2078
5:15 PM 3 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 7 332 2 0 1 193 11 0 567 2110
5:30 PM 2 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 7 302 2 0 0 165 9 0 500 2070
5:45 PM 1 0 1 0 1 1 7 0 9 316 7 0 0 189 5 0 537 2111
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 36 0 44 0 12 1260 12 0 0 812 32 0 2208
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 32 0 0 32 4 72
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
2531 ofof1 433
58 87 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 3.4 0

Peak 15-Min: 8:45 AM -- 9:00 AM
32 5 21 0 0 9.5
752 46 34 750 3.7 0 0 3.7

394 0.93 698 4.6 4
451 11 18 446 4.2 9.1 0 4.5
22 7 31 0 0 0
34 60 2.9 0
1
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
1 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Totals
7:00 AM 2 0 7 0 0 2 1 0 8 52 3 0 3 125 2 0 205
7:15 AM 4 2 8 0 4 0 3 0 5 74 1 0 6 122 7 0 236
7:30 AM 4 0 5 0 3 0 6 0 8 63 4 0 7 161 5 0 266
7:45 AM 4 1 3 0 4 4 4 0 7 91 2 1 6 174 3 0 304 1011
8:00 AM 8 2 9 0 3 3 7 0 11 90 0 0 6 163 11 0 313 1119
8:15 AM 3 3 8 0 6 0 7 0 13 95 4 0 3 170 3 0 315 1198
8:30 AM 4 1 4 0 6 1 6 0 6 99 3 0 6 190 9 0 335 1267
8:45 AM 7 1 10 0 6 1 12 0 16 110 4 0 3 175 11 0 356 1319
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 28 4 40 0 24 4 48 0 64 440 16 0 12 700 44 0 1424
Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 16 4 0 32 0 56
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
2541 ofof1 433
232 260 Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM 0.4 0.4

Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM
85 42 105 0 0 1
772 146 68 741 2.2 0 1.5 2.4

1109 0.93 632 3.2 2.7
1295 40 41 1262 2.7 0 0 3
53 48 48 0 0 4.2
123 149 0 1.3
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A

Totals
4:00 PM 11 6 13 0 18 7 29 0 37 291 18 0 15 181 17 0 643
4:15 PM 18 5 19 0 23 14 29 0 37 260 7 0 9 159 22 0 602
4:30 PM 9 11 11 0 19 5 15 0 35 301 5 0 14 159 13 0 597
4:45 PM 13 7 11 0 26 9 25 0 29 228 10 0 11 175 24 0 568 2410
5:00 PM 11 13 8 0 24 6 15 0 46 268 16 0 8 153 17 0 585 2352
5:15 PM 15 12 15 0 22 10 24 0 36 296 9 1 10 183 16 0 649 2399
5:30 PM 13 8 17 0 25 14 19 0 37 258 8 1 12 144 17 0 573 2375
5:45 PM 14 15 8 0 34 12 27 0 25 287 7 0 11 152 18 0 610 2417
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 60 48 60 0 88 40 96 0 144 1184 36 4 40 732 64 0 2596
Heavy Trucks 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 4 0 44
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
2551 ofof1 433
17 32 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 0 6.3

Peak 15-Min: 8:30 AM -- 8:45 AM
9 2 6 0 0 0
727 5 21 697 4 0 9.5 4

333 0.90 644 5.4 3.4
389 51 32 364 5.1 3.9 12.5 5.8
74 6 25 9.5 0 12
85 105 7.1 9.5
1
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 1 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
7:00 AM 10 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 17 0 16 115 1 0 214
7:15 AM 11 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 2 68 11 0 13 124 2 0 241
7:30 AM 29 0 6 0 1 1 0 0 2 50 11 0 10 133 5 0 248
7:45 AM 13 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 89 10 0 19 162 4 0 303 1006
8:00 AM 19 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 80 11 0 10 156 3 0 289 1081
8:15 AM 21 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 1 89 5 0 8 145 4 0 281 1121
8:30 AM 14 3 10 0 0 1 4 0 1 81 19 0 6 184 11 0 334 1207
8:45 AM 20 1 9 0 1 1 3 0 0 83 16 0 8 159 3 0 304 1208
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 56 12 40 0 0 4 16 0 4 324 76 0 24 736 44 0 1336
Heavy Trucks 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 32 0 4 8 4 56
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
2561 ofof1 433
42 11 Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM 4.8 9.1

Peak 15-Min: 4:00 PM -- 4:15 PM
4 10 28 0 0 7.1
775 5 6 694 2.8 20 0 3.3

967 0.95 638 2.7 2.8
1167 195 50 1070 2.5 1 10 3.6
132 1 75 3 0 13.3
255 208 2.7 6.7
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
2 0 0 0
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
4:00 PM 41 0 21 0 11 3 0 0 2 240 51 1 16 164 3 0 553
4:15 PM 33 0 18 0 3 4 0 0 1 248 54 0 15 160 2 0 538
4:30 PM 31 1 20 0 3 2 3 0 0 262 40 0 8 148 0 0 518
4:45 PM 27 0 16 0 11 1 1 0 1 217 50 0 11 166 1 0 502 2111
5:00 PM 27 1 15 0 4 2 1 0 0 259 48 0 11 160 2 0 530 2088
5:15 PM 38 1 10 0 4 5 2 0 2 247 62 0 11 142 1 0 525 2075
5:30 PM 30 1 14 0 7 5 2 0 3 250 51 0 8 134 3 0 508 2065
5:45 PM 26 0 11 0 3 3 0 0 0 249 59 0 8 162 2 0 523 2086
Flowrates Total
All Vehicles 164 0 84 0 44 12 0 0 8 960 204 4 64 656 12 0 2212
Heavy Trucks 4 0 12 4 0 0 0 28 0 4 24 0 76
Buses
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:
PagePage
2571 ofof1 433
Project ID: 22-180036-001
City: Tucker Date: 3/1/2022
Groups Printed - Cars, PU, Vans - Heavy Trucks

Start Time Left Thru Rgt Uturn Peds App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn Peds App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn Peds App. Total Left Thru Rgt Uturn Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 1 0 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 13 2 3 0 0 0 5 24
7:15 AM 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 1 8 0 0 0 9 32
7:30 AM 0 0 7 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 4 7 0 0 0 11 26
7:45 AM 5 0 6 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 27 4 10 0 0 0 14 52
Total 6 0 32 0 2 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 57 11 28 0 0 0 39 134
8:00 AM 2 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 14 3 9 0 0 0 12 33
8:15 AM 2 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 14 1 20 0 0 0 21 41
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 1 17 1 9 0 0 0 10 29
8:45 AM 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 2 13 0 0 0 15 29
Total 4 0 15 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 2 0 1 55 7 51 0 0 0 58 132
***BREAK***
4:00 PM 2 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 2 0 0 45 4 20 0 0 0 24 78
4:15 PM 0 0 6 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 1 0 1 45 3 15 0 0 0 18 69
4:30 PM 0 0 8 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 2 0 1 40 3 28 0 0 0 31 79
4:45 PM 1 0 10 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 0 0 24 5 26 0 1 0 32 67
Total 3 0 31 0 3 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 6 0 2 154 15 89 0 1 0 105 293
5:00 PM 0 0 5 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 0 27 7 28 0 0 2 35 67
5:15 PM 2 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 36 6 30 0 0 0 36 80
5:30 PM 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 2 0 0 37 7 20 0 0 0 27 76
5:45 PM 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 0 0 38 7 19 0 0 0 26 70
Total 2 0 29 0 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 4 0 0 138 27 97 0 0 2 124 293
Grand Total 15 0 107 0 6 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392 12 0 3 404 60 265 0 1 2 326 852

Apprch % 12.3 0.0 87.7 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.0 3.0 0.0 0.7 18.4 81.3 0.0 0.3 0.6
Total % 1.8 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.7 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 1.4 0.0 0.4 47.4 7.0 31.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 38.3
Cars, PU, Vans 15 0 105 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 382 10 0 392 60 255 0 1 316 828
% Cars, PU, Vans 100.0 0.0 98.1 0.0 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.4 83.3 0.0 97.0 100.0 96.2 0.0 100.0 96.9 97.2
Heavy trucks 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 12 0 10 0 0 10 24
%Heavy trucks 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 16.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.8
Page 258 of 433

Project ID: 22-180036-001
City: Tucker PEAK HOURS Date: 3/1/2022
AM
Peak Hour Analysis from 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
7:45 AM 5 0 6 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 27 4 10 0 0 14 52
8:00 AM 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 14 3 9 0 0 12 33
8:15 AM 2 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 1 20 0 0 21 41
8:30 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 17 1 9 0 0 10 29
Total Volume 9 0 17 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 0 72 9 48 0 0 57 155
% App. Total 34.6 0.0 65.4 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 97.2 2.8 0.0 100 15.8 84.2 0.0 0.0 100
PHF 0.591 0.667 0.679 0.745
Cars, PU, Vans 9 0 17 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 1 0 68 9 44 0 0 53 147
% Cars, PU, Vans 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.7 50.0 0.0 94.4 100.0 91.7 0.0 0.0 93.0 94.8
Heavy trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 8
%Heavy trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 50.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 5.2
PM
Peak Hour Analysis from 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM
5:00 PM 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 0 27 7 28 0 0 35 67
5:15 PM 2 0 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 36 6 30 0 0 36 80
5:30 PM 0 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 2 0 37 7 20 0 0 27 76
5:45 PM 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 1 0 38 7 19 0 0 26 70
Total Volume 2 0 29 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 4 0 138 27 97 0 0 124 293
% App. Total 6.5 0.0 93.5 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 97.1 2.9 0.0 100 21.8 78.2 0.0 0.0 100
PHF 0.646 0.908 0.861 0.916
Cars, PU, Vans 2 0 29 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 3 0 137 27 97 0 0 124 292
% Cars, PU, Vans 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 75.0 0.0 99.3 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.7
Heavy trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
%Heavy trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Page 259 of 433

APPENDIX D
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 260 of 433
Co
wa
n
Rd
(1
48
)/5
3
9/(33) (6
)/2
51
Dillard St 7/
/( 9
7)
(34)/19 (2
7)
(3)/4
(31)/15
(1
(4
11
1)
5)
/1
(1
1
/4
0
38
7
)/4
6
32
(5 /( 9
1) 5/ 8)
/22 (3
(2 21 5)
9)
(5 /7
Driveway 2
/( 8
4) 6)
/31
19
/( 5
72
1)
0/
34
(6
/( 7
96
)
6)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(1
(1
22
5)
5)
/0
/4
(2
2
9)
7
/2
8

31
(9)/5 /( 4
0/ 1)
(0
(6 19 )
)/3 /( 3
(1 1)
)/0
(2
)/2
0/
(2
)
72
9/
10
(7
/( 4
94
)
2)
Page 261 of 433

Fu
lle
r W
ay
9/(4)
2/(10)
(5)/5
(998)/344
(201)/53
(133)/74
(1)/6
22/(6)
(75)/25
33/(52)
665/(658)
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
2022 Traffic Volumes Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Page 262 of 433
Co
wa
n
Rd
35
%
50%
Dillard St 15
%
35%
65%
100%
15
%
10
%
25
%
Driveway 2
40
%
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
10
%
40
%
50%
Rosser Terrace
40
%
Page 263 of 433

Fu
lle
r W
ay
5%
5%
5%
30%
5%
30%
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
Primary Trip Distribution Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
-5
%
-5% 5%
35% -5
Dillard St %
35
-5% %
5%
5% 95%
5%
95%
30
%
-3
0%
50
%
Driveway 2
40
%
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
-4
0%
10
+4
%
0%
60%
Rosser Terrace
50
%
-5
0%
Page 264 of 433

Fu
lle
r W
ay
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
Pass-By Trip Distribution Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
(2
5 )/2
4
34/(37)
Dillard St 10
/(1
(24)/23 2)
(44)/42
65/(68)
(1
)/1 2
0
(7
/7 )
(1
7 )/1
6
Driveway 2
(2
7 )/2
6
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(7
(2
)
7
/7
)/2
6
34/(37)
Rosser Terrace
27
/(3
0)
Page 265 of 433

Fu
lle
r W
ay
3/(4)
(4)/3
(3)/3
(20)/20
(4)/4
20/(22)
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
Primary Trips Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
-(4
)/-
(4 3
)/3
26/(30) -3
Dillard St /-
23 (4)
/( 2
(3)/3 6)
(66)/60
63/(69)
2)
-(2
/2
2)
0
(2 /-20
(3
5)
/32
Driveway 2
(2
8)
/25
-3
3/
-(3
7)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(7
)/6
-(1
)/1
39/(44)
Rosser Terrace
33
-3
/( 3
3/
7)
-(3
7)
Page 266 of 433

Fu
lle
r W
ay
-(1)/-1
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
Pass-By Trips Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
-(4
)/-
(2
9) 3
/27
60/(67) -3
Dillard St /-
33 (4)
/( 3
(27)/26 8)
(110)/102
128/(137)
(3
4)
-(1
/3
5)
0
/-1
3
(5
2)
/48
Driveway 2
(5
5)
/51
-3
3/
-(3
7)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(1
4)
(2
/1
6)
3
/2
5
73/(81)
Rosser Terrace
60
-3
/( 6
3/
7)
-(3
7)
Page 267 of 433

Fu
lle
r W
ay
3/(4)
(19)/19
(3)/3
(4)/3
(4)/4
20/(22)
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
CFA Site Trips Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

Co
wa
n
Rd
(1
45
)/5
(3
5) 0
9/(33) /29
60/(67) 48
Dillard St 40
/( 9
3
(34)/19 /( 6 )
(30)/30 5)
(0)/0 (141)/117
0/(0)
128/(137)
(1
(7
6)
6)
/4
(1
1
3
/40
7
13 8)/4
6
32
(1 /( 9
03 5/ 8)
)/ (3
(2 70 21 5)
(1 9)
Driveway 2
09 /7 /( 8
)/8 6)
2
20
/( 5
71
3)
0/
34
(6
/( 7
81
)
6)
Th
e
Ce
SITE
nt
re
Dr
wy
Driveway 1
(1
(2
9)
0)
/1
3
(3
/46
6
73/(81)
29 0)/2
9

31
(9)/5 /( 4
0/ 1)
(0
(6 19 )
)/3 /( 3
(1 1)
)/0
(2
)/2
60
/( 6
71
9)
9/
10
(7
/( 4
82
)
3)
Page 268 of 433

Fu
lle
r W
ay
12/(8)
2/(10)
(1049)/374
(8)/8
(211)/58
(138)/78
(1)/6
23/(6)
(75)/25
34/(54)
706/(701)
Hugh Howell Rd

DSGN
SCALE

EXHIBIT
2023 Build Traffic Volumes Suite 144

Melbourne, FL 32934
DRAWN
Phone: (321) 255-5434

PROJECT NUMBER

NOT TO SCALE
CHKD

APPENDIX E
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 269 of 433
To: Chick-fil-A, Inc.
From: Andrew J. Petersen, P.E. - Director
Daniela Jurado – Analyst
Rodrigo Meirelles -Analyst
Date: 06/18/2021
Re: Chick-Fil-A – Trip Generation Memorandum
Bowman Consulting has been retained by Chick-fil-A, Inc. to perform a Trip Generation at three
fully operational Chick-Fil-A (CFA) Restaurants to determine the expected morning and evening
peak hour trip generation rates for this facilities.
The purposes of the trip generation and stacking assessment are as follows:
• Determine the appropriate independent variable to assess the applicable CFA trip
generation rates.
• Determine the expected trip generation rates for the CFA based on data collected from
three existing CFA Sites.
• Determine if the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates are
consistent with calculated expected number of vehicular trips on the proposed CFA.
• Select the appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed CFA.
Selected Sites
For the preparation of this assessment, three Chick-Fil-A sites have been evaluated. The following
criteria has been considered for the site selection:
• Type of Facility (Chick-Fil-A Restaurant)

• Operation (Drive-thru and Indoor sitting)
• Location of the facilities
The following sites were selected for the data collection.
• Chick-Fil A Piedmont
Location 1 • Address: 2580 Piedmont Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30324
• Chick-Fil A Druid Hills

Location 2 • Address: 2340 N Druid Hills Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30329
Page 270 of 433

Chick-Fil-A
• Chick-Fil A Northside Dr
Location 3 • Address: 1100 Northside Dr NW, Atlanta, GA 30318
• Surveyed Site Intensity: 4,450SF
Study Methodology
The study was based on average weekday entering/exiting volumes at each one of the selected
Chick-Fil-A locations provided by the Atlanta Department of Transportation. The information
corresponds to the average weekday data from two months in 2019 and February 2021 while
school was in session.
The procedures and evaluation for this assessment are in accordance with the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual Handbook, 3rd Edition. The ITE is the leading resource
for such data and provides traffic and parking related data for numerous land use and building
types. Additionally, ITE provides trip and parking generation procedures to determine site specific
trip and parking generation rates.
Data Collection
• Site specific data for existing Chick Fil A sites: Square Footage and location.
• Published GDOT AADT counts.
• ITE Trip Generation information and variables.
• Average trips generated by the surveyed Chick Fil A sites provided by the Atlanta
Department of Transportation, see Attachment A.
Trip Generation Data

Table 1 displays the trip generation data collected on the three existing sites.
Table 1. Collected Trip Generation Data

Square Adjacent Street
Facility Location Time In Out Total
Footage ADTs
2580 Piedmont Rd NE, AM 221 221 442
CFA 5,200 44,100
Atlanta, GA 30324 PM 202 202 404
AM 184 248 432
2340 N Druid Hills Rd NE
CFA 4,550 56,300 Noon 306 412 718
Atlanta, GA 30329
PM 192 308 500
AM 262 262 524
1100 Northside Dr NW
CFA 4,450 30,300 Noon 263 263 526
Atlanta, GA 30318
PM 164 164 328
To assess the trip generation rates for the Chick-Fil-A two independent variables were evaluated:
Gross Floor Area (GFA), AADT Adjacent Street.
To select the independent variables, the best fitted curve models were evaluated based on the
conceptual validity of signs of the equations and goodness of fit. The results of these evaluation
are presented in Table 2.
P a g e |2
Page 271 of 433
Chick-Fil-A
Table 2. Trip Generation Model evaluation

Model Independent Variable Equation R2 Signs Conceptually Valid Acceptable Goodness of FIT
1,000 SF GFA y = -64.523x + 771.41 0.271 No No
AM Models
AADT of Adajacent Street y = -0.0036x + 622.44 0.8563 No Yes
1,000 SF GFA y = 11.859x + 354.53 0.0031 Yes No
PM Models
AADT of Adajacent Street y = 0.0066x + 123.51 0.9895 Yes Yes
Models containing the GFA variable were found to be not conceptually valid, with equations that
reflect an inverse relationship between the GFA and the number of trips generated by the site and
unacceptable goodness of fit.
Models using AADT of Adjacent Street as independent variable show acceptable goodness of fit.
However, the AM model Based on AADT of adjacent street shows signs non conceptually valid,
Based on the results presented in Table 2 the Adjacent Street Traffic was selected as
independent variable for both the morning and evening peak hours.
Following the procedures presented on the ITE trip generation Handbook, Chapter 9 and
Appendix J, the use of the weighted average rate for the Morning peak was validated by
comparing the weighted standard deviation with the weighted Average trip rate. Table 3 presents
the validation for the use of weighted average for the morning peak hour trip rate.
Table 3. Validation of AM Weighted average trip generation

Value
Peak Hour
Location AADT of adjacent Steet Trip rate Value Value Squared weight Squared
AM
*weight
2580 Piedmont Rd 44,100 442 0.01002 0.00 0.0000005 0.34 0.00000015
2340 N Druid Hills Rd 56,300 432 0.00767 0.00 0.0000091 0.43 0.00000394
1100 Northside Dr 30,300 524 0.01729 0.01 0.0000435 0.23 0.00001009
Total 130,700.00 1,398.00 0.01070 - Variance 0.00001418
Weighted Sample Variance 0.00001773
Weighted Std Dev 0.00
Percentage of W StdDev 39%
Acceptable (less than 55% Trip Rate) Yes
As presented in Table 3 the standard deviation of the data falls in the allowable 55% threshold
according to the procedures presented on the ITE trip generation Handbook, Chapter 9 and
Appendix J, therefore, the use of weighted average trip generation rate is acceptable.
The selected trip generation equations for CFA facilities are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Trip Generation equations for CFA facilities

Model Independent Variable Equation
AM AADT of Adajacent Street Total AM CFA trips = 0.0107 x AADT of Adjacent Street
PM AADT of Adajacent Street Total PM CFA trips = 0.0066 x AADT of Adjacent Street + 123.51
The evening peak hour model is the resulting fitted curve with AADT of adjacent street as
independent variable. The trip generation rate for the morning peak hour is 0.0107 trips/AADT of
Adjacent Street Traffic.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Both, the morning and evening models containing the GFA variable were found to have
unacceptable goodness of fit, the morning models is not conceptually valid, with an
P a g e |3
Page 272 of 433
Chick-Fil-A
equation that reflects an inverse relationship between the GFA, and the number of trips
generated by the site.
• Models using AADT of Adjacent Street as independent variable show acceptable
goodness of fit.
• The evening peak hour model is fitted curve with AADT of adjacent street as independent
variable.
• The AM model Based on AADT of adjacent street shows signs non conceptually valid
• The evaluation of the data for the morning peak hour shows that the standard deviation of
the data falls in the allowable 55% threshold according to the procedures presented on
the ITE trip generation Handbook, Chapter 9 and Appendix J, therefore, the use of
weighted average trip generation rate is acceptable.
• The trip generation rate for the morning peak hour is 0.0107 trips/AADT of Adjacent Street
Traffic.
P a g e |4
Page 273 of 433
ATTACHMENT A
Appendix
Page 274 of 433
To: Daniela Jurado; Rodriguez, Juan C.; Moore, Clyde
Cc: Rodrigo Meirelles; Andrew Petersen; Bridgette Ganter; Smoot-Madison,
Betty; Brown, Barrington G.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Traffic Impact Study Methodology Chick-Fil-A Cheshire Bridge
Rd & Sheridan Rd
1100 Northside Dr
Have you contacted GDOT’s RTOP program or collected TMC’s already at the I-85 ramps? That data will
be more accurate than StreetLight Insight TMCs which are still in beta.

470-653-3016
[email protected]

Good Morning Chris,
Would it be possible to also pull out the Turning movements for Cheshire Bridge at I-85 ramps for the
am noon and pm?
Thank you,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
Page 275 of 433

Tucker is outside of our data licensing geographic limits.

I’ll pull the data from the Northside Dr site tomorrow.

470-653-3016
[email protected]

Thank you for the information. We would like to have the information for the following sites:
Location AADT
1100 Northside Dr NW 30,300
4340 Hugh Howell Rd, Tucker, GA 30084 25,300
The reason is, we also want to evaluate the trip generation based on the AADT of adjacent street.
Sincerely,
DANIELA JURADO
O: (321) 270-8905 | D: (321) 270-8977 | M: (786) 370-2762
Page 276 of 433

I think it depends on the site characteristics if the Miami site is similar.
I used our StreetLight Data Insight platform access to look at the number of trips entering two Chick-fil-A
locations in Atlanta. This is average weekday (M-Th) information from 2 months in 2019 and February
2021 when school was in session. The 1 standard deviation from the ITE land use code trip generation
seems too low for an accurate assessment of site impact. If you have a specific site location in Atlanta
that you think will be more representative of the conditions for the proposed site at Cheshire Bridge and
Sheridan Rd, let me know and I can pull data for those locations.
2580 Piedmont Rd
2340 N Druid Hills Rd

• AM Peak – 184 trips in, 248 trips out– 432 total trips
• Noon Peak – 306 trips in, 412 trips out – 718 total trips
• PM Peak – 192 trips in, 308 trips out – 500 total trips

470-653-3016
[email protected]

Good Afternoon Chris,
Page 277 of 433

APPENDIX F
Appendix
Bowman.com
Page 278 of 433
2023 NO BUILD CONDITIONS
Capacity Analysis
Page 279 of 433

1: Rosser Terrace/Fuller Way & Hugh Howell Rd 03/09/2022
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 474 0 0 809 11 3 0 2 20 0 33

Page 1
Page 280 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 441 0 0 752 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Future Vol, veh/h 29 441 0 0 752 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 100 - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 10 33 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 31 474 0 0 809 11 3 0 2 20 0 33

Stage 1 - - - - - - 537 537 - 810 810 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 405 821 - 299 537 -
Critical Hdwy 4.24 - - 4.1 - - 8.16 6.5 6.9 7.7 6.5 6.9
Follow-up Hdwy 2.27 - - 2.2 - - 3.83 4 3.3 3.6 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1139 - - *1369 - - *533 444 *912 *568 455 *796
Stage 1 - - - - - - *723 712 - *726 655 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *687 645 - *837 712 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1138 - - *1368 - - *500 431 *911 *554 442 *796
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *528 491 - *593 508 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *702 692 - *706 654 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *658 644 - *812 692 -
HCM LOS B A
Capacity (veh/h) 635 1138 - - * 1368 - - 796
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.027 - - - - - 0.042
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 8.3 - - 0 - - 9.7
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1
Notes

Page 2
Page 281 of 433

2: Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway & Hugh Howell Rd 03/09/2022
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 49 452 12 22 799 37 24 8 33 23 5 34
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 26.0 85.0 17.0 76.0 76.0 42.0 42.0 16.0 58.0
Total Split (%) 16.3% 53.1% 10.6% 47.5% 47.5% 26.3% 26.3% 10.0% 36.3%
Maximum Green (s) 19.8 78.9 11.7 69.9 69.9 35.5 35.5 9.9 51.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 126.1 121.8 123.8 118.1 118.1 9.6 19.0 18.6
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.18 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.55 0.17 0.19
Control Delay 5.0 7.1 4.5 8.0 0.1 58.3 60.5 21.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 5.0 7.1 4.5 8.0 0.1 58.3 60.5 21.6
LOS A A A A A E E C
Approach LOS A A E D
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.18 0.16 0.08

Page 3
Page 282 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 95

Page 4
Page 283 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 603 2612 69 759 2558 1177 56 17 43 148 24 161
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.76 0.76 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3452 92 1810 3497 1609 471 309 804 1668 211 1432
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 227 237 22 799 37 65 0 0 23 0 39
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 5.9 5.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 5.9 5.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.51 1.00 0.87
V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.31 0.03 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 757 1312 1369 856 2558 1177 376 0 0 218 0 529
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes

Page 5
Page 284 of 433

3: Tucker Industrial Rd & Hugh Howell Rd 03/09/2022
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 6 394 61 38 762 26 82 7 28 7 2 10
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 11.1 31.4 10.9 31.4 31.1 31.1 33.9 33.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 89.0 15.0 89.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0
Total Split (%) 9.4% 55.6% 9.4% 55.6% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
Maximum Green (s) 8.9 82.6 9.1 82.6 49.9 49.9 50.1 50.1
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.4 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.9
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 21.0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.2 116.9 9.1 127.0 17.8 18.0
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.18 0.42 0.29 0.72 0.10
Control Delay 67.4 9.2 85.4 5.6 85.2 38.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 67.4 9.2 85.4 5.6 85.2 38.4
LOS E A F A F D
Approach LOS A A F D
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.18 0.38 0.29 0.27 0.04

Page 6
Page 285 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 80

Page 7
Page 286 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Cap, veh/h 13 2297 353 48 2730 93 139 10 35 76 30 83
Arrive On Green 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.78 0.78 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3005 461 1640 3478 119 1099 104 378 489 333 913
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 226 229 38 386 402 117 0 0 19 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 9.6 9.7 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 9.6 9.7 11.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.06 0.70 0.24 0.37 0.53
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.17 0.17 0.80 0.28 0.28 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 1326 1324 93 1384 1440 523 0 0 545 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 0.3 0.3 25.3 0.5 0.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 8
Page 287 of 433

4: Dillard St & Cowan Rd 03/09/2022

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 72 3 9 69 5 20

Page 9
Page 288 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Future Vol, veh/h 53 2 7 51 4 15
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Mvmt Flow 72 3 9 69 5 20

Stage 1 - - - - 74 -
Stage 2 - - - - 88 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1537 - 834 993
Stage 1 - - - - 954 -
Stage 2 - - - - 940 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1537 - 828 993
Stage 1 - - - - 954 -
Stage 2 - - - - 933 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS A

Capacity (veh/h) 953 - - 1537 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - 0.006 -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Page 10
Page 289 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 1317 16 2 853 45 6 1 2 32 0 43

Page 1
Page 290 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 1264 15 2 819 43 6 1 2 31 0 41
Future Vol, veh/h 30 1264 15 2 819 43 6 1 2 31 0 41
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 100 - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 10
Mvmt Flow 31 1317 16 2 853 45 6 1 2 32 0 43

Stage 1 - - - - - - 1389 1389 - 857 857 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 431 902 - 721 1397 -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.1
Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.4
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *1118 - - *878 - - *187 *56 *585 *412 *62 *736
Stage 1 - - - - - - *551 *483 - *715 *626 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *715 *626 - *551 *477 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *1118 - - *876 - - *171 *54 *583 *400 *60 *736
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *343 *263 - *448 *268 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *535 *468 - *695 *624 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *672 *624 - *533 *462 -
HCM LOS C B
Capacity (veh/h) 364 * 1118 - - * 876 - - 736
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 0.028 - - 0.002 - - 0.058
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.2
Notes

Page 2
Page 291 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 1238 45 57 772 82 55 31 58 92 38 105
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 16.0 94.0 15.0 93.0 93.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 51.0
Total Split (%) 10.0% 58.8% 9.4% 58.1% 58.1% 22.5% 22.5% 9.4% 31.9%
Maximum Green (s) 9.8 87.9 9.7 86.9 86.9 29.5 29.5 8.9 44.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 111.0 102.9 105.1 97.2 97.2 19.4 34.8 34.4
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.57 0.21 0.36 0.08 0.76 0.41 0.35
Control Delay 10.2 18.8 8.7 13.6 0.5 82.2 55.8 23.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 10.2 18.8 8.7 13.6 0.5 82.2 55.8 23.1
LOS B B A B A F E C
Approach Delay 17.9 12.1 82.2 35.9
Approach LOS B B F D
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.57 0.19 0.36 0.08 0.52 0.40 0.29

Page 3
Page 292 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 95

Page 4
Page 293 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 540 2270 82 299 2234 1004 88 45 69 255 91 252
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3470 126 1810 3526 1585 510 403 616 1795 445 1231
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 629 654 57 772 82 144 0 0 92 0 143
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 30.7 30.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 11.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 30.7 30.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 11.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.40 1.00 0.73
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.55 0.55 0.19 0.35 0.08 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 572 1153 1199 357 2234 1004 311 0 0 255 0 466
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.9 1.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.8
LnGrp LOS A B B B A A E A A E A E
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 5
Page 294 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 5 1084 218 57 715 6 141 1 79 29 11 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 11.1 31.4 10.9 31.4 31.1 31.1 33.9 33.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 110.0 15.0 110.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 9.4% 68.8% 9.4% 68.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9%
Maximum Green (s) 8.9 103.6 9.1 103.6 28.9 28.9 29.1 29.1
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.4 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.9
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 21.0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.2 109.2 8.7 118.6 26.2 26.4
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.56 0.65 0.28 0.89 0.18
Control Delay 90.8 6.2 104.9 7.8 94.3 54.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 90.8 6.2 104.9 7.8 94.3 54.1
LOS F A F A F D
Approach Delay 6.5 14.9 94.3 54.1
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.56 0.61 0.28 0.81 0.17

Page 6
Page 295 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 80

Page 7
Page 296 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Cap, veh/h 10 2023 405 71 2604 22 191 1 86 175 64 20
Arrive On Green 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.73 0.73 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1527 2926 586 1668 3583 30 1024 7 573 915 423 134
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 651 651 57 352 369 221 0 0 44 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 10.9 10.9 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.4 10.9 10.9 21.6 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.02 0.64 0.36 0.66 0.09
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.80 0.27 0.27 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 85 1219 1210 95 1281 1345 325 0 0 307 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 38.4 1.7 1.7 28.5 0.5 0.5 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 8
Page 297 of 433


Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 162 7 29 105 3 34

Page 9
Page 298 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Future Vol, veh/h 149 6 27 97 3 31
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Mvmt Flow 162 7 29 105 3 34

Stage 1 - - - - 167 -
Stage 2 - - - - 164 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1420 - 668 880
Stage 1 - - - - 867 -
Stage 2 - - - - 870 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1419 - 652 877
Stage 1 - - - - 866 -
Stage 2 - - - - 850 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS A

Capacity (veh/h) 851 - - 1419 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - - 0.021 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 -

Page 10
Page 299 of 433

2023 BUILD CONDITIONS
Capacity Analysis
Page 300 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 501 14 65 773 11 3 0 2 20 0 33

Page 1
Page 301 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 466 13 60 719 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Future Vol, veh/h 29 466 13 60 719 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 100 - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 10 33 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 31 501 14 65 773 11 3 0 2 20 0 33

Stage 1 - - - - - - 571 571 - 904 904 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 517 915 - 313 578 -
Critical Hdwy 4.24 - - 4.1 - - 8.16 6.5 6.9 7.7 6.5 6.9
Follow-up Hdwy 2.27 - - 2.2 - - 3.83 4 3.3 3.6 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *1159 - - 1332 - - *533 333 *912 *568 337 *796
Stage 1 - - - - - - *681 684 - *609 577 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *687 569 - *837 678 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *1158 - - 1331 - - *482 308 *911 *534 311 *796
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *503 399 - *529 402 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *662 665 - *592 548 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *626 541 - *812 659 -
HCM LOS B A
Capacity (veh/h) 613 * 1158 - - 1331 - - 796
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 0.027 - - 0.048 - - 0.042
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 - - 0.2 - - 0.1
Notes

Page 2
Page 302 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 49 438 48 22 763 37 75 8 88 23 5 34
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 26.0 85.0 17.0 76.0 76.0 42.0 42.0 16.0 58.0
Total Split (%) 16.3% 53.1% 10.6% 47.5% 47.5% 26.3% 26.3% 10.0% 36.3%
Maximum Green (s) 19.8 78.9 11.7 69.9 69.9 35.5 35.5 9.9 51.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 115.1 110.6 112.6 106.7 106.7 20.7 30.1 29.7
v/c Ratio 0.10 0.21 0.03 0.33 0.03 0.78 0.12 0.12
Control Delay 8.8 11.5 8.1 12.5 0.1 77.7 48.1 16.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.8 11.5 8.1 12.5 0.1 77.7 48.1 16.4
LOS A B A B A E D B
Approach Delay 11.3 11.8 77.7 28.1
Approach LOS B B E C
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.21 0.03 0.33 0.03 0.48 0.12 0.08

Page 3
Page 303 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 95

Page 4
Page 304 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 570 2155 235 664 2302 1059 112 15 100 198 39 265
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.68 0.68 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.19 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3154 344 1810 3497 1609 624 119 787 1668 211 1432
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 240 246 22 763 37 171 0 0 23 0 39
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 8.1 8.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 8.1 8.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.51 1.00 0.87
V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.33 0.03 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.13
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 723 1185 1205 761 2302 1059 370 0 0 268 0 529
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2
LnGrp LOS A A A A A A E A A E A D
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 5
Page 305 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 9 416 64 38 784 26 87 7 28 7 2 13
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 11.1 31.4 10.9 31.4 31.1 31.1 33.9 33.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 89.0 15.0 89.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0
Total Split (%) 9.4% 55.6% 9.4% 55.6% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
Maximum Green (s) 8.9 82.6 9.1 82.6 49.9 49.9 50.1 50.1
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.4 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.9
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 21.0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.4 116.2 9.1 126.2 18.5 18.7
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.42 0.30 0.73 0.10
Control Delay 98.6 9.8 85.4 5.9 85.2 35.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 98.6 9.8 85.4 5.9 85.2 35.0
LOS F A F A F D
Approach Delay 11.5 9.5 85.2 35.0
Approach LOS B A F D
Queue Length 95th (ft) m28 199 79 216 181 36
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.20 0.38 0.30 0.28 0.04

Page 6
Page 306 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 80

Page 7
Page 307 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Cap, veh/h 19 2290 350 48 2712 90 145 9 34 68 29 98
Arrive On Green 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.78 0.78 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3007 459 1640 3482 115 1126 93 363 406 311 1037
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 9 239 241 38 397 413 122 0 0 22 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 10.3 10.3 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 10.3 10.3 12.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.06 0.71 0.23 0.32 0.59
V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.18 0.18 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 101 1321 1318 93 1373 1429 522 0 0 548 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.1 0.3 0.3 25.3 0.5 0.5 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 8
Page 308 of 433


Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 39 54 65 41 158

Page 9
Page 309 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 29 40 48 30 117
Future Vol, veh/h 50 29 40 48 30 117
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Mvmt Flow 68 39 54 65 41 158

Stage 1 - - - - 88 -
Stage 2 - - - - 174 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1497 - 731 976
Stage 1 - - - - 940 -
Stage 2 - - - - 861 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1497 - 703 976
Stage 1 - - - - 940 -
Stage 2 - - - - 828 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM LOS B

Capacity (veh/h) 904 - - 1497 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.22 - - 0.036 -
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0.1 -

Page 10
Page 310 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 1344 30 72 815 45 6 1 2 32 0 43

Page 1
Page 311 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 1290 29 69 782 43 6 1 2 31 0 41
Future Vol, veh/h 30 1290 29 69 782 43 6 1 2 31 0 41
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - 100 - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 10
Mvmt Flow 31 1344 30 72 815 45 6 1 2 32 0 43

Stage 1 - - - - - - 1423 1423 - 959 959 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 552 1004 - 735 1438 -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.1
Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.4
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - *849 - - *102 *37 *565 *252 *40 *754
Stage 1 - - - - - - *533 *467 - *609 *560 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *733 *526 - *533 *467 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - *847 - - *88 *33 *564 *229 *36 *754
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *294 *221 - *332 *216 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *518 *453 - *593 *513 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *633 *481 - *516 *453 -
HCM LOS C B
Capacity (veh/h) 316 1145 - - * 847 - - 754
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 0.027 - - 0.085 - - 0.057
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.3 - - 0.2
Notes

Page 2
Page 312 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 1222 82 57 732 82 111 31 117 92 38 105
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 16.0 94.0 15.0 93.0 93.0 36.0 36.0 15.0 51.0
Total Split (%) 10.0% 58.8% 9.4% 58.1% 58.1% 22.5% 22.5% 9.4% 31.9%
Maximum Green (s) 9.8 87.9 9.7 86.9 86.9 29.5 29.5 8.9 44.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 100.8 93.1 96.1 87.9 87.9 29.0 44.3 43.9
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.64 0.25 0.38 0.09 0.96 0.33 0.29
Control Delay 13.4 24.9 11.5 17.5 0.6 103.8 47.8 20.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 13.4 24.9 11.5 17.5 0.6 103.8 47.8 20.2
LOS B C B B A F D C
Approach Delay 23.7 15.5 103.8 31.0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 89 574 m28 190 m3 #436 125 107
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.64 0.23 0.38 0.09 0.95 0.33 0.29

Page 3
Page 313 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 95

Page 4
Page 314 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 513 1960 131 245 1974 888 145 36 123 304 122 338
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.58 0.58 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3353 225 1810 3526 1585 610 197 665 1795 446 1231
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 642 662 57 732 82 259 0 0 92 0 143
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 38.0 38.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 10.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 38.0 38.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 10.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.45 1.00 0.73
V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.62 0.62 0.23 0.37 0.09 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 537 1031 1061 303 1974 888 304 0 0 310 0 466
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 2.8 2.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 20.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4
LnGrp LOS B C C B A A F A A D A D
Approach LOS C A F D
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes

Page 5
Page 315 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 8 1104 222 57 738 6 145 1 79 29 11 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 11.1 31.4 10.9 31.4 31.1 31.1 33.9 33.9
Total Split (s) 15.0 110.0 15.0 110.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Total Split (%) 9.4% 68.8% 9.4% 68.8% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9% 21.9%
Maximum Green (s) 8.9 103.6 9.1 103.6 28.9 28.9 29.1 29.1
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.7 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Total Lost Time (s) 6.1 6.4 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.9
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 21.0
Act Effct Green (s) 6.5 109.0 8.7 118.2 26.5 26.7
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.57 0.65 0.29 0.90 0.19
Control Delay 89.2 6.5 104.9 8.0 95.4 51.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 89.2 6.5 104.9 8.0 95.4 51.0
LOS F A F A F D
Approach Delay 7.0 14.9 95.4 51.0
Queue Length 95th (ft) m15 m155 #124 206 #359 79
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.57 0.61 0.29 0.82 0.18

Page 6
Page 316 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 90

Page 7
Page 317 of 433

Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Cap, veh/h 14 2015 403 71 2583 21 195 1 86 167 63 39
Arrive On Green 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.72 0.72 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1527 2926 586 1668 3584 29 1028 7 560 853 409 252
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 663 663 57 363 381 225 0 0 48 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 11.6 11.6 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 11.6 11.6 22.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.02 0.64 0.35 0.60 0.17
V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 85 1214 1204 95 1270 1333 324 0 0 312 0 0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.1 1.8 1.8 28.5 0.6 0.5 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes

Page 8
Page 318 of 433


Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 158 38 71 101 33 153

Page 9
Page 319 of 433

Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 145 35 65 93 30 141
Future Vol, veh/h 145 35 65 93 30 141
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Mvmt Flow 158 38 71 101 33 153

Stage 1 - - - - 178 -
Stage 2 - - - - 244 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1388 - 592 868
Stage 1 - - - - 858 -
Stage 2 - - - - 801 -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1387 - 559 866
Stage 1 - - - - 857 -
Stage 2 - - - - 757 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.2 11
HCM LOS B

Capacity (veh/h) 790 - - 1387 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.235 - - 0.051 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11 - - 7.7 -
HCM Lane LOS B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - 0.2 -

Page 10
Page 320 of 433

2023 BUILD IMPROVED CONDITIONS
Capacity Analysis
Page 321 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD IMPROVED - AM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 501 14 65 773 11 3 0 2 20 0 33

Page 1
Page 322 of 433

HCM 6th TWSC 2023 BUILD IMPROVED - AM
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 466 13 60 719 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Future Vol, veh/h 29 466 13 60 719 10 3 0 2 19 0 31
Storage Length 100 - 100 100 - 100 - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 7 3 0 0 2 10 33 0 0 10 0 0
Mvmt Flow 31 501 14 65 773 11 3 0 2 20 0 33

Stage 1 - - - - - - 564 564 - 904 904 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 517 915 - 313 578 -
Critical Hdwy 4.24 - - 4.1 - - 8.16 6.5 6.9 7.7 6.5 6.9
Follow-up Hdwy 2.27 - - 2.2 - - 3.83 4 3.3 3.6 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver *1159 - - 1332 - - *533 339 *912 *568 337 *796
Stage 1 - - - - - - *689 689 - *609 577 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *687 569 - *837 678 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver *1158 - - 1331 - - *482 313 *911 *534 311 *796
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *504 402 - *529 402 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *670 670 - *592 548 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *626 541 - *812 659 -
HCM LOS B A
Capacity (veh/h) 614 * 1158 - - 1331 - - 796
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 0.027 - - 0.048 - - 0.042
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 - - 0.2 - - 0.1
Notes

Page 2
Page 323 of 433

Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2023 BUILD IMPROVED - PM
Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 31 1344 30 72 815 45 6 1 2 32 0 43

Page 1
Page 324 of 433

HCM 6th TWSC 2023 BUILD IMPROVED - PM
Intersection
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 1290 29 69 782 43 6 1 2 31 0 41
Future Vol, veh/h 30 1290 29 69 782 43 6 1 2 31 0 41
Storage Length 100 - 100 100 - 100 - - - - - -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 10
Mvmt Flow 31 1344 30 72 815 45 6 1 2 32 0 43

Stage 1 - - - - - - 1408 1408 - 959 959 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 552 1004 - 735 1438 -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 4.1 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 7.1
Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.4
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - *849 - - *107 *39 *565 *252 *40 *754
Stage 1 - - - - - - *533 *467 - *609 *560 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *733 *526 - *533 *467 -
Platoon blocked, % 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - *847 - - *93 *34 *564 *229 *36 *754
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - *296 *222 - *332 *216 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - *518 *453 - *593 *513 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - *633 *481 - *516 *453 -
HCM LOS C B
Capacity (veh/h) 318 1145 - - * 847 - - 754
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 0.027 - - 0.085 - - 0.057
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0.3 - - 0.2
Notes

Page 2
Page 325 of 433

Lane Configurations
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 1222 82 57 732 82 111 31 117 92 38 105
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s) 13.2 27.4 10.3 32.1 32.1 35.5 35.5 11.1 35.5
Total Split (s) 16.0 87.0 15.0 86.0 86.0 46.0 46.0 12.0 58.0
Total Split (%) 10.0% 54.4% 9.4% 53.8% 53.8% 28.8% 28.8% 7.5% 36.3%
Maximum Green (s) 9.8 80.9 9.7 79.9 79.9 39.5 39.5 5.9 51.5
Yellow Time (s) 3.4 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 6.1 5.3 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.5
Minimum Gap (s) 0.2 3.0 0.2 3.0 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 10.0 19.0 19.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Act Effct Green (s) 101.3 93.1 95.8 87.6 87.6 31.8 44.2 43.8
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.64 0.25 0.38 0.09 0.88 0.35 0.29
Control Delay 14.2 26.0 12.5 18.2 0.6 84.3 46.6 17.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 14.2 26.0 12.5 18.2 0.6 84.3 46.6 17.4
LOS B C B B A F D B
Approach Delay 24.8 16.2 84.3 28.8
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.64 0.23 0.38 0.09 0.72 0.35 0.25

Page 3
Page 326 of 433

Cycle Length: 160

Natural Cycle: 95

Page 4
Page 327 of 433

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2023 BUILD IMPROVED - PM
Lane Configurations
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
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
Cap, veh/h 518 1987 133 251 2005 901 149 38 128 286 119 328
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.59 0.59 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.27 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3353 225 1810 3526 1585 608 199 665 1795 446 1231
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 642 662 57 732 82 259 0 0 92 0 143
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 37.3 37.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 10.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 37.3 37.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 10.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.45 1.00 0.73
V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.61 0.62 0.23 0.37 0.09 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.32
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 543 1045 1076 309 2005 901 395 0 0 286 0 540
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 2.7 2.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4
Approach LOS C A E D
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes

Page 5
Page 328 of 433

Tucker Chick-fil-A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tucker Chick-fil-A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tucker Chick-fil-A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the recommendation of the staff regarding the application?

What is the recommendation of the staff regarding the application?

What are the conditions drafted if council wishes to approve the application as submitted?

What are the conditions drafted if council wishes to approve the application as submitted?

MEMO

To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

5. Outdoor dining shall meet the requirements outlined in Section 46-998.

6. The drive-through establishment shall close no later than 10:00 p.m.

9. Owner/Developer shall remove the existing billboard located on the northwestern

10. Inter-parcel access is not required (CV-21-0004).

15. Owner/Developer shall construct a southbound deceleration lane on Rosser Terrace at

20. Owner/Developer shall provide stormwater management in compliance with Tucker’s

Certificate of Authorization License No. PEF-006755

© Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd.

4435 HUGH HOWELL ROAD

BUILDING TYPE / SIZE: P13-SE-LRG

JOHN SANTIAGO ISSUED FOR

DATE April 20, 2022

Certificate of Authorization License No. PEF-006755

950 North Point Parkway Suite 200

© Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd.

4435 HUGH HOWELL ROAD

BUILDING TYPE / SIZE: P13-SE-LRG

JOHN SANTIAGO ISSUED FOR

DATE April 1, 2022

PLANNING & ZONING

SLUP-21-0004, CV-21-0002, CV-21-0003,

PLANNING & ZONING

Prepared May 2, 2022

Bowman Consulting Group

Analysts: Daniela Jurado

Project Manager: Andrew Petersen, PE

Bowman Job # 120005-01-049

4450 W Eau Gallie Boulevard, Suite 144, Melbourne, FL 32934

4450 W Eau Gallie Boulevard, Suite 144, Melbourne, FL 32934

4450 W Eau Gallie Boulevard, Suite 144, Melbourne, FL 32934

Figure 1. Site location.

Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology

2. Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Cowan Rd/The Centre Driveway

3. Intersection of Hugh Howell Rd and Tucker Industrial Rd

4. Intersection of Cowan Rd & Dillard St

• Inspections were conducted to obtain an inventory of existing roadway geometry, traffic

5. Traffic Forecast and Background Traffic

• Future Conditions (2023) without the proposed development (No Build)

Table 1 Historical AADT and Annual Growth Rates

• 4,989 SF Chick-fil-A Restaurant with drive-thru window (Proposed)

Table 2 Site Trip Generation

Fast Food restaurant AM 133 128 261 65 63 128 68 65 133

Figure 2. Trip Distribution

The CFA Site Trips are presented in Exhibits 7 in Appendix D.

8. Turn Lane Warrant Analysis

Table 3 Right Turn Lane Warrant Criteria

• Hugh Howell Rd and Rosser Terrace

• Rosser Terrace and Site Driveway 1

Table 4 HCM Level of Service Criteria

Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Conditions (2023)

Table 5 2023 AM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis

Table 6 2023 PM Peak Hour Capacity Analysis

- Improved RT CH: Provide a channelized Northbound Right-turn Lane at the

Capacity Analysis Comparison – No Build vs Build Improved Conditions