Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5015 Doc ID : ii Recorded : 06%01/200�Oatr01:15:28 PM t Fee Amt : $32 . 00 Page 1 of 9 Mashlnaton Countv . AR Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk F11e2007-00020888 ORDINANCE NO, 5015 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 07-2452, THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 152.23 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R-PZD 05- 1636, Residential Planned Zoning District, WellSpring to R-PZD 07-2452 The .Links as shown in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit `B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master development plan, development standards, statement of commitments, Bill of Assurance, and the conditions of approval as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council; further, that the conditions of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the City of Fayetteville. Section 3 : That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the master development plan have been met. Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, "���niiiRn"'' amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. Al 0• XSY SV : �11 : PASSED and APPROVED this 15`h day of May, 2007. = ; FAYETTEVILLE; APPROV ATTES 9s'9�;KANSP a �''?;n GTO 6 ��.`�. au�wu By: By: DA COODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer 1 r .t � 5 � �� � yi-+M�^'� �tT irk k p�� �,fa t%il,Ha44if•T'��KS a .. !" 4 t �K_ .�<74 y��S r1 yrs w h-v,,?Yv t sq•.� �~tc� 4a'}ts r. �. ' Y >s�11.?Fi.J� ..+ _- ✓� �� is $� S� \e � s � � s" Nr'eaa� ,. : Zn�A'�jrr yyr ✓ . < k d uc t s � rr t / / > i .� ! f 4��Iry' `?CI ✓J [: i ';r �tl i\y j+ 4e s '' dF"c). F Y^ eak;W4iif'yt78 �' 1 //�. i N°Y 11 v< 15)fM t F + lY Y.i � ET •y . , ret � 1 3 '�V\�` )(Ff 2 & Ir Lt } 11 'J - >lfrl I r � �� � wi iia � • � �`� ", � }���� 1�'z 1 ✓'l _ ✓-+c It `,'c t r fK'` Jnf I t �i r�R,.Z.. .J !if un•11�Z wicy LLz iy... }��/rYKi rk S�yb. � ,,. .t ttii's xv 1 Na v,� htr sca- rs tea . 7 ... f, � : ,� .' of fti ^, 5��. >`•�e��"*J t>'� s 'IS� �x'k 'Ar.� 'wte a ,3 •','y INN [ f}}m fc . l it >,". kJjPk` Ir � e'h'fs. l �a �"F3rj C liixe3 €A'- '. � l .� ra+ r4 . S 'IR5 + r. tx� r7a4 J ^t fir (:rl `�N tM.:. li e 5 .:ES EE tE ri tE flay $`I+Us1. s" f wt�r,',y�Ih . a1 PP t LY ltf+ +� i t t13 IYy fT LT A 1 '"': 3 f"' j . Uj"'fF' y l�( 4 1\ t Ivv e€rf -r L 1 I x S Ir•" R .. ...........: ...::::: �� _ . • Y� x b3 F' d' p .............. .. ..... �i..vt . .+. 3. t r, T+ i [.:} < IP ' ii . icR'.h. ii .. I + ., l +;... r +: .......... 4 '< s )y ley I ( 1 frr f , ,t 1 , , ,fr , ( ]] f - Ff +u a z rl 1 If = 7 I I s f }yh jrI t , �sT�+ �i'H 1 a t •5 a a P f rn N �t f t1 . ry e n F i -�.v�„vni d 'f` SS r � < 5 "rr. �� t St ct•� 1rtlrfbY:�1�y�i M1 - t rF <'� iu � l\ f� � � � x ztf 1 v. � 1 IH✓�, 9 " Is9 �r 'tet-'�r. }Ag,ol 2.,r,F , tlNtk- s y ✓ t je. t " "'- �� r-'k t *+'i%k`N �3 `gfa ` T 4 \m+r j S ,y r 4yr ice , ��i Y t v , vr./4 tATrf i. S i 1 w 3 ,ri�lx kap 1 M �RM :Y �t f r� > o f '?✓ F rf 3 r } � n C � tilfi C /1 flt pleait" t `,siv> fft«".r.. Y2tr '1-'ti:.:)Ldratinw+ 1 .J T}y h a..� s' i ((Psi Iis. I £ fIR 7x�' S t a' ��Yt � �! •f � Ki/ i _. St ' <4' Ie . 's'v F•,a- +/+i, - n • t nl 1 � 1 EXHIBIT "B" R-PZD 07-2452 A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1 , TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, AND A PART OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND A PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, ALL IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS S87042'05"E 617.60' AND NO3003'08"E 102.59' FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 AND RUNNING THENCE S87003'27"E 93 .41 ' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE NO2040'0511E 1716.06' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE NO204010011E 2143 .06' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE N8704614211W 715.35' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, THENCE NO2027'56"E 46.74' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 1 , THENCE N86058150"W 751 .69' TO THE CENTERLINE OF RUPPLE ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S2002015011W 44.46', S14°10'34"W 65. 18', S09°16'42"W 44.03', S06°40'25"W 54.50', S05° 18'51 "W 54.60', SO4°54'39"W 54.72', SO4°57' 12"W 59.85', S07° 17'28"W 55.76', S13°38'10"W 52.31 ', S23 °24'21 "W 49.39', S32° 18'04"W 47.75', S36°38' 10"W 37.75', S40°31 '21 "W 59. 19', S44°51 '16"W 60.06', S46°48'24"W 67.32', S44°39' 19"W 56.83', S39009'37"W 55 .03', S30°55'13 "W 66.99', S24°56'32"W 57.82', S22°38' 12"W 58.87', S22°23'4O"W 54.61 ', S22023'30"W 58.25', S23°21 '56"W 55 .44', S27027136' W 58. 17', S31039' 13"W 58.36', S31 °28'21 "W 57.48', S21 °21 '38"W 54.39', S09°23'27"W 60.29', SO2°47' 11 "W 51 .61 ', SOl °55'43"W 51 .38', S02°08'41 "W 57. 15', S02026'03 "W 49.97', S02030126"W 51 .03', S02049'34"W 51 .911, S02057105 "W 54.521, S0205415701W 52.46', S02050'56"W 55 . 16', S0204311511W 48.891, S02033'25"W 54.35', S02°31 '07"W 51 . 571, S02025023 "W 56.41 ', S02019'43"W 50.93', S0202710911W 38.771, S02034115' W 44.031, S0301215511W 52. 161, S02°57' 10"W 49.780 , S02033'54"W 51 .59', S020572011W 63.380, S0301010411W 52.97', S02059'07"W 52.350, S0203110911W 51 . 191 , S03012' 19"W 54.91 ', S02013' 1511W 33 . 151, S02014157"W 49.48', S02042149"W 48.61 ', S02037' 1 8"W 50.94', S02042'26"W 49.47', S02° 18'12"W 48.56', S02°45'16"W 52.85', S02038'451IW 52.94', S02°54'55"W 41 .80', S02054'55"W 360.64', THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE S87030127"E 629.81 ' TO A CORNER POST, THENCE S0300914711W 7.60' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE S86050'13"E 1088.84', THENCE S03003'08"W 434.54', THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S87002'59"E 209.22' TO THE POINTOF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 152.23 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page d of 5 Staff recommends the following conditions of approval associated with R-PZD 07-2452 (Links at Fayetteville). 1 . Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Street improvements at the time of development shall include those determined necessary by the Planning Commission, based upon the development proposed. A traffic study shall be prepared based on the proposed development. Staff will recommend street improvements warranted with development of the subject property. Based on the traffic study for the Wellspring PZD on the property which is close in residential trips generated, staff will likely recommend the following street improvements: a. Installation of new traffic signals on Rupple Road and on Wedington, as determined through development review; b. Constructing the eastern half of Rupple Road to its Master Street Plan designation along the project frontage (two travel lanes and half of a boulevard); c. Construction of street improvements south of Rupple to Wedington with appropriate transition lanes and relocation of existing signal to accommodate additional lanes. 2. Planning Commission determination of adequate connectivity. Four points of access are provided to the west on Rupple Road. The existing street stub-out in the subdivision to the east will be connect to this development and pedestrian and park connection to the east. The property would access Wedington Drive in the southeast corner of the property. No access to the north is provided due to the location of the golf course. 3 . Planning Commission determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards. The applicant requests a waiver to allow a different street cross section than are required by the current Master Street Plan standard (UDC § 166.06 (K)( 10)(a) and 166.08(C)(14)). The applicant proposes a 60' public right-of-way for the three public streets. This street section would provide for two traffic lanes and parallel parking on either side of the street. This street section is currently not included in the City' s Master Street Plan and would require a waiver of the street design standards. Staff is in support of the requested 60 ' street section finding that parallel parking along either side of the street and two travel lanes would provide for safe ingress/egress through the development. Additional design review and recommendations regarding the Town Center "square " will occur at the time of development, and may require revision after a detailed evaluation. 4. This project is required to go through Large Scale Development and/or subdivision review and approval prior to construction. 5 . The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way a minimum of 55 ' from centerline of Rupple Road and Wedington Drive. Right-of-way width for the internal public streets would be 60' to accommodate the on-street parallel parking. Right-of-way shall be dedicated by easement plat for Rupple Road and the internal public streets, and by separate document for Wedington Drive (State Highway 16). 6. The project is subject to the project phasing listed in the project booklet and noted below. All permits required for development within these phases are required to be obtained within CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page 2 of 5 the specified timeframe. A one-year extension may be permitted, subject to Planning Commission approval. Phase No. Year Phase 1 2008 Phase 2 2014 Phase 3 2018 7. All trash enclosure locations and dimensions shall be fully reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Division at the time of development. 8. No portion of any structure (i.e., porches, overhangs, etc.) shall encroach into building setbacks or utility easements. 9. Buildings shall be constructed to be consistent with the elevations and concepts depicted in the building elevations in the booklet as specified. Building elevations will be reviewed at the time of large scale development and building permit. 10. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) recommended on January 8, 2007 to accept a combination of land and money in lieu of land for this project. The developer has agreed to the following: a. The developer shall dedicate approximately 17.32 acres of land adjacent to Bryce Davis Park. In addition, the developer would pay the City $ 138,000 money in lieu for the remaining 3 .45 acres of required land dedication (20.77 acres required — 17.32 acres dedicated = 3 .45 acres short/0.017 acres = 202.94 units X $680.00 = $ 1383000.00). b. The developer shall construct a 6' high wrought iron fence between the proposed golf course and the proposed park area. c. The existing lake located within the proposed park land area shall remain with the following conditions: a) Overflow from said lake shall flow to a second lake to be constructed off park land from which the developer will draw irrigation waters. b) A well shall be constructed off park land and maintained by the developer form which water will be deposited into the existing lake to maintain an elevation to be agreed upon by the developer and Parks Board. Said well will also provide water to the "lower" irrigation lake via a second line. c) The existing lake shall be altered only to the degree necessary to provide storm water detention for the drainage area it now serves. d) If requested by the City, a "shelf' shall be constructed in the existing lake that is 1 ' below the established water level indicated in above and extends Y — 5 ' from the existing shoreline at the developer' s expense. d. An agreement will be necessary to provide the flow of water from the pond on the park property to the irrigation pond. e. On-street parking shall be constructed by the developer along a section of public street bordering the proposed park land. A minimum of eight spaces shall be provided. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page 3 of 5 11 . Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 174 of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code. 12. Depending on the time of development, the developer may be responsible for contributing to the interim solution for wastewater capacity issues in the Hamestring basin, as determined by Engineering staff and Planning Commission at the time of development. 13 . The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 14. This development shall be required to comply with the Tree Preservation requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code at the time of development. 15. Street trees shall be provided along public streets pursuant to city codes at the time of development. 16. The booklet and plats should be revised globally for consistency throughout, prior to City Council submittal. For example the booklet on page 4 states that the total amount of residential units is 1 ,220, however sheet C1 .03 lists the total amount of non-residential units at 1 ,258. 17. Single family residences and townhouses on Rupple Road shall have front fagade facing Rupple Road. Single family residences on the northern public street shall have the front fagade facing the public street, with the attached garages along the rear of the houses away from the street. 18. The attached garages on the single family dwellings shall be one-car garages, and shall be setback a minimum of 20' from the required front fagade of the structure. 19. There shall be a maximum of three single family dwellings connected in a row with attached garages. 20. Driveways for the single family homes that are not shared shall be a maximum of 16' wide per City codes. Driveways for the single family homes that are shared shall be a maximum of 24' wide per City codes. 21 . Evaluate the southern private street/drive aisle at the time of development for potential public street connection. 22. In order to ensure compatibility and transition between the townhouses and the existing large lot single family residences to the west, the architectural design of the townhouses shall be subject to the following guidelines: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page 4 of 5 a. The townhouses shall be limited to a maximum of 6 units connected in a group without a substantial break. b. The townhouses units shall utilize a variety of front facades, and shall be articulated through the incorporation of two or more of the following on each connected group/structure of townhouses: ( 1) Balconies; (2) Bay or box windows; (3) Insets or other relief in the wall place; (4) Porches; (5) Dormers; (6) Variations in materials; or (7) Variations in roof forms c. Roof form and roof height of the townhouses should be varied to complement the building's mass and articulation. 23 . Expand the proposed park land dedication in the northeast corner of the project an additional 150' along the existing east edge of Planning Area IV with a line narrowing to meet where the north property makes a jog near the creek as shown on the original Parks Board submittal. 24. Include a raised trail crossing at the crossing of the Public Street going east. The trail crossing should be continuous across the street at the level of the top curb. Similar to a speed table with the trail crossing over. Standard Conditions of Approval: 25. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). 26. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials compatible with the surrounding structures, with access not visible from the street. 27. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City' s current requirements. 28 . All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 29. Street lights shall be installed adjacent to all public and private streets (not alleys), with a separation of no greater than 300 feet. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page 5 of 5 30. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. A lighting plan and cut-sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by Planning Staff prior to building permit. 31 . Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on-site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. d. Project Disk with all final revisions e. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. :ON �, Q y Id VII LIMM 0 MA max AIR I 6 pf 1 1 y III Wt. 'IEEE l- t 4 �j/ �a k ♦ � �/ :yam ' fir}$. h / ����- �� ` - oa •� � ' • ' i' .i / I• , -may �W�� '� �• Y 1 ` Washington !County, AR 1 icertifyiNs 'instrumen.'twas (filed .on 08/01/2007 01 : 15:28 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Num bar2007=000 , 2088 Bette :Stamps - Circuit ler f � by p �.D s /, s/a7 Lindsey ManagementCo. , Inat —i hP l tnksrx� qtr a�ktn� b n�P ! ' 1200 E. Joyce Boulevard ■ P.O. Box 13000 ■ Fayetteville, AR 72703 ■ (479) 521 -6686 ■ Fax (479) 527-8840 1 X_=4 ,FINED " \ e 2007 �L• EtTEVILLE March 27, 2007 V s OFFICF City o} Fayetteville ATTN: City Clerk 1 l3 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RF,: Links at Fayetteville 'R-PZD 07-2452 Dear City Clerk: Please-heat this letter as a formal request on behalf of The Links at Favetteville, a LimitdPartnership to appeal the Fayetteville Planning Commission recision .regarding R-P Ll' 67-2452. The Links at Fayetteville. Please place R-PZD 07-2452 The .Links at Fayetteville on the agenda Tor consideration by the Fayetteville City Counsel . The next available meeting, I believe, is April 17, 2007. If there are any additional materials or information which you require, please let me know. Thank,.you. Jin Y , . . i . ug att, Co orate Counsel f3- City Council Meeting of April l7, 2007 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operati From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning 3t Date: March 27, 2007 Subject: Residential Planned Zoning District for Links at Fayetteville (R-PZD 07-2452) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted to deny the subject Residential Planned Zoning District request, R-PZD 07-2452 Links at Fayetteville. A motion to approve failed with a vote of 3-3-2 (Commissioners Myres, Anthes, Oster voting `No', commissioners Harris and Clark recusing). The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Counci I. Planning Staff also recommends denial for an ordinance to create a Residential Planned Zoning District for Links at Fayetteville. If this ordinance is approved, the action would establish a unique zoning district for a residential development with a maximum of 1 ,258 dwelling units and 120,888 square feet of nonresidential space on a 152.33-acre tract located at the northeast corner of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road, a proposed density of 8.26 dwelling units per acre. BACKGROUND The subject property consists of approximately 152.23 acres located on the north side of Wedington Drive and east of Rupple Road with frontage on both of these streets. The site is zoned R-PZD 05- 1636 Wellspring. The existing zoning allows for a total of 1 , 175 dwelling units and a maximum of 548,000 square feet of nonresidential space. The property is undeveloped, primarily agricultural pasture. Surrounding land uses consist of developing subdivisions and single family homes to the west, agricultural uses to the north, commercial strip center and mini- storage to the south, and single and multi-family homes to the east. Zoning criteria identifying permitted and conditional uses, building setbacks, bulk and area requirements and architectural guidelines are included within the project booklet provided by the applicant. DISCUSSION On March 26, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 3-3-2 on a motion to approve this request with commissioners Myres, Anthes, and Ostner voting `No', commissioners Trumbo, Lack and Bryant voting `Yes', commissioners Harris and Clark recusing, and commissioner Graves was absent. The motion to approve failed and the applicant has appealed this request to the City Council. The main issues of Planning Commission concern centered on this R-PZD not complying with the purpose and intent of the R-PZD ordinance and the City's land use planning objectives, principles, and policies, in particular the City Plan 2025 and Future Land Use Plan that have been adopted by City Council in the past year. BUDGETIMPACT None. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 07-2452, THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 152.23 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: . From R-PZD 05-1636, Residential Planned Zoning District, WellSpring to R-PZD 07-2452 as shown in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master development plan, development standards, statement of commitments and the conditions of approval as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council; further, that the conditions of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the City of Fayetteville. Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the requirements of the master development plan have been met. Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED this By: DAN COODY, Mayor day of , 2007. ATTEST: By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer EXHIBIT "B" R-PZD 07-2452 A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH; RANGE 30 WEST, AND A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, AND A PART OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND A PART OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, ALL IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS S87°42'05"E 617.60' AND N03°03'08"E 102.59' FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 AND RUNNING THENCE S87°03'27"E 93.41' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE N02°40'05"E 1716.06' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE N02°40'00"E 2143.06' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE N87°46'42"W 715.35' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, THENCE N02°27'56"E 46.74' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION I, THENCE N86°58'50"W 751.69' TO THE CENTERLINE OF RUPPLE ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE S20°20'50"W 44.46', S14°10'34"W 65.18', S09°16'42"W 44.03', S06°40'25"W 54.50', S05°]8'51"W 54.60', S04°54'39"W 54.72', S04°57'12"W 59.85', S07°17'28"W 55.76', S13°38'10"W 52.31', S23°24'21"W 49.39', S32°18'04"W 47.75', S36°38'10"W 37.75', S40°31'21"W 59.19', S44°51'16"W 60.06', S46°48'24"W 67.32', S44°39'19"W 56.83', S39°09'37"W 55.03', S30°55'13"W 66.99', S24°56'32"W 57.82', S22°38'12"W 58.87', S22°23'40"W 54.61', S22°23'30"W 58.25'; 523°2 1'56"W 55.44', S27°27'36"W 58.17', S31°39'13"W 58.36', S3 1°28'21"W 57.48', S2 1°21'38"W 54.39', S09°23'27"W 60.29', S02°47'I 1"W 51.61', S01°55'43"W 51.38', S02°08'41 "W 57.15', S02°26'03"W 49.97', S02°30'26"W 51.03', S02°49'34"W 51.91', S02°57'05"W 54.52',. S02°54'57"W 52.46', S02°50'56"W 55.16', S02°43'15"W 48.89', S02°33'25"W 54.35', S02°31'07"W 51.57', S02°25'23"W 56.41', S02°19'43"W 50.93', S02°27'09"W 38.77', S02°34'15"W 44.03', S03°12'55"W 52.16', S02°57'l0"W 49.78', S02°33'54"W 51.59', S02°57'20"W 63.38', S03°10'04"W 52.97', S02°59'07"W 52.35', 502°3 1'09"W 51.19', S03°12'19"W 54.91', S02°13'15"W 33.15', S02°14'57"W 49.48', S02°42'49"W 48.61', S02°37'18"W 50.94', S02°42'26"W 49.47', 502°I 8'12"W 48.56', S02°45'16"W 52.85', S02°38'45"W 52.94', S02°54'55"W 41.80', S02°54'55"W 360.64', THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE S87°30'27"E 629.81' TO A CORNER POST, THENCE S03°09'47"W 7.60' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE S86°50'13 "E 1088.84', THENCE S03°03'08"W 434.54', THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S87°02'59"E 209.22' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,, CONTAINING 152.23 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF - WAY OF RECORD. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page l of 5 The Planning Commission and Staff recommend the following conditions of approval associated with R-PZD 07-2452 (Links at Fayetteville). Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Street improvements at the time of development shall include those determined necessary by the Planning Commission, based upon the development proposed. A traffic study shall be prepared based on the proposed development. Staff will recommend street improvements warranted with development of the subject property. Based on the traffic study for the Wellspring PZD on the property which is close in residential trips generated, staff will likely recommend the following street improvements: a. Installation of new traffic signals on Rupple Road and on Wedington, as determined through development review; b. Constructing the eastern half ofRupple Road to its Master Street Plan designation along the project frontage (two travel lanes and half of a boulevard); c. Construction ofstreet improvements south ofRupple to Wedington with appropriate transition lanes and relocation ofexisting signal to accommodate additional lanes. 2. Planning Commission determination of adequate connectivity. Four points of access are provided to the west on Rupple Road. The existing street stub -out in the subdivision to the east will be connect to this development and pedestrian and park connection to the east. The property would access Wedington Drive in the southeast corner of the property. No access to the north is provided due to the location of the golf course. 3. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards. The applicant requests a waiver to allow a different street cross section than are required by the current Master Street Plan standard (UDC §166.06 (K)(10)(a) and 166.08(C)(14)). The applicant proposes a 60' public right-of-way for the three public streets. This street section would provide for two traffic lanes and parallel parking on either side of the street. This street section is currently not included in the City's Master Street Plan and would require a waiver of the street design standards. Staff is in support of the requested 60' street section finding that parallel parking along either side of the street and two travel lanes would provide for safe ingress/egress through the development. Additional design review and recommendations regarding the Town Center "square" will occur at the time ' of development, and may require revision after a detailed evaluation. 4. This project is required to go through Large Scale Development and/or subdivision review and approval prior to construction. 5. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way a minimum of 55' from centerline of Rupple Road and Wedington Drive. Right-of-way width for the internal public streets would be 60' to accommodate the on -street parallel parking. Right-of-way shall be dedicated by easement plat for Rupple Road and the internal public streets, and by separate document for Wedington Drive (State Highway 16). 6. The project is subject to the project phasing listed in the project booklet and noted below. All permits required for development within these phases are required to be obtained within CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page 2 of 5 the specified timeframe. A one-year extension may be permitted, subject to Planning Commission approval. Phase No. Year Phase 1 2008 Phase 2 2014 Phase 3 2018 7. All trash enclosure locations and dimensions shall be fully reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Division at the time of development. 8. No portion of any structure (i.e., porches, overhangs, etc.) shall encroach into building setbacks or utility easements. 9. Buildings shall be constructed to be consistent with the elevations and concepts depicted in the building elevations in the booklet as specified. Building elevations will be reviewed at the time of large scale development and building permit. 10. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) recommended on January 8, 2007 to accept a combination of land and money in lieu of land for this project. The developer has agreed to the following: a. The developer shall dedicate approximately 17.32 acres of land adjacent to Bryce Davis Park. In addition, the developer would pay the City $138,000 money in lieu for the remaining 3.45 acres ofrequired land dedication (20.77 acres required —17.32 acres dedicated = 3.45 acres short/0.017 acres = 202.94 units X $680.00 = • $138,000.00). b. The developer shall construct a 6' high wtought iron fence between the proposed golf course and the proposed park area. c. The existing lake located within the proposed park land area shall remain with the following conditions: a) Overflow from said lake shall flow to a second lake to be constructed off park land from which the developer will draw irrigation waters. b) A well shall be constructedoff park land and maintained by the • developer form which water will be deposited into the existing lake to maintain an elevation to be agreed upon by the developer and Parks Board. Said well will also provide water to the "lower" irrigation lake via a second line. c) The existing lake shall be altered only to the degree necessary to provide storm water detention for the drainage area it now serves. d) If requested by the City, a "shelf' shall be constructed in the existing lake that is 1' below the established water level indicated in above and extends 3' — 5' from the existing shoreline at the developer's expense. d. An agreement will be necessary to provide the flow of water from the pond on the park property to the irrigation pond. e. On -street parking shall be constructed by the developer along a section of public street bordering the proposed park land. A minimum of eight spaces shall be CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page 3 of 5 provided. 11. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 174 of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code. 12. Depending on the time of development, the developer may be responsible for contributing to the interim solution for wastewater capacity issues in the Hamestring basin, as determined by Engineering staff and Planning Commission at the time of development. 13. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan.— Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. • 14. This development shall be required to comply with the Tree Preservation requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code at the time of development. 15. Street trees shall be provided along public streets pursuant to city codes at the time of development. 16. The booklet and.plats should be •revised•.globally for consistency throughout, prior to City Council submittal. For: example the:booklet. on page 4 states that the total amount of residential units is 1,220, however sheet Cl .03 lists the total amount of non-residential units at 1,258. 17. Single family residences and townhouses on. Rupple Road shall have front facade facing Rupple Road. Single family residences on the northern public street shall have the front facade facing the public street, with the attached garages along the rear of the houses away from the street. 18. Theattached garages on the single family dwellings shall be one -car garages, and shall be ' .. 'setback a minimum of 20' from the required front facade of the structure. 19. There shall be a maximum of three single family dwellings connected in a row with attached garages. 20. Driveways for the single family homes that are not shared shall be a maximum of 16' wide per City codes. Driveways for the single family homes that are shared shall be a maximum of 24' wide per City codes. 21. Evaluate the southern private street/drive aisle at the time of development for potential public street connection. 22. In order to ensure compatibility and transition between the townhouses and the existing large lot single family residences to the west, the architectural design of the townhouses shall be CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page 4 of 5 subject to the following guidelines: (a) The townhouses shall be limited to a maximum of 6 units connected in a group without a substantial break. (b) The townhouses units shall utilize a variety of front facades, and shall be articulated through the incorporation of two or more of the following on each connected group/structure of townhouses: (I)Balconies; (2) Bay or box windows; (3) Insets or other relief in the wall place; (4) Porches; (5) Dormers; (6) Variations in materials; or (7) Variations in roof forms (c) Roof form and roof height of the townhouses should be varied to complement the building's mass and articulation. 23. Expand the proposed park land dedication in the northeast comer of the project an additional 150' along the existing eastedge.'of Planning Area IV with a line narrowing to meet where the north property makes :a jog 'near the creek as shown on the original Parks Board: submittal. 24. Include a raised trail crossing at the crossing of the Public Street going east. The trail crossing should be continuous across the street at the level of the top curb. Similar to a speed table with the trail crossing over. Standard Conditions of Approval: 25. Plat Review and Subdivision -continents (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his-repre§entative; and all comments from utility representatives - AR'Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). 26. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials compatible with the surrounding structures, with access not visible from the street. 27. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets @ublic and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 28. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R-PZD 07-2452 Page 5 of 5 29. Street lights shall be installed adjacent to all public and private streets (not alleys), with a separation of no greater than 300 feet. 30. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. A lighting plan and cut -sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved by Planning Staff prior to building permit. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. d. Project Disk with all final revisions e. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as, required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the. issuance of a,Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Commission Meeting TayeMl March 26, 2007 KANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: March 20, 2007 Updated March 28, 2007 R-PZD 07-2452: Planned Zoning District (THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, 400.401361.362): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT 05-1636 (WELLSPRING) and contains approximately 152.23 acres. The request is for zoning and land use approval only for a new R-PZD. The proposed R-PZD would allow 1,258 residential dwelling units, 120,888 square feet of non-residential/commercial space, and 16,388 square feet of recreational buildings. The non-residential and recreational portions of the development would contain a golf course, a commercial `market' area, green space, park, and associated parking. Property Owner: Lindsey Management Company, Inc. Planner: Andrew Garner The staff report that was presented to the Planning Commission on March 12, 2007 has been attached to this memorandum (Attachment A). The following memorandum summarizes the changes to the proposed R-PZD since the March 12, 2007 Planning Commission, and provides staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission based upon the revised plans. March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting: This item was tabled by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2007. The main issues of concern to be addressed in the next submittal included: breaking up the long rows of townhouses along Rupple Road into smaller blocks and a greater variety of facades, providing increased connectivity in the commercial area, providing meaningful detached single family residences, and providing more variety in the facades throughout the site. Revised Plans for March 26, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting: The applicant revised the proposed Master. Development Plan with the following items: 1. Added 74 single family residences in the northern portion of the site along the public street and on the western portion of the site along Rupple Road. These residences will be single family structures attached together by a garage at the rear of the house (see elevations provided in PZD booklet). 2. The addition of the single family residences resulted in the removal of two apartment K:IReporesI20071PC Repom103-16-0718-PZD 07-245?(Links@ Fayetteville) 03-26-07.doe buildings (there were previously 69 apartment buildings now there are .67), and the removal of 91 townhouses (there were previously 166 townhouses, now there are 75). 3. The `townhouses along Rupple Road are described in the PZD booklet as being connected in groups of up to 12 units, which is the same as previously proposed, although the footprint of the townhouses on the plat appears to show the footprints as broken up in smaller groups. 4. The zoning criteria for Planning Areas I and II (Market District) were combined into one, as these areas are essentially the same. 5. The number of units in the apartment buildings and zoning criteria has changed somewhat resulting in the addition of 38 more multi -family dwellings in the apartment planning area. 6. Increased the amount of non-residential square feet allowed in the commercial planning areas by 8,200 square feet. 7. These overall changes increased the number of residential units from 1,220 to 1,258, and increased the number of non-residential square feet from 112,888 to 120,888. Attachment B provides an overall development summary. Staff Discussion and Recommendation: The applicant has made numerous changes to the plans throughout the review process in response to comments from Planning staff and the Planning Commission. However the plans before the Planning Commission must be reviewed on their own merits and not compared with other plans in making the decision to approve or deny the rezoning request, based on the established criteria for Planned Zoning District and rezoning applications. Staff recommended denial of this R-PZD at the two previous Planning Commission: meetings:. based on the findings that this project did not comply with the requirements of the UDC and the City Plan 2025. The R-PZD findings listed in the UDC are based largely upon the determination of whether or not a project is consistent with the land use policies and goals of the City's General Plan — City Plan 2025 and the R-PZD ordinance, as a policy decision to rezone the project with the Master Development Plan as presented. Staff's previous findings discuss that this project does not meet many of the City's primary land use, planning objectives, principles, and policies. Although the introduction of. 74 single family. residences starts to provide some variety in the residential units in this project, staff's primary concerns as stated in the March 12, 2007 still exist, with the exception of surrounding land use compatibility as discussed below. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Use. Staff had concerns with this project being compatible with the large lot single/family residences on the west side of Rupple Road. The revisions to the Master Development Plan show the footprints of the townhouses as being broken up to reduce the scale of these buildings, and also provide single family residences along Rupple Road. These changes have changed the use, and reduced the scale and mass of the development along this frontage considerably. Staff finds that the project now provides adequate compatibility along the west and with all surrounding land uses. Traditional Neighborhood Form. As adopted by the City Council, Goal 3 of the City Plan K. IRepo trt2007%PCRepartsiO3-26-07 R-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayeaeville) 03-26-07.doc 2025 is to "Make traditional town form the standard" The location of neighborhoods should "...contain not just houses, but a mix of uses that are adaptable for change over time; ... a range of housing types that occur on a variety of lot sizes, creating the ability to live, world shop and having daily needs and services within walking distance." New growth should be required to result in compact, complete and connected neighborhoods. The form of this project is not a traditional neighborhood development in contrast to one of the primary goals of City Plan 2025. Due to the large scale of this site (152 acres), it is reasonable and feasible to develop in more of a traditional neighborhood form. A golf course community as proposed with a mix of multi- family, single-family, townhouses, and commercial and civic space is possible in a traditional neighborhood form. There are several elements of a traditional neighborhood that are lacking in this development and should be provided when a PZD is proposed on a site of this scale. The impact of a zoning and subsequent development of 152 acres will greatly exceed that of smaller projects the Planning Commission typically reviews. These smaller projects are held to the same standard of detail and review through the PZD process. Some of these elements are discussed in the following two paragraphs about the vehicular circulation system and the purpose and intent of the R-PZD ordinance. Vehicular Circulation System. The proposed vehicle circulation system is composed of four three very long streets and long blocks. The revised PZD provides an additional private alley/street (approximately 500' long) for rear access between single family residences along Rupple Road. This alley/street provides more of a public vehicular connection than the previous parking lot drive aisle between two rows of townhouses. The overall vehicular circulation system still lacks ' adequate connectivity and the 1,258 residential units are still primarily accessed and connected by parking lot drive aisles. City Neighborhood Areas. The subject proposal is found within the Future -Land Use designation of "City Neighborhood Area". These areas are denser and primarily residential, with non-residential uses at corner locations to serve surrounding residents. There is a wide range of building types associated with these areas: single family detached, sideyard, rowhouses, and apartments. Streets typically define medium-sized blocks with a higher level of connectivity; development is encouraged to utilize a block -and -street layout that promotes walkable, cyclist - friendly road designs with slow design speeds. .It is staffs finding that the subject property could more readily -meet the goals associated with. City Neighborhood Areas, while retaining the primary uses residential and a golf course environment. This would include small to medium-sized blocks with a higher level of connectivity than currently proposed; a wider, more diverse range of building types than proposed; a block and street layout that promotes adaptable reuse of the structures over time, and slow road design speeds. Purpose and Intent of R-PZD Ordinance. Staff's previous findings had concerns that this project did not provide variety and flexibility, and was not consistent with the City Plan 2025 as referenced in UDC Section 161.29 (C)(1)(a). The project provides 1,108 apartment units in 67 apartment buildings and four mixed use buildings (88% of the units), provides 75 townhouses in various attached footprints (6% of the units), and provides 74 single family dwellings (6% of the units). The single family residences included in this latest submittal help add to the variety and K: IReportsi20071PC RepmtsiO3-26-O71R-PZD 07-2452 (Links® Fayetteville) 03-26-O7doc flexibility of the residential units. However the bulk and scale of the 67 apartment buildings without integration of other residential dwelling types or non-residential uses throughout a majority of this property does not meet the intent of the R-PZD ordinance to achieve variety and flexibility, or to provide for a complete, compacted, and connected community as indicated in the City Plan 2025. In addition UDC Section 161.29 (C)(1)(b) specifies that an R-PZD should provide an "...effective relationship of different land uses and activities within a single development..." . The proposal of primarily apartment buildings on a scale of this magnitude without adequate street connectivity, and without meaningful greenspace for the residents to utilize is a concern on a scale of this magnitude. There is a large amount of greenspace provided, but a majority of it is in a golf course and will not be able to be enjoyed for activity other than by paying a fee to play golf. Staff does acknowledge the aesthetic and recreational value of a public golf course for the general public, and the fact that this land will be `green, though to a different degree. This project also provides a large amount -of onsite parkland, however this area is cut-off from the this development by the golf course, and is not integrated into the neighborhood or readily accessible to the residents. Request: The request is for Planning Commission to forward the R-PZD to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the submitted Master Development Plan and zoning criteria for zoning and land use approval only. Recommendation: Finding that pursuant to Fayetteville Unified Development„Code Section 166.29; the proposed R-PZD does not meet the purpose and y• intent of the R-PZD.drdinance, and does not meet some of the primary goals and policies of City Plan 2025 as referenced in that ordinance; staff recommends denial of R-PZD 07-2452 .Links.at It is the charge of the Planning Commission to determine if the projecti meets with current ordinance requirements and the goals and policies of City Plan 2025 for this R-PZD proposal. Staff's rationale for this finding is discussed in this memorandum and the attached staff report dated March 12, 2007. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend in favor of this project to City Council, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval be added to the conditions of approval already listed in the previous staff report K:IReports 120071PC Reports103-26-0AR-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayetteville) 03-26-07.doc Additional Conditions of Approval: 1. The booklet and plats should be revised globally for consistency throughout, prior to City Council submittal. For example the booklet on page 4 states that the total amount of residential units is 1,220, however sheet C1.03 lists the total amount of non-residential units at 1,258. 2. Single family residences and townhouses on Rupple Road shall have front facade facing Rupple Road. Single family residences on the northern public street shall have the front facade facing the public street, with the attached garages along the rear of the houses away from the street. 3. The attached garages on the single family dwellings shall be one -car garages, and shall be setback a minimum of 20' from the required front facade of the structure. 4. There shall be a maximum of three single family dwellings connected in a row with attached garages. 5. Driveways for the single family homes that are not shared shall be a maximum of 16' wide per City codes. Driveways for the single family homes that are shared shall be a maximum of 24' wide per City codes. 6. Evaluate the southern private street/drive aisle at the time of development for potential public street connection. 7. In order to ensure compatibility and transition between the townhouses and the • existing large lot single family residences to the west, the architectural design of the townhouses shall be subject to the following guidelines: a. The townhouses shall be limited to a maximum of 6 units connected in a group without a substantial break. b. The townhouses units shall utilize a variety of front facades, and shall be articulated through the incorporation of two or more of the following on each connected group/structure of townhouses: (1)Balconies; (2) Bay or box windows; (3) Insets or other relief in the wall place; (4) Porches; (5) Dormers; (6) Variations in materials; or (7) Variations in roof forms c. Roof form and roof height of the townhouses should be varied to complement the building's mass and articulation. 8. Expand the proposed park land dedication in the northeast comer of the project an additional 150' along the existing east edge of Planning Area IV with a line narrowing to meet where the north property makes a jog near the creek as shown on the original Parks Board submittal. 9. Include a raised trail crossing at the crossing of the Public Street going east. The trail crossing should be continuous across the street at the level of the top curb. Similar to a speed table with the trail crossing over. K: IReporfs120071PC Repons103-26-0718-PZO 07-2452 (Links® Faymeville) 03-26-07.doc ATTACHMENT A STAFF REPORT MARCH 12, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Gamer, Senior Planner Matt Casey, Assistant City Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: M-- h 7, 2007- Conditions ofADyroval Updated March 28 2007 Planning Commission Meeting March 12, 2007 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 R-PZD 07-2452: Planned Zoning District (THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, 400.401.361.362): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT 05-1636 (WELLSPRING) and contains approximately 152.23 acres. The request is for zoning and land use approval only for a new R-PZD. The proposed R-PZD would allow 1,221 residential dwelling units, 91,800 square feet of non-residential/commercial space, and 16,388 square feet of recreational buildings. The non-residential and recreational portions of the development would contain a golf course, a commercial `market' area, green space, park, and.associated parking. Property Owner: Lindsey Management Company, Inc. Planner: Andrew Garner Findings: February 26, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting: This item was tabled by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2007. The main issues of concern to be addressed in the next submittal included: additional public street connections in the northwest and southwest corners of the site; address how the retail/commercial interacts with surrounding and proposed onsite residences; scale, mass, buildings, and unit types should be more varied; and commercial out -lots on the southern end of Rupple Road would be encouraged. March 12, 2007 Planning Commission Revisions: The applicant has revised the proposed Master Development Plan with the following items: 1. Eliminated the mixed use and apartment buildings along Rupple Road and provided 166 townhouses/rowhouses, and three commercial/retail buildings. 2. Introduced a 4 -story version of the "Churchill Building" to provide alternative massing throughout the development with the 3 -story "Churchill Building". 3. Thirty percent of the multi -family units will be offered for sale as condominiums for each phase of the development. K. IReporns12007IPC Reports103-12-0718-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Faye aeville).doc 4. Revised the layout of the tennis court and clubhouse area to provide additional tree preservation. 5. Added a public street connection from the northern portion of the public street, west to Rupple Road. 6. Added a private street connection between the two private parking lots in the southern portion of the site. These parking lots connect the public street with Rupple Road. 7. These changes reduced the number of dwelling units from 1,420 to 1,221 and reduced the amount of non-residential square feet from 140,013 to 108,188. Background: This property was rezoned from RSF-1, Single -Family One Units Per Acre and R- A, Residential -Agricultural to Residential Planned Zoning District (R-PZD) 05-1636, Wellspring on March 7, 2006. The approved R-PZD zoning criteria allows for a mixed use residential development in seven Planning Areas, each with its own unique permitted and conditional uses, building setbacks, lot width and area, density, intensity of nonresidential space, maximum number of dwelling units, phasing density, intensity of nonresidential space, maximum number of dwelling units, and phasing for construction. The approved zoning allows for a total of 1,175 dwelling units for the site, a maximum of 548,000 square feet of nonresidential space. Approximately 40 acres (26% of the site) has been designated for city parks, community greenspace, trail systems and/or tree preservation and undisturbed areas. The approved Master Development Plan is centered on a pedestrian -friendly, traditional urban design approach utilizing a mixture of uses in the same area, while providing for a variety of home styles and types. The applicant for this project proposes an entirely new R-PZD Master Development Plan and zoning criteria. Property: The subject property contains 152.23 acres. The property is located on the north side of Wedington Drive and east of Rupple Road, with frontage on both of those streets. The property is undeveloped, with primarily agricultural pasture land. There are large groupings of high priority/significant trees located in areas on the site, but a majority of the property exists in pasture, with a few remaining single family homes. A creek enters the property from the east and travels north to Hamestring Creek. Bryce Davis Park is located directly adjacent to the east, as well as some single family subdivisions and multi -family development. To the north is undeveloped farmland. Surrounding land use and zoning are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Direction Land Use Zoning North Largely agricultural RSF-1, RSF-4, R -A South Commercial strip center, mini -storage C-2, R -A East Single family, multi -family homes RSF 4 R -O, C-1 West Developing subdivisions and single family homes RSF-4, RSF-1 Proposal: The request is rezoning and land use approval only for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 1,221 attached dwellings as well as 91,800 square feet of non-residential/commercial space, and 16,388 square feet of recreational buildings. If the PZD be approved as proposed the project would be required to go through Large Scale Development and/or subdivision approval prior to development. K:IRepor1s120071PC Reports103-12-071R-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayeaeville).doc Master Development Plan: The proposed uses over the site are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Master Development Plan TYPE OF PLANNING RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL NON- NON- ACRES % OF USE AREA DENSITY UNITS RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SITE (UNITSIACRE) INTENSITY SQUARE (SQ.FT./ACRE) FEET Multi- PA -4 9.12 978 NA 9 hole golf 107.27 70.47% family/Golf course Course (49.18 acres) Dedicated PA -6 NA NA NA NA 17.32 11.38% parks Club House PA -3 0.19 1 3,170 16,388 5.17 3.40% Mixed Use PA -5 25.00 76 8,651 26,300 3.04 2.00% Commercial PA -1, 2. N/A N/A 8,260 65,500 7.93, 5.21% Town PA -7 15.00 166 NA NA 11.5 7.55% Homes TOTAL 8.02 1,221 711 108,188 152.23 100.00% The mixture of uses on the project provides for multi -family buildings, mixed use buildings, with commercial/retail space at the street level and residences in the upper levels;.townhouses, and solely commercial buildings. The project also proposes a nine -hole golf course, a swimming! pool, a tennis court, and a club house. Additional amenities include lakes, playgrounds, and picnic areas. The Master Development Plan generally clusters the development along Rupple Road and interior to the site, with the nine -hole golf course and park area around the perimeter. Zoning Criteria for each Planning Area is provided in duplicate on the PZD booklets and plats submitted. The structures are generally located facing either onto the three main public streets or the golf course around the perimeter of the development. Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets.: Rupple Road (Principal Arterial), Wedington Drive (Principal Arterial). Access: Access to the site is provided from Rupple Road and Wedington Drive (State Highway 16). There is also a stub -out to the property from a subdivision to the northeast that would be connected with this R-PZD. Primary access points are to be by way of public streets into the development, which will become primary entrances in two locations, one on Wedington Drive and one on Rupple Road. There are also three other proposed entrances onto Rupple Road in the 0.7 miles of frontage, with the potential for traffic signalization on Rupple Road, and at the project's entrance onto Wedington Drive, subject to city approval. The developer will be responsible for significant improvements to Rupple Road and signalization as permitted to. be at the cost of, the developer, based on the traffic generated by this development. A detailed, K: IReportsl20071PC Reportst03-12-071R-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayetteville).doc updated traffic study will be required at the time of development. A Master Street Plan Amendment to re -align Rupple Road at the north end of the site was approved by City Council as part of the Wellspring project. The approved re -alignment is consistent with the configuration of Rupple Road as indicated on the proposed plats. Interior to the project, three primary public streets are proposed, one off of Wedington Drive and one off of Rupple Road, and a third connecting to an existing stub -out in the neighborhood to the northeast. These three streets connect around a traffic circle in the central portion of the site. Parking lot drive aisles provide access to a majority of the multi -family buildings, as well as interior connectivity throughout the development. Since the previous submittal, a public street connection from the northern portion of main north -south street west to Rupple Road has been added. There is also a private street connection between two private parking lots in the southwestern portion of the site Right-of-way to be dedicated: 55' from centerline right-of-way along the project's Rupple Road and Wedington Drive frontages. Dedication by warranty deed is required along Wedington Drive as it is a State Highway (Hwy. 16), dedication of right-of-way for interior streets. Connectivity: Four points of access are provided to the west on Rupple Road. The existing street.stub-out in the subdivision to the east will be connected to this development and pedestrian and park connection will be provided to the east. The property would accessWedington Drive in the southeast corner of the property. No connection is currently being provided.to the north; due to the design of the golf course. Parking: Parallel parking for the mixed use, residential, and commercial areas is proposed along the public streets interior to the project. In addition, parking lots are located interior to the project. The majority of off-street parking lots are located behind the buildings so that they are screened from public view. Phasing: Three phases are planned for Links at Fayetteville over the next several years as listed below and provided in the PZD Booklet. All permits required for development within these phases are required to be obtained within the specified timeframe. A one-year extension may be permitted, subject to Planning Commission approval. Phase No. Year Phase 1 2008 Phase 2 2014 Phase 3 2018 Water & Sewer: Water and sewer lines would be extended to serve the development. Parks: The Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) recommended on January 8, 2007 to accept a combination of land and money in lieu of land for this project. The developer has agreed to the following: • The developer shall dedicate approximately 17.32 acres of land adjacent to Bryce Davis K. IRepor:sl20071PCReportsl03-12-0718-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fa}vetleville).doc Park. In addition, the developer would pay the City $138,000 money in lieu for the remaining 3.45 acres of required land dedication (20.77 acres required - 17.32 acres dedicated = 3.45 acres short/0.017 acres = 202.94 units X $680.00 = $138,000.00). The developer shall construct a 6' high wrought iron fence between the proposed golf course and the proposed park area. The existing' lake located within the proposed park land area shall remain with the following conditions: ■ Overflow from said lake shall flow to a second lake to be constructed off park land from which the developer will draw irrigation waters. ■ A well shall be constructed off park land and maintained by the developer form which water will be deposited into the existing lake to maintain an elevation to be agreed upon by the developer and Parks Board. Said well will also provide water to the "lower" irrigation lake via a second line. ■ The existing lake shall be altered only to the degree necessary to provide storm water detention for the drainage area it now serves. ■ If requested by the City, a "shelf' shall be constructed in the existing lake that is 1' below the established water level indicated in above and extends 3' — 5' from the existing shoreline at the developer's expense. An agreement will be necessary to provide the flow of water from the pond on the park property to the irrigation pond. On -street parking shall be constructed by the developer along a section of public street bordering the proposed park land. A minimum of eight spaces shall be provided. Solid Waste Service: In its review of this R-PZD, the Solid Waste Division recommended considering compactor service, and also stated that if dumpsters are used they must all be angled in the same way on each street. free reservation: me K-?LI) indicates the general location of several tree preservation areas throughout the site. This development will be required to comply with the Tree Preservation requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code at the time of development. Public Comment: . City staff has not received public comment on this R-PZD. Recommendation: Finding that the proposed. rezoning and development approval does not meet some of the primary goals of the Planned Zoning District ordinance and policies adopted within the City Plan 2025 as noted herein, staff recommends denial of R-PZD 07-2452. Should the Planning Commission forward this project to the City Council recommendation for approval, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Street improvements at the time of development shall include those determined necessary by the Planning Commission, based upon the development proposed. A traffic study shall be prepared K:IReports120071PC Repores103-l2-0TH-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fa}rlueville).doe based on the proposed development. Staff will recommend street improvements warranted with development of the subject property. Based on the traffic study for the Wellspring PZD on the property which is close in residential trips generated, staff will likely recommend the following street improvements: a. Installation of new traffic signals on Rupple Road and on Wedington, as determined through development review; b. Constructing the eastern half of Rupple Road to its Master Street Plan designation along the project frontage (two travel lanes and half of a boulevard); c. Construction of street improvements south of Rupple to Wedington with appropriate transition lanes and relocation of existing signal to accommodate additional lanes. 2. Planning Commission determination of adequate connectivity. Four points of access are provided to the west on Rupple Road. The existing street stub -out in the subdivision to the east will be connect to this development and pedestrian and park connection to the east. The property would access Wedington Drive in the southeast comer of the property. No access to the north is provided due to the location of the golf course. 3. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of minimum street design standards. The applicant requests a waiver to allow a different street cross section than are required by the current Master Street Plan standard (UDC § 166.06 (K)(10)(a) and 166.08(C)(14)). The applicant proposes a 60' public right-of-way for the three public streets. This street section would provide for two traffic lanes and parallel parking on either side of the street. This street section is currently not included in the. City's Master Street Plan and would require a waiver of the street design standards: Staff is in support of the requested 60' street section finding that parallel parking along either side of the street and two travel lanes would provide for safe ingress/egress through the development. Additional design review and recommendations regarding the Town Center "square" will occur at the time of development, and may require revision after a detailed evaluation. 4. This project is required to go through Large Scale Development and/or subdivision review and approval prior to construction. - 5. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way a minimum of 55' from centerline of Rupple Road:and Wedington Drive. !Right-of-way width for.the internal public streets would.be 60' to accommodate the on -street parallel parking. Right-of-way shall be dedicated by easement plat for Rupple Road and the internal public streets, and by separate document for Wedington Drive (State Highway 16). 6. The project is subject to the project phasing listed in the project booklet and noted below. All permits required for development within these phases are required to be obtained within the specified timeframe. A one-year extension may be permitted, subject to Planning Commission approval. K:1Reports120071PC Repotsl03-12-0718-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayetteville).dcc Phase No. Year' Phase 1 2008 Phase 2 2014 Phase 3 2018 7. All trash enclosure locations and dimensions shall be fully reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Division at the time of development. 8. No portion of any structure (i.e., porches, overhangs, etc.) shall encroach into building setbacks or utility easements. 9. Buildings shall be constructed to be consistent with the elevations and concepts depicted in the building elevations in the booklet as specified. Building elevations will be reviewed at the time of large scale development and building permit. 10. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) recommended on January 8, 2007 to accept a combination of land and money in lieu of land for this project. The developer has agreed to the following: a. The developer shall dedicate approximately 17.32 acres of land adjacent to Bryce Davis Park. In addition, the developer would pay the City $138,000 money in lieu for the remaining 3.45 acres of required land dedication (20.77 acres required — 17.32 acres dedicated 3.45 acres short/0.017 acres = 202.94 units X $680.00 = $138,000.00). b. The developer shall construct a 6' high wrought iron fence between the proposed golf course and the proposed park area. c. The existing lake located within the proposed park land area shall remain with the following conditions: i. Overflow from said lake shall flow to a second lake to be constructed off park land from which the developer will draw irrigation waters. ii. A well shall be constructed off park land and maintained by the developer form which water will be deposited into the existing lake to maintain an elevation to be agreed upon by the developer and Parks Board. Said well will also provide water to the "lower" irrigation lake via a second line. . iii. The existing lake shall be altered only to the degree necessary to provide storm water detention for the drainage area it now serves. iv. If requested by the City, a "shelf' shall be constructed in the existing lake that is 1' below the established water level indicated in above and extends 3'— 5' from the existing shoreline at the developer's expense. d. An agreement will be necessary to provide the flow of water from the pond on the park property to the irrigation pond. e. On -street parking shall be constructed by the developer along a section of public street bordering the proposed park land. A minimum of eight spaces shall be provided. 11. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 174 of the Fayetteville Unified K: IReporls120071PC Reports 103-12-071R-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayelteville).doc Development Code. 12. Depending on the time of development, the developer may be responsible for contributing to the interim solution for wastewater capacity issues in the Hamestring basin, as determined by Engineering staff and Planning Commission at the time of development. 13. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by the City Council shall also be binding. 14. This development shall be required to comply with the Tree Preservation requirements as set forth in the Unified Development Code at the time of development. 15. Street trees shall be provided along public streets pursuant to city codes at the time of development. • . ... I •• • t • _ _ - • • I. •- I m- ..• •- • -. . •- • i i in I • •' i i I. i ii • •n .i i •e. • • .• • • • • •• •• •.' The items in this condition have been addressed in the revised plats and booklets. Standard Conditions of Approval: K:IReporiss120071PC Reporisl03-12-0718-PZIi 07-2452 (Links @ Fayelevillejdoc 17. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments froth utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). 18. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials compatible with the surrounding structures, with access not visible from the street. 19. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 20. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 21. Street lights shall be installed adjacent to all public and private streets (not alleys), with a separation of no greater than 300 feet. 22. All exterior lighting is required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. A lighting plan and cut -sheets of the proposed exterior light fixtures shall be required to be approved • by Planning Staff prior to building permit. .23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a.' Grading and drainage permits b. • An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree protection measures prior to any land disturbance. c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area. d. Project Disk with all final revisions e. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all •incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements. necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. K:IReporis120071PC Repons103-12-07tR-PZD 07-2452 (Links © Fayeaeville).doc Planning Commission Action: X Tabled Forwarded to C.C. (recommendation for approval) Denied Motion: Anthes Second: Ostner Vote: 4-3 (Graves, Trumbo, Lack voted 'No') Meeting Date: March:12, 2007 Comments: The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item. Signature K. 1Repor:s120071PC Reportsl03-12-0718-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayettevilte).doc Date Findings associated with R-PZD 07-2452 (Links at Fayetteville) Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD). (E) Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned Zoning Districts The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the review of a planned zoning district application based on the proposed master development plan: (I) Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the UDC and the City Plan 2025; FINDING: Staff finds portions of the application to be in compliance with the Planned Zoning District criteria and City Plan 2025 policies established by the City Council, but finds that some aspects of the application to be in conflict with these criterion and policies. The application for this development was thoroughly completed and PZD booklets and plats were submitted consistent with the format required by ordinance and the PZD application. The applicant conducted pre -application meetings with City Planning staff, who advised the applicant against some aspects of this development. Some of the primary staff concerns included a development in a traditional town form, based on the City's adopted policies and the size and impact of this 152 -acre site. Some of the issues discussed with the applicant in pre -application meetings included the need for a wider variety of residential dwellings, uses, and building types, and a lager number- of public:streetsone . throughout the development, as opposed to the two main public streets•and'a number. ote., ,,,e n parking lot drive aisles connecting the multi -family buildings; : + . « ,,,,,,r,ramrn The project meets several of the City Plan 2025 Goals. The project site is designated as a City Neighborhood Area on the Future Land Use Plan map. This project provides 1,221 multi -family units and 108,188 square feet of non-residential uses (commercial, retail, office, recreation, etc.) over the 152.23 acres: The residential density would be 8.02 units per acre, and the non-residential intensity would be 711 square feet of non-residential use per acre. These general uses and density proposed are consistent with a more intense and urban development indicated in the City Neighborhood designation. However the form of the Master Development Plan proposed is not consistent with a traditional town form pattern that is. adopted as part of City Plan 2025. A traditional town: form pattcrn;wonld` have a wider range of residential building types: single, sideyard, and rowhouses, along with multi -family residences. The current plan proposed 100% multi -family residences, with the vast majority being an apartment style development. Nonresidential uses are usually confined to corner locations, as opposed to generally segregating the non-residential uses along Rupple Road as proposed. The proposed development proposes one type of residential dwelling in a fairly homogenous footprint and building elevation generally repeated throughout the site with slight variations. A traditional town form generally has streets that are divided into small to medium-sized blocks with a high level of connectivity between. neighborhoods. The proposed development has very long linear blocks, although there is a town center around a traditional town square. The streets are not well connected with other streets, but arc rather accessed by private parking lot drive aisles. K':IReporrs1200APC Reports103-12-07IR-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayetteville) -doe Rezoning this property to R-PZD 07-2452 for apartmentltownhouse types of residential •structures, a mixed -use structure, commercial buildings, and a building footprint repeated • numerous times over the 152 -acre site is not completely consistent with the six major goals of the City Plan 2025 as discussed in Table 4. Table 4 Links at Fayetteville — City Plan 2025 Compliance City Plan 2025 Goals Links at Fayetteville Compliance With City Plan 2025 Goal 1: We will make This project is somewhat an infill project in a developing area of appropriate infill and Fayetteville. The largely under -developed property is generally revitalization our highest surrounded by both developing or existing development and priorities. infrastructure, and is located along two designated principal arterial streets. However, it was just annexed in 2005, and much of the surrounding roe is greenfield and open pasture. Goal 2: We will discourage By being in close proximity to existing arterials, the project is able to suburban sprawl. take advantage of proximity to a larger existing pool of potential employees, transit, and utility infrastructures. Goal 3: We will make This project is not designed in a traditional town form as discussed in traditional town form the Finding No. 1. standard: Goal 4: We will'"grrow aF project concentrates development near the -intersections of two livable " `"'""ftlt1 fbnation arterials:' The deh ityand intensitywelopmentwouldnetwork. ne a node,.or concentration of development in this vicinity ofhelping towards the goal of public transit. However, the lack of reets and lack of blockand-street layout does not encourage a nected and livable transportation network that supports multiple vehicular and pedestrian movement, especially those identified within a neighborhood devel0 "ment pattern. Goal 5: We will assemble. an This project provides a nine -hole golf course (49.18 acres), parkland enduring green network. dedication (17.17 acres), and other greenspace throughout the development (39.12 acres) fora total 01 103.50 acres of greenspace. Assuming the golf course counts toward greenspace, the total amount of greenspace would be 68% of the property. This project would be consistent with the intent of -this policy to protect the natural landscape, increase parks and`trails, and -preserve long:views across open green spaces. Goal 6: We will create The multi -family apartment buildings and townhouses proposed are a attainable housing. relatively affordable housing product. However, the lack of variety of lot sizes and residential uses provided by this development misses the opportunity for a more mixed -income neighborhood/community, with a majority of the residences not available for home ownership. Inconsistent with the intent of this goal, this project provides primarily two types of housing products (apartment/townhouse), and does not reflect a traditional urban neighborhood with households of varying economic means, including the single family detached or small lot single family attached housing typology. A:IReponsI20071PC ReporrsIO3-L2-0712-P7D 07-2452 (Links @ Fayette Wile) .doc (2) Whether the application is in compliance with all applicable statutory provisions; FINDING: As discussed in Finding No. 1 above, the application has been reviewed and found to be inconsistent with several of the applicable City policies. (3) Whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services; FINDING: The impact of the rezoning and subsequent development would require the provision of public facilities, at the cost of the developer. Without improvements to existing infrastructure, the proposal would certainly adversely affect public facilities and services. However, as indicated in the submittal and the staff report, certain measures are 4"-C�4_ taken to ensure adequate infrastructure improvements are made by the developer to ensure the level of service does not decline due to the proposed development. (4) Whether the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses; FINDING: The proposed zoning criteria in the western portion of the site would provide for large rows of townhouses and commercial buildings along Rupple Road. Staff finds..•t- that while the uses and footprints of the buildings indicated in the Master Development Plan and PZD booklet help to vary the typology found in the 152 -acre site, it does not incorporate a sense of compatibilityand scale'with surrounding propertios.c6 nitifitintMfiat the scale, volume, and U se of the buildii gs'proposed along Rupple RaShMtgiI Ytat bev�s.i- r compatible with the existing uses :to the west. Reducing the size oP4ther:htiildingsthe.-. number of combined units, and: providing 'for more lot/block-style development patterns with single family detached units would provide more compatibility with surrounding land' uses. This project provides:rlarge undeveloped areas of greenspace and/or golf courser,:,: adjacent to the north and eastein: boundaries and would not pose land use conflicts with the adjacent single family residences in those directions. The southern boundary abuts the ,,s Wedington Drive corridor and the proposed commercial buildings would be compatible with the mix of commercial and residential uses along Wedington. (5) Whether,the,subject4land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the ,..:, natural environniedt FINDING: The subject property is remnant farm land that has been mostly cleared. There ,. are areas, especially along the on -site creek, that contain considerably -sized trees. Approximately 68% of the site is proposed to remain in either developed or undeveloped greenspace, and the proposal attempts to respect the natural environment where possible. (6) Whether the intended land use would create traffic congestion or burden the existing road network; FINDING: A traffic study was completed for the approved Wellspring project on this site. K:1Repo is120071PC Reporlst03-12-07%R-PZD 07-2452 (Links a@ Faydleville).doc • The proposed development is different in intensity, uses, and density than the Wellspring project. Prior to development of the Links at Fayetteville, the traffic study would be required to be revised to reflect actual traffic generation and resulting impacts to the surrounding street system from the proposed development. . Based on the traffic study completed for the previously approved Wellspring project on this site, there would•be considerable traffic increase generated by the development, and considerable street improvements were mandated. As noted by the Police and Fire Department in their comments for the approved Wellspring project, leaving Rupple Road in situ is not an option. As with the Wellspring project, the developer for the Links at Fayetteville will be expected to make significant improvements to Rupple Road in order to alleviate and mitigate any burdens placed upon the street infrastructure. These will likely re ..,, + _ include new traffic signals, construction of at least half of Rupple Road (28 -foot width, '/2 boulevard, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks, streetlights, etc.), as well as other improvements to ensure safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian movement. The applicant has indicated that these improvements are anticipated, and agrees to meet the requirements placed upon the project by the City of Fayetteville in order to develop this project. Improvements will likely need to extend beyond the frontage of the subject property, to allow for safe and adequate access to the property. (7) Whether the planned development provides for unified development control under a unified plan; d urn i.e "FINDING: 4'ne-:booklet,and ,master development plans submitted providetfor saidimufredevetnnmerer inv. , t development control. iens ' .nn (8) Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD. FINDING: No other zoning considerations are proposed to be violated. t(:ex+.zu ...ntNllt@r:e4tlrcp. 2'+°, / e a e Fe n eY (B) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines (1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development standards and review:guidelinps.set forth herein. Primary. emphasis shall be placed upon• achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall determine that specific development features, including project density, building locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas, screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends, all applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the same general review guidelines as those utilized for zoning and subdivision applications. K:IReportsl20071PC Reports103-12-071R-PZD 07-2452 (Links @1 FayeaeviRe)doc FINDING: The proposed Planned Zoning District has been reviewed in light of all applicable development and zoning ordinances. The Master Development Plan sets out the basic guidelines, development and zoning criteria, commitments and design standards offered by the applicant. As discussed under Findings No. 1 and No. 4, staff rinds that the proposal will not achieve a high level of compatibility with adjacent properties to the west. Staff finds that the overall density is appropriate, however the site layout, building mass and footprints, vehicular circulation system, and overall development pattern is not the form that is outlined and encouraged in the City Plan 2025 for a traditional neighborhood. .The site planning incorporates environmental design features such as the golf course, tree preservation areas, park and trail areas. The public streets are generally developed with buildings close to the street and parking areas behind the buildings, screening.the parking •from the street and helping establish a more pedestrian friendly environment. However, ++v the lack of a lot -and -block layout and utilization of principles of traditional residential ,arrae',rr urban design to create compatible, livable and accessible neighborhoods, wherein a . varie ,�� „, of socioeconomic conditions co-exis ty'+.v :. t, is a departure from the development form directed by City Council in the City Plan 2025. While other uses existing surrounding this property, a • tenant of a rezoning request is providing compatibility to adjacent properties within the property being requested for a rezoning. Staff finds this proposal does not meet that test and does not preserve and enhance the neighborhood to further the health, safety, amenity cnassinI,i. and welfare of the community. (2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the.. development, and when= deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning.. y1an:Ee4cnozpJnjesjoftha4.l aequire landscaping and=sc Bening as pactiof+a.PZD:-fhe screening'.aitdo .uQ. ,, ua • landscaping shall. be provided as set forth in § 166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. -As party of the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to: • the Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and quality (size and age) of plant material. Screening plans shall include typical details of fences, berms and plant'material to be used. FINDING: No additional screening is proposed from the public streets, as there are not large surface parking areas facing streets. Many structures are oriented toward the streets .hiding.the parking. However a majority of the structures are not oriented toward public , streets but,, towards. private. parking lot drive aisles, and parking. lots,which is..generally.. ,rain.-., inconsistent with traditional urban forms of development. The development proposes several tree preservation areas throughout the site, in addition to a 17.17 acre parkland dedication area in the northeast portion of the site. The projcet:elso.incorporatessa 49c1&u +.c ,e ,I.4 acre golf course which provides large contiguous blocks of greenspace along the north, east, and central portions of the site. A landscape plan will be required at the time of large scale•..,rae ..an development. (3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply: (a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of the projected future traffic volumes. Kr Wepares120071PC Reporis103-12-071R-PZD 07-2452 (Larks @ Fayetleville).doc (b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate relationship with one another. (c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different land uses. (d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system, providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning development. (e) Internal local streets shall• be designed to discourage through traffic within the planned zoning development and to adjacent areas. (1) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and -.interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code. FINDING: The vehicular circulation system is comprised of a system of three main public streets leading: into the town center in the central portion of the project, and private. parking lot drive aisles providing access off of those streetsnto.azrmajaraty Of the multi=:r family dwellings >There.-isealso a .public street conneofiagi4bfliphs'Road for -the interior 'public street,in.the:;northern:portionofthesite. The mixed4aserandvommeneiaatbuildings,r .::., faceonto public streets; and the multi -family dwellings face onto either public streets on the golf course, and. are generally accessed off of internal parking lot drive'aisles: As stated. under: Finding No. 1, staff does not recommend in favor of the orientation of alarge majority.. of the multi=family' dwellings off of public streets, and forcing a -large majority' of: • • . ,.' the circulation through private parking lots. Due to the amount of dwellings proposed and • vehicle trips generated there -from, staff finds that additional public streets•are-necessary to adequately handle the capacity of traffic. This would include a public street. in the southwest corner of.the site, as well as interior to the projeolt:s.:, ,,. ne, •. ...- (4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172 Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the respective use areas. t**t; FINDING: Standard parking ratios for the proposed uses shall apply. •All>parking areas shall conform to City of Fayetteville standard specifications, unless approved otherwise by the Planning Commission. (5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district, all uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of this chapter of this code. K::IReporsst20071PC ReportsIO3-l2-07IR-P7D 07-2452 (Links Q Fayenevile).dac FINDING: The development provides a great deal of open space to be retained for community and recreation use. Open spaces are indicated to be met with development of each Planning Area, and all buffering, screening and landscaping required by city code will be applicable. (6) Sidewalks. As required by §166.03. FINDING: Sidewalks and other pedestrian connections will be evaluated at the time of development to ensure compliance. In general the Master Development Plan provides for sidewalks along public streets, and interior along the parking lot drive aisles and multi- family units. (7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Street lights are to be provided adjacent to all public and private streets at a separation of no greater than 300 feet. (8) Water. As required by § 166.03. FINDING: Public water will be provided to the project site, pursuant to city.code. -'- (9),Sewe'uAs-required by §166;03. sewer will be provided to the project site, purse tito *eity Ycode4 The • reu 'tdeveloper may be responsible for contributing to the interim solution -for• -wastewater u Y'•+ ` capacity issues'in the Hamestring basin, as determined by Engineering>ataff:and+Plauning'. Commission at the time of development. (10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or private. (a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards of the:City. (b) Private Streets. Private streets within a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to the following conditions: " ' (i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul- de-sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shalt be constructed to existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street. (ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below. K.' IRepor1s12007lpC Reports103-12-0718-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayettevill,).doc (iii)All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading (Physical Alteration of Land) and- Drainage (Storm water .management) Ordinances. Open drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer. (iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density served by a loop street shall be 80 units. (v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a "private street." (vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund shall be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide that the City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right to enforce the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the vote of the other parties to the covenants. (vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained as required by the covenants, thefl City shall have the right (but shall not be required) to maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property owners within the PZD on a pro rata basis according to. assessed: valuation for ad valorem tax purposes and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD.kr:.lat,, urt s:se ,such cost. The protective covenantsshall grantthe City the right louse alhprivate 'streets for purposes of providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and e •.;n:r„ey - --any-other of the municipal functions. The; protective covenants shall provide that such covenants shall not be amended and shall not terminate without approvalS of the City Council. (viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served. The following standard shall be used: Paving•Width (No On -Street Parking) Dwelling One -Way Two -Way Units 1 20 14' 22' 21+ 114' 124' *Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is K:IReporns120071PC Reportsl03-/2-071 R-PZD 07-2452 (Links Q Fayetteville).doc intended. (ix) All•of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private streets within a PZD. (x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street. (xi) The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign, not exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street" which shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic. FINDING: The Planned Zoning District process allows an applicant to propose alternative • street cross -sections, sidewalk width.and location, etc., with the approval of the Planning • Commission. Public and Private streets shall not be gated, unless permitted by express approval from the City Council. The Master Development Plan for the Links at Fayetteville indicates a 60' public right-of-way for the three public streets. This street section would provide for two traffic lanes and parallel parking on either side of the street. This street section is currently not included in the City's Master Street Plan and would require a waiver of the street design standards. Staff is in support of the requested 60' street section. A more detailed review of the Town Center "square" will be necessary at the time of development and may require revisions. Also proposed is a 50 public right-ofiire rrv.sinn way for the newly proposed street to the northeast. (1l) Construction of nonresidential: facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight z <' •:' .c building permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shallabe constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the nonresidential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into .. a contract with the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities. FINDING: All development on the site shall be phased according to the phasing plan and conditions herein: (12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for tree . preservation as set forth in: Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The location of trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade levels. - FINDING: A tree preservation plan shall be submitted at the time of development. It is anticipated that a large tree preservation/undisturbed area will be protected. The Master Development Plan indicates several areas for tree preservation. Canopy calculations shall be based upon minimum 25% canopy preservation required.. (13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in K: %Reportsl2007WC ReportsIO3-12-07IR-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayetteville) doe §166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards for Commercial Structures. FINDING: All commercial structures shall be evaluated as set forth in the code, at the time of development. Though strict adherence is not essential, submitted concept drawings will be utilized as templates for the future buildings. (14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant restrictions. Anntne. FINDING: Staff finds no specific scenic views to be protected on the subject property. (E) Revocation. (1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or occupancy permits be voided under the following circumstances: (a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed. (b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased development schedule as stated in the approved development plan. '(c) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all common open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final plan are proceeding at a substantially slower -rate than other project components. Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting of each quarter, so that_the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual development accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning Commission finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial or industrial structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public.recreational facilities have been constructed and provided,, then the Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease to approve• any additional final plans if preceding phases have not been finalized. The city may also issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or revoke those previously issued. (2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be sent to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the event a PZD is revoked, the City Council shall take the appropriate action in the city K:IReparts120071PC Reporis103-12-071R-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayette rile) .doc clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted. (3) Effect In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected, the City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize continued issuance of building permits. (F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations. (1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake and be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private roads, parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas, building, lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The city encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or other nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district, contracts and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally - owned facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and •by the Planning Commission as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. The aforementioned legal instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission together with the filing of the final plan,.except.that the Guarantee shall be filed with the preliminary plan or at least in a. preliminary •form: (2) Common areas. if the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the • developer shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Guarantee that will govern the. association with the application for final'plan approval. The provisions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: (a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are granted. (b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer. (c) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years. (d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes and other public assessments. (e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance assessment levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the property. The association must be able to adjust the assessment to meet changing needs. KlReportsl2007LPC Reports105-l2-07IR-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ FayettevllleJ.doc I FINDING: The applicant shall comply with these requirements. Sec. 161.25Planned Zoning District (A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals. (1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. - ... . (2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. (4) . Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. (5) No negative impact. Does not.have a negative effect upon the future development of the area; (6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding:theiPZD• .v .: and cooperation. between the city and private developers in the urbanization of . new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. , (7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. (8) Natural .features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption.of existing natural features and amenities. (9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan. (10) Special Features. Better. utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. FINDING: Staff finds this proposal does not meet the intent of some of the parameters of the City Plan 2025, as discussed in Staff Finding No. 1. The project does not meet the K:IReports120071PC Rcpor1s103-1 2-0718-PZD 07-2452 (Links @ Fayeneville).doc • intent of some of the parameters of some of the above ten criteria, including flexibility in • density, compatibility and transition of land use, and provision of a variety of housing • types. The following guiding policies within City Neighborhood Areas are applicablotoelhis•_ development, and help to achieve the six primary goals of the City Plan 2025: City Neighborhood Areas: a. Protect adjoining properties from the potential adverse impacts associated with non-residential uses adjacent to and within residential areas with proper mitigation measures that address scale, massing, traffic, noise, appearance, lighting, drainage, and effects on property values. b. Provide non-residential uses that are accessible for the convenience of IS, individuals living in residential districts and where compatibility with extstingrenrrrr desirable development patterns occurs. c. Reduce the length and number of vehicle trips generated by residential development by enhancing the accessibility to these areas; encourage walkability as part of the street function. Neighborhood shopping should be within walking distance of residential use, or approximately one -quarter mile. • dEncourage developers to designate and plan for mixed -use corners at the time of approval to properly plan for accessibility to these areas. „,,,r<,,,.-• e. Encourage pedestrian friendly, mixed -use buildings through the use of transparent glass for. commercial uses at street level and building entrances that address -the street: (B) Rezoning. Property maybe -rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council in accordance.•with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166; Development. Each-ni- i .1k..: a:;;y;. rezoning parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific design and development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label; along with the designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development plan and development standards. • FINDING: The subject described real property is proposed to be rezoned to R-PZD 07- 2452, with seven (7) unique Planning Areas. The development standards, statement of commitments and Master Development Plan approved shall be adopted with the.rezoning., (C) R — PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District. (1) Purpose and intent. The R-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use or clustered residential developments and to accommodate single -use residential developments that are determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general residential rezone. The legislative purposes, intent, and application of this district include, but are not limited to, the following: K:IReponst20071PC Rcpons103-l2-071R-PZD 07-2452 (Lurks® Fayelteville).doc (a) To encourage a variety and flexibility in land development and land use for predominately residential areas, consistent with the city's City Plan 2025 and the orderly development of the city. (b) To provide a framework within which an effective relationship of different land uses and activities within a single development, or when considered with abutting parcels of land, can be planned on a total basis. (c) To provide a harmonious relationship with the surrounding development, minimizing such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion, and excessive demands on planned and existing public facilities. (d) To provide a means of developing areas with special physical features to enhance natural beauty and other attributes. (e) To encourage the efficient use of those public facilities required in connection with new residential development. FINDING: Staff is recommending denial of this application, finding the proposed.. ik,nwi-.1i.: nu does not meets the intent of the PZD ordinance as noted above. As -discussed in ;Findings=rr33nxnre, No. 1 and 4, the project does not encourage variety and flexibility, does not provide, at.:.,. r;,,:,,: • + framework for an effective relationship of different land uses, and is not compatible with=::. ;,;p .ere existing land uses to, the west. It is staff's finding that the scale of the project_ demands:ai• greater variety of land uses, most notable the inclusion of single family detached and.' attached units. xcnese .sets. • (2) Permitted Uses. All permitted uses identified within § 162 Use Units of the Unified Development Code shall be allowed as permissible uses, unless otherwise specified,, , subject to City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District request. (3) Conditional Uses. All conditional uses allowed within (Residential, Commercial, Industrial) zoning Districts established in the Unified Development Code shall be allowed with Planning Commission approval, unless otherwise specified,. subject to the co a governing Conditional Use. requests. FINDING: Permitted and Conditional uses are outlined in both the Master Development Plan booklets and plats. (4) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent (51%) of the gross floor area within the development. FINDING: The residential uses on this property will be at least fifty-one percent of the gross floor area within the development. (F) Bulk and area regulations K:IReports120071PC Reportst03-/2-0718-PZD 07-2452 (Links Q Faav tteville).doc (1) Residential density. Residential densities shall be determined on the basis of the following considerations: (a) The densities of surrounding development; (b) the densities allowed under the current zoning; (c) the urban development goals and other policies of the city's General Plan; (d) the topography and character of the natural environment; and (e) the impact of a given density on the specific site and adjacent,properties. FINDING: Surrounding development is generally single family with rural residential -type density to the west, more standard suburban subdivision density to the east, with a mix of commercial and residential uses along the Wedington. Drive corridor to the south. As discussed in Findings No. 1 and No. 4, staff finds that the lack of variety in the density proposed; andarepetitious building footprint and building type throughoutthe 152 -acre site ~. are• -not compatible- with existing surrounding land uses to the west,and do not create a, •,�.=•4•:u • •, li•� complete neighborhood over this 152 -acre site. Staff does not take:•issue with the overaflf • •• t,nc density of 8 units per acre; the city's development goals and infrastructure for this area .�a. supportsty designed a.higher>densi isi appropriately. Hoexer3w,theraack=>of vanety.and t transition •in=:density::throughout the site is not consistent with adtyrplanning policies:• The::ax - immensity of the development proposed (152 acres, 1,221 -unit residential :development).::.:- eclipses most projects within and surrounding Fayetteville, without much change in the building type over the property. In that regard, the proposalof.a primarily;•rental apartment dwelling. is of concern on a scale on this magnitudes: Alsosea_Stafl':Findings Nos. (E)(1), (E)(4), (E)(5), and (B)(1)• }. (2) Lot area and setback requirements. Taking into consideration the unique aspects of each project, preliminary development plans for Planned Zoning Districts shall conform as closely as possible to the existing standards for lot area minimums and setback requirements.under this chapter. FINDING: Lot area minimums and setbacks are not varied on this project. This project would leave the entire 152 -acre site under one lot (unless out -lots are created in the future), and would not provide for a great variety in the size or mass of structures. The structures are located either oriented to the street with minimal front setbacks, or oriented to the golf course on the perimeter of the development. Due to the unique nature of this development desiring to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape along the public streets, it is not possible to conform to existing standards for lot area minimums and setback requirements. (3) Building height. There shall be no maximum building height except as may be determined by the Planning Commission during the review o,f the preliminary G':IReports1200NC Reports103-l2-071R-M 07-2452 (Links @ Faycacvile).doe y development plan based on the uses within the development and the proximity of the development to existing or prospective development on adjacent properties. A lesser height may be established by the Planning Commission when it is deemed necessary to provide adequate light and air to adjacent property and to protect the visual quality of the community. FINDING: Building heights proposed for this project range from 1-4 stories, and are typical of commercial and multi -family development. These heights are consistent with the height requirements of the surrounding zoning. (4) Building area. The Planning Commission shall review specific proposed lot coverages which generally correspond to the guidelines for lot coverage in the respective residential, office, commercial or industrial district which most depicts said development scheme. FINDING: The lot coverage over the entire 152 -acre site is relatively low, given the density and mix of commercial uses. The lot coverages are appropriate given the more urban environment proposed. �Keautred Findings for Rezoning Request e< t =aura• Land Use. Plan: The• City Plan 2025 Future Land. Use Plan designates this site as a City • Neighborhood Area Rezoning this property to R-PZD 07-2452, with the associated Master Developmerrtpplan,;=is.:.not-consistent with the land use plan as the proposerk:rlevelopmerrt proposes tiho-types 'of residential dwellings in a fairly homogenous footprint srdrbuildirig:, ;. =ien= ' elevatiotr',generally <repeated throughout the site, with slight- variations r, T#ia vefopmen• t<-• pattern is not consistent with the City Neighborhood Area guiding: policies to create =a complete, compact and connected neighborhood The proposed plan . may result do an- rsge incompatible development .with surrounding land uses in the=�roraltaieitplaetxd f4i(vtoaneel.. many of the goals of the City Plan 2025 for new development FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land -use planning objectives, principles, and.policies and:with land use and.zoning plans: Finding: Staff finds the proposal is not highly consistent with •theHland+mse planning objectives, principles and policies, as evidenced, by the number of guiding policies for City Neighborhood Areas this proposal does not meet, and the six major goals of City Plan 2025 as discussed in Staff Finding No. (E)(1). Staff would recommend a similar density and intensity, finding it appropriate and compatible, but with a greater variety of housing types, lot sizes, etc. It is staff's finding that the size and impact of development of this property as it relates to compatibility are undeniably great, and demand transition and compatibility within the bounds of the property itself, and should not solely rely upon surrounding properties for that compatibility. K:IReporLSL0071PC Reports103-11-0718-PZD07-2452 (Links @ Fayeaeville).da 4 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: The developer desires to create a unique development on the property, different than the previously approved R-PZD for the Wellspring project. A re -zoning is needed for any development that does not conform to the approved Wellspring project, which has been indicated by the applicant as not possible to develop. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: Staff finds this proposal will not create or appreciably, increase traffic danger.win ...., ,.,•,.:: and congestion, with the street improvements recommended. Without significant improvements staff would recommend denial of this project. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Staff finds that in evaluating this proposal, the population -.,density wouddcrl:+ r undoubtedly increase -from that which currently:exists, and that the commercial uses .proposed would create additional demand on puh3ie#seu. r`5Ut ≤ services; . Staff. -finds, however, that the load created. on public services is •notvet•.:. w rrAnrsr,,. , anr�aundesirable. or : detrimental impact, :with: the. :improvements as-',!ner:: ; •recommended by staff for this project. - "s,.. mgr= 5.... ......if there -are •reasons why the.proposed zoning should not- be:approved in .vof considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: As discussed in the findings throughout this report, staff recommends denial of the requested R-PZD 07-2452, finding the proposal- inconsistent with several: adopted goals and policies of the City Plan 2025; finding the primarily single -use multi -family product that utilizes a similar footprint in approximately 70 buildings does not promote or encourage a variety of housing type, attainable home ownership, or a complete neighborhood on this very large tract of land. K' IRepartsI2007NC Reports%03-12-07IR-PZD 07-2452 (Links Q FaXitevillk,doe a evl 1 y ARKANSAS 113W. Mountain St Fayetteville, AR 72701 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Telephone: (479) 444-3469 TO: Andrew Garner, Associate Planner FROM: Alison Jumper, Park Planner DATE: March 7, 2007 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Comments Meeting Date: March 12, 2007 Item: R-PZD 07-2532 The Links at Fayetteville, 400,401,361,362 Park District: NW Zoned: RPZD Billing. Name & Address: The Links at Fayetteville, 1165 Joyce Blvd. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Single Family @ .024 acre per unit = acres @ $960 per unit = $ Multi Family @.017 acre per unit = acres ' @ $680per unit = $ COMMENTS: ■ PRAB recommended accepting a combination of land and money in lieu of land for this project on January 8th, 2007. Additionally the developer has agreed to the following. terms: l )The Developer shall dedicate approximately 17.32 acres of land adjacent Bryce Davis Park. In addition, the Developer shall pay the City $138,000.00 money in lieu for the remaining 3.45 acres of required land dedication not provided in this proposal. (20.77 acres required— 17.32 acres dedicated = 3.45 short/0.017 acres = 202.94 unitsX$680.00 = $138,000.00). 2) The Developer shall construct a 6' high wrought iron fence between the proposed golf course and the proposed park area. 3) The existing lake located within the proposed park land area shall remain with the following conditions: R-PZD0-2 a) Overflow from said lake shall flow to a second lake to be constructed off park land from which the Developer will draw irrigation waters. b) A well shall be constructed off park land and maintained by the Developer from which water. will be deposited into the existing lake to maintain an elevation to be agreed upon by the Developer and Parks Board. Said well will also provide water to the "lower irrigation lake via a second line. c) The existing lake shall be altered only to the degree necessary to provide storm water detention for the drainage area it now serves. d) If requested by the city, a "shelf' shall be constructed in the existing lake that is 1' below the established water level indicated in 3 (b) and extends 3'-5' from the existing shoreline at the Developer's expense. 4) On -street parking shall be constructed by the Developer along a section of public street bordering the proposed park land. A minimum of eight spaces shall be provided. • An agreement will be necessary to provide the flow of water from the pond on the park property to the irrigation pond. • Coordinate with the Trails Coordiator for trail connection to the north. The park boundary may need to be adjusted to accommodate an accessible trail due to the steep topography. R-PZD0-2 l A _ OF ENGINEERING DIVISION - TRAILS CORRESPONDENCE To: Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates From: Matt Mihalevich, Trails Coordinator Date: March 12, 2OO7 Subject: Planning Commission Comments 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3416 mmihalevich@ci.tayetteviIlc.ar.us ITEM #: .R-PZD o7-2452: Planned Zoning . District (The Links at Fayetteville) TRAIL COMMENTS Background• 1. Bryce Davis`Trail is identified 0ntheFayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Master Plan to be located. along the north and east edge of this property as shown on the plat. The trail will be 8' wide and will provide a. connection from the future Hamestring Creek Trail to Bryce Davis Park 2. The park landdedication area has been modified since the submittal to Parks Board on January.8th,:2007.•.The modification has narrowed the proposed park land in northeast and is now insufficient for trail construction. In order for the trail to meet the guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities, switchbacks will be necessary and additional width is necessary to accommodate these switchbacks. Recommendation: 1. Expand the proposed park land dedication in the northeast corner of the project an additional 15O' along the existing east edge of area IV with a line narrowing to meet where the north property makes a jog near corner near the creek as shown on the original Parks Board submittal. 2. Include a raised trail crossing at the crossing of the Public Street going east. The trail crossing should be continuous across the street at the level of the top curb. Similar to a speed table with the trail crossing over. Fayetteville Fire Department To: Suzanne Morgan, Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher Thru: Chief Tony Johnson Chief Bud Thompson From: Captain Dale Riggins Date: February 21, 2007 Re: February 21,2007 Zoning.Review — Fire Department Comments - RZ 7-2 64 (Fowler) The 1.5a es are cover by E ine 6 located at 900 oil od. It i .7 miles om the stati n with anticipated respo e time of minute . The Fi e partment d snot fi calls for ervice on pro ies being re- net C -1y Neighborhood ommerci 1, but typi y this f development wi of increase" call volumes or r times. R-PZD 07-2452 (The Links at Fayetteville) These 152 acres are currently covered by Station 7 on Rupple Road. The property is 0.8 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 1.5 minutes to the beginning of this subdivision and 2.5 minutes after the maximum build out is completed. We project this development to produce 326 calls for service per year at maximum build out (128 fire/other and 198 EMS). This accounts for the residential properties only. Typically, commercial properties do not greatly affect our,. call volume. with -in a fire district. The service impact of this development will typically take eighteen months, after the development is started, to occur. Since Rupple Road is narrow and curvy, the widening of this road with greatly help getting our apparatus to the scene of this development along with any calls north of that • area. If you have any questions concerning these comments please don't hesitate to call me Captain Dale Riggins Fayetteville Fire Department G }i` ice X 1. 1.n ,_. L I, -x. f_ fl"nti • / s ~. i.•.f � 1;iof w a'� 1 \cT7i; .. ..� _. a"s Y '. Kll ✓-' l� II FAYI1L> 1,EVILLE THE CITY OFFAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS POLICE DEPARTMENT July 25, 2005 Jeremy Pate Director of Current Planning City of Fayetteville 125 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72702 Dear Mr. Pate: RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2005 PLANNING DID. This document is in response to your request for estimated implications/expectations the Wellspring Community PZD would place on the Fayetteville Police Department. Based on historical data of similar demographic and geographic commercial and residential areas, estimations can be made regarding an increase in police calls for service. Upon completion of the build out of this PZD, the Fayetteville Police Department can realize an estimated three percent increase in total calls for service. Given the current traffic environment in this area, a development of this size would have an obvious impact on traffic congestion. The Engineering Department may provide more specific information regarding questions about the traffic impact for the Wellspring Community PZD. Qcc& ea Meh �Ch11MAT U conm e4c �'`�.b��,10 X12 I,;,,ks �k Rob Turberviile a t'C aLS� a Fayetteville Police TTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT bX 1988 (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 TT4988 , ARKANSAS 72702-1988 JALL: 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72707 PHONE: 479387,3555 FAX:479387,3522 PC Meeting of February 26, 2007. ye.e� ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. e,ARMountain701 Fhonc (479 44 72701 Telephone: (479) 444-3470 PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE To: Fayetteville Planning Commission From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester Date: February 21, 2OO7 ITEM #: MDP 07-2452: Master Development Plan (Links @ Fayetteville) TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 1. A full Tree Preservation Plan will be required once this development comes through the planning process.This should include but not be limited to: • A full tree inventory of:all significant trees • Canopy calculations including existing canopy, preserved canopy, removed canopy • A site analysis report • Survey the location of significant trees and those directly affected by the development. 2. At the time of development, staff will assess the plans with a minimum canopy cover of at least 25%. The original rezoning request for this parcel utilized the 25% minimum and it is staffs determination that this project should as well. LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS t. At the time of development this project will be assessed for all landscape requirements as defined in Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations. This will include but not be limited to street trees, stormwater plantings, etc. From: "TRACY HOSKINS" <tkhoskihs@paradgmnwa.com> To: 'Jeremy Pate" <jpate@ci;tayetteviIIe.acus>, <AGARNER@CLFAYETTEVILLE:AR.US> Date: 2/26107 9:51AM • Subject: RPZD 07-2452 THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE JEREMY/ANDREW, GOOD MORNING; HERE'S THE NEXT ONE; SORRY TO BE A PAIN. I READ THIS WEEKEND THAT LINDSEY IS PUTTING THROUGH A NEW PZD ON RUPPLE ROAD WHERE WELLSPRINGS WAS ONCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE SAME WAS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISION TONIGHT. IT MAY BE THAT 1'M BRAIN DEAD, BUT THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE 'ADJACENT/SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, IS HE NOT? IS THERE ANY WAY OF VERIFYING THAT HE DID INDEED NOTIFY EVERYONE HE WAS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT NOTIFICATION WAS ISSUED APPROPRIATELY? I GUESS ITS POSSIBLE THAT ONE OF MY STAFF PICKED UP THE CERTIFIED LETTER AND DIDN'T TELL ME ABOUT IT; BUT ITS NOT LIKELY. I WOULD HAVE LIKED THE OPPORTUNITY TO' REVIEW THIS SUBMITTAL. IN THE EVENT THAT I DID RECEIVE MY NOTIFICATION (AND I'M SURE I DID NOT) AND THE PROJECT WILL BE HEARD THIS EVENING BY THE COMMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY GENUINE CONCERN WITH THIS SUBMITTAL. AS YOU ARE AWARE, I HAVE NEVER SPOKE AGAINST ANOTHER DEVELOPER'S PROJECT KNOWING THAT STAFF IS VERY CAPABLE AND I MOST GENERALLY AGREE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS. I AM PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE LONG TERM AFFECT IT WILL HAVE ON THE VIABILITY OF OAKBROOKE AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO MY SOUTH BY MARK FOSTER. I'M AWARE OF THE GOALS OF THE NEW CITYPLAN 2025 REGARDING INFILL, DENSITY, AND THE INTEGRATION OF MIXED USES. AS YOU'LL REMEMBER, I WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF CREATING THE POLICY. WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS THAT I SUSPECT (THOUGH SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN MANY OTHER PROJECTS HE'S DONE IN OUR AREA) THE DEVELOPER HAS GIVEN LITTLE, IF ANY, CONSIDERATION TO TRANSITION OF DENSITY. I'M SURE HE IS LINING RUPPLE ROAD WITH•WHAT HE REFERS TO AS "MIXED USE BUILDINGS; WHICH WILL ONLY BE RETAIL AND OFFICE BUILDINGS LABELED AS SUCH. I'M SURE THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DENSITY OF NEIGHBORING DEVELOPEMENTS, AND THAT IT REMAINS CONTINUOUS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE 152 ACRES. I'M SURE THAT THE "SAME OL'-SAME OL"'LINDSEY" "MOTEL -STYLE APARTMENT BUILDINGS" WILL BE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC UNDER THE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE GREENSPACE AND BUFFERING' THE PSEUDO GOLF COURSE WILL PROVIDE. IN A TRUE MIXED -USE ENVIRONMENT, THERE SHOULD BE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS, OF VARIOUS SIZES, SHAPES, AND MATERIALS. THERE SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERATION OF TRANSECT ZONING WHICH IMPLEMENTS TRANSITION OF DENSITY. FURTHER, IF YOU'LL REVISIT THE DAYS WHEN OAKBROOKE WAS TRUDGING ITS WAY THROUGH THE SYSTEM, THE NEIGHBORS WERE VERY VOCAL IN THEIR OPINIONS OF HIGH DENSITY IN THIS AREA. THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT AN OVER ABUNDANCE OF "RENTAL PROPERTIES" IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. THOUGH I HAVEN'T RECEIVED NOTICE OF THIS PROJECT BEING PLACED ON THE COMMISSIONS AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO IT BEING HEARD BY THE COMMISSION TONIGHT IF MY CONCERNS OUTLINED IN THIS LETTER COULD BE PUBLICLY ADDRESSED TONIGHT IN MY ABSENCE. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THE PROJECT WILL BE HEARD AND IF SO, THAT YOU WILL MAKE MY CONCERNS KNOWN TO THE COMMISSION. THANKS YOU TKHOSKINS - PRESIDENT THE PARADIGM COMPANIES P.S. DOES THE PZD ZONING OF A PROPERTY REVERT BACK Tolls ORIGINAL ZONING IF CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT BEGIN WITHIN A SET PERIOD OF TIME? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 /Virus Database: 268.18.4/702 - Release Date: 2/25/2007 3:16 PM CC: <JGAMBILL@CI FAYETTEVILLE.AR.US> , l'f;`l ERS & Sti 1'0(;f\Tl('L EN(:1NEiK:RS. INC. February 26, 2007 Mr. Jerry Kelso Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. 10825 Financial Center Pkwy. Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 RE: P1258 Trip -Generation Comparison The Links at Fayetteville vs. Well Springs Wedington Drive and Rupple Road Fayetteville, Arkansas Dear Mr. Kelso: As you requested, Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. has done a comparison of projected traffic volumes relating to the proposed development of The Links at Fayetteville development (as described. in a traffic study report dated February 21, 2007 by this consultant) compared to the Well Springs development at the same location, north of Wedington Drive and east of Rupple Road in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Trip Generation, an Informational Report (7th Edition), 2004, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and The Trip Generation Software (Version 5 by Microtrans), were utilized in calculating the magnitude of traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed land - uses in this comparison. These are reliable sources for this information and are universally used in the traffic engineering profession. Using the selected trip -generation rates, calculations were made as a part of this comparison to provide a reliable estimate of traffic volumes that can be expected to be associated with the development as proposed for The Links at Fayetteville and for Well Springs. The following table, "Trip -Generation Comparison," summarizes the trip -generation for the difference in size of lan&uses for the AM peak hour. PM peak hour and 24 -hour projected traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed uses. hf07 RANCH DRIVE - SUITE 205 UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72223 (501) 060-3999 FAX: (501) !°T971 Mr. Jerry Kelso February 26,2007 Page 2 Trip -Generation Comparison It was found that trip -generation corresponding to the difference in the sizes and land uses of the developments as follows: 24 -Hour: Development of The Links at Fayetteville is expected to generate, on a 24 -hour basis, 5,568 fewer vehicle trips (combined in and out) than development of Wells Springs. This equates to 28 percent fewer vehicle trips. AM Peak Hour: Development of The Links at Fayetteville is expected to generate 230 fewer vehicle trips (combined in and out) than development of Wells Springs during the AM peak hour. This equates to 20 percent fewer vehicle trips. Mr. Jerry Kelso February 26, 2007 Page 3 • PM Peak Hour: Development of The Links at Fayetteville is expected to generate 558 fewer vehicle trips (combined in and out) than development of Well Springs during the PM peak hour. This equates to 29 percent fewer vehicle trips. Please call if you have further questions or require additional information. Sincerely, PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, [NC. Ernest J. Peters, P.E. President Wetigan C/ om a WEDINGTON R. .. t.. -a_ 4�n-ate: It o fNflt.L o� cs a Y.DR. o> w1 z w z G O 4 � O /w^ v ow Z uJ J Q w w C W a I — c L1J >r - U W. J Q W (L V) Q F W Z f— J Ca i W U OCu a d V u z jm a] a N W Iza �m 1W_ �W I�Q (aa I�� El C. LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE R-PZD PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE MARCH 26, 2007 SUBMITTAL Links at Fayetteville Master Development Plan March 26 2007 Planning Commission TYPE OF USE PLANNING RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL NON- NON- ACRES % OF SITE AREA DENSITY UNITS RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL (UNITSIACRE) INTENSITY SQUARE (SQ.FT.(ACRE) FEET Multi- PA -3 12.71 1,000 NA 9 hole golf 78.66 51.67% family/Golf course Dedicated PA -5 NA NA NA NA 17.32 11.38% parks Club House PA -2 0.19 1 3,170 16,388 5.17 3.40% Mixed Use PA -4 35.53 108 8,651 26,300 3.04 2.00% Commercial PA -1 N/A N/A 10,000 78,200 7.82 5.14% Town Homes PA -6 15.00 75 NA NA 5.28 3.47% Single PA -6 15.00 74 NA 9 hole golf 34.94 22.95% Family/Golf course Course TOTAL 8.26 1258 794 120888 152.23 100.00% -.' SFvwr fW tuna[' OUR! 4 ILlI 0000 o t_ oo oo 0 0 0 0 0 0_ i,_ II iI 'IIII WEDINGTON DRIVE STATE HIGHWAY NO.16 WEST Wellspring Community Master Development Plan Roads highlighted will be built in Phase 1. El i'u161:. Streofs; L.;ks ?ZO SRON FRUT THE WEE TOWI AVE AN NTORDADIE DETADED PLANNING AREA VII SINGLE FAMILY I GOLF COURSE H.MNRG UEVA1IpIS 1HAT 11<E 06U IP11W OE WRONGS IRICNMASCNRY.. PLANNING AREA N - TOWN CENTER!MIXED MIXED USE PLANNING AREA VI PARKWAY TOWNHOMES PLANNING AREA I MARKET DISTRICT MSIaP 16 NORM RANGE .30 WEST. TOWISHW 16 NORM, RANGE 31 MNSUP I6 R TH, RANGE 30 WEST. IF I6 NORM. RANGE 31 WEST, ALL 1, 10 -WT. BEUWUNG Al A PUNT OF THE SWMWESr WARTTA W TO A SET TRW PIN, TNTNCE o WON NN, MENGE NST46'A2 W iT QUARTER UF ME SAIMNFST to ID AT THE NUTIHEAST CORNER GE 2 6650W 751.69 TO ME 10'3CW 6516. S091642 W M.03'. 26'W 5576. S13'6'IO'W 52.31. 16'W 60.06', S4648'24iW 67.32'. air,, 56.67. S2223CW 5461. ,21W 57.16', S211136'W 51.39, 03W 19.91, SO2l11261W 51.03', r151N 1089, S02'3325W 51.35. fl5'W 440W. 31255W 52.16', I'01W 5235', Wn109"W 51.19', IBb 50.91', 50TA2'26'W 19.1?, '551W 360.61', TIERCE 1EAWNG D A SET WON PW, MENGE 56702597 209.22 TO DIE PUNT LUI15-W-WAY 0E RECO1m. 200 100 0 200 0 fl fl I PLANNING AREA III j MULTI FAMILY I GOLF COURSE It I PLANNING AREA I MARKET DISTRICT I•1117A� PLANNING CLUHH INEDDINGTON ROA Amenities A 111 tell e I a... fit ell...I... Petal. r.a.mn . el.a.nle.l nil,.. mnu.. xsI.pina Its ounuuueaunl..III our tin.,.., tiftiti.. nmml..In posteriori Paris, l area 61.11 It llenel.ta .Ale 1199 puunllu. 11 .OI ri V.II..dd P.nu Alto, I I.In11,*6111 111. '.11.11, P.... �e 111111 I. WnlIPrine Ililpn1. ill In. Pont. nu All a vly.m ua Iomenn IIau PContent 1. n. Pgmnm. 4Pn .a. am9 moo Main. In, 'moo, Pinup .111 I... n.... 1.. .1.. .star... ..,tall ..lams. wJ1..Oy'. leglalu e1 tales .1.11. tae 411.., 1111"I.a q.41 untried .11% nail .ri either Man 111011 4elony inn I......P. ",nest. I.,.... 11111 ..,I .1 Ma. nua111 .11111..11. tna aou Wau.rl.I .nu..... "$11n inl ..In Ile dilator. "111. e I'll.quI. — P.I.ntl"➢ur11 Pean11.1111111. Development Plan 0 Planning Area I - oermn xomee .,tart at Plma 1 0 Planning Ares 2 - Parkway town Homes Apr ut Pineat I A PIRWning At.. 3 . Clubholru Parr or Plluct I 0 Planning Ares 4. Conoominluma .Pnl ar 11n Oa] ® Prs nnlnq Ana 5 - Mlued Us. D.e a lapmanl 011 al Phi,. ® Planning Ares a - Market District Part ul PI111t„ 1 0 Planation Arts 1 - Parks Area, Community Green Space and Tn. association Area .Pall.1 ryu41 xla — I 1. r10FM { ♦ll'' AnaY' l Y ` III r Q ;. j / O°O (OOif H ..z jrO ¢ ° i �y a P 1f jt. eta+C z II1�. n t ((r:TT l y KO I F g o r 1 •'. SY i IiII eO� ° t!.j • Piz ..:.i Q-' al°• ° c'1 00 __ tr o°C�C h y < h 11 by 1 0 " O n 51I Ir y rJ 2 r f tr I , ° iC I i KK Otl v `i l LL w ylI n O J t 11 Y IiJ f S �•vPl'� Iff YJ"il'rP. H \ '�Jq .4i t�J UJ 1,Q L `''^""S 13.'rt� «P" I ci Ixt 4 ttly Ym II y iu 1 W LL >, rfl v iW J2C.1 °r I'ij �4°i ryljlyggT ". • -...v'.�-.Vc. 4Ar'�.' cY N 6 NTr . _•j. .I b II1`IIInyI • 1� t r r Jlp Lt1 , 3AItl0 N0l 0NI03M y; Planning Commission March 26, 2007 Page 4 of 16 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: R-PZD 07-2452: Planned Zoning District (THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE, 400.401.361.362): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL, SPARKS & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT 05-1636 (WELLSPRING) and contains approximately 152.23 acres. The request is for zoning and land use approval only for a new R-PZD. The proposed R-PZD would allow 1,258 residential dwelling units, 120,888 square feet of non-residential/commercial space, and 16,388 square feet of recreational buildings. The non-residential and recreational portions of the development would contain a golf course, a commercial `market' area, green space, park, and associated parking. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the project, based on findings within the staff report, primarily with inconsistency with the goals of the City's Future Land Use Plan, CityPlan 2025, the PZD ordinance, lack of "town form" as the standard for the development and a lack of public street infrastructure for the project. Hugh Jarratt (applicant) discussed that if this project meets one of the goals of the City Plan 2025 the Planning Commission has the authority to approve the plan. He also discussed the Planning Commission's general authority for approval of a planned zoning -district (PZD). Kim Fuggitt (applicant) discussed that one of the major problems with the project according to staff is that this project doesn't meet the goal to provide a Traditional Neighborhood Town form. He also discussed how the plan evolved over time and has a streetscape along the street, and provides variety and flexibility in building types. Jim Lindsey (applicant) discussed that the applicant has revised the plan substantially over the various submittals. He also discussed the benefits of this plan in compliance with all City requirements. He discussed the amenities provided in this development such as golf course, pool, clubhouse, and tennis court. He compared this plan to the existing approved Wellspring PZD on the property. . Jeremy Pate, at the Planning Commission's request, discussed the difference between the Unified Development Code (UDC) and City Plan 2025. Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed the requirements for approving or denying a PZD or re- zoning. He stated that a project must meet the requirements of the PZD ordinance. The City Plan 2025 is not a requirement, but a guiding policy. Commissioner Anthes discussed that the UDC refers to the City Plan 2025, and other policy and ordinance requirements, and that the City Plan 2025 is a shift from the existing ordinance requirements. Planning Commission March 26, 2007 Page5of16 Kit Williams determined that any ambiguity in the UDC should be interpreted in favor of the applicant. He also discussed other compliance requirements and the discretion of the Planning Commission. Jeremy Pate discussed that the overall findings lead to a recommendation of denial although the project has many positive aspects as noted in the staff report. _ Commissioner Anthes questioned staff as to whether or not the project met the six primary goals of City Plan 2025. Jeremy Pate responded that many of those goals are subjective and that this project may meet several of these goals to a certain degree. The staff report provides the discussion and analysis and leaves the conclusion to the reader. Commissioner Anthes discussed the large volume and scale of the site combined with lack of street connections and lack of unit types is a concern of commissioners.. She questioned whether or not the UDC requires a certain amount of variety based on the size of a property. Jeremy Pate confirmed that the UDC does not specify that a certain size of property has to meet a certain degree of variety, or number of unit types. Commissioner Ostner questioned how the existing land use and zoning should be compared to the proposed project. Jeremy Pate explained that the General Plan 2020 under the Wellspring PZD approval and the City Plan 2025 under which the current project is being evaluated are very different, and that comparing the two is difficult, as the City Council has adopted a new policy through the City Plan 2025 that differs greatly from before. Commissioner Ostner discussed that the approved Wellspring PZD may get a negative recommendation under the current City Plan 2025. There is a different set of rules under which the Wellspring PZD was approved. The City Council decided to change the goals and policies from General Plan 2020 to City Plan 2025. Commissioner Lack asked the applicant about their reference to hiring an urban planner. Jim Lindsey responded that he is willing to look at changes to the project and has contacted an urban planner recommended by the Mayor. He stated that the timing of the project needs to move forward and that he has made no real progress with the urban planner he has been talking to. Commissioner Lack stated that this project does not meet all of the goals of the City Plan 2025, but meets the UDC. Planning Commission March 26, 2007 Page 6 of16 Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the project with a recommendation for approval with staff recommended conditions. Commissioner Trumbo seconded the motion. Commissioner Myres stated she will vote against the project for reasons stated in previous meetings. Commissioner Trumbo stated that development of this project in compliance with the City Plan 2025 has not been proven to be financially viable. The homes for Rupple Row are now being leased and are too expensive to be sold. He stated that he would like to see an example of a project under City Plan2025 that would work economically. Commissioner Anthes discussed how this project has improved throughout the three Planning Commission meetings. However there are too few public streets and connections that result in too much circulation through parking lots, the south access is a private drive and not a public street. She is also concerned with the lack of variety of unit types, however the golf course does provide some buffer to surrounding properties from the large volume of apartments. Upon roll call the motion failed by a vote of 3-3-2 with Commissioners Anthes, Myres, and Ostner voting `No', Commissioners Lack, Trumbo, and Bryant voting `Yes', Commissioners Harris and Clark recusing, and Commissioner Graves was absent. / s. E r i J ! . r +M�'�aAi '��t���� +iii l L. _.. , Wr e^�ir`. (ii} yq �:\ . ` a` Oy wr: r r f_; {/ —___ ilQl ] b\ 1V r v r , o r , I O s �� zip . c ,•tea v -� : & t d f t ' --.__-. r \� y� r r.- "K, 1 _aO A k r `^' a� tai' ,� r rr, , / e" r I` , i � rI s r � h Ja\ ,,\ \�r � H. ,••• \0 ... £ Y' , ,.r.., /�(Y rO ij1 r r 1� w e ,., ��.,.un rd' �r =� iw.... �_.. ce. a �Yr:'AYY`y�: 1 A' 'i r a ... __•`, OH103M ....-••.d .-.-"—'_per t,,Ol :rn=..._`-`�"—. 4/io/o7 Quick Reference Sheet Wellspring PZD / Links at Fayetteville PZD Comparison 04/10/2007 Item of Comparison Wellspring PZD Links at Fayetteville PZD Acreage' 152.23 acres 152.23 acres Total Dwelling Units 1175 1258 Single Family 150 (13%) 74 (6%) Townhome 300 (26%) 75 (6%) Mixed Use 225 (19%) 108 (9%) Condo/Apartment 500 (43%) 1000 (79%) Dedicated Parkland 21 acres (14%) 17.32 acres (11%) Estimated Vehicle Trips Generated 19,709 vpd 14,141 vpd ,4. J ice& g fr' sJl/d7 WELLSPRING/LINKS COMPARISON ITEM OF COMPARISON WELLSPRING LINKS ACREAGE 152.23 152.23 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 1.175 1220-1.258 DENSITY 7.72 du/ac 8.0 du/ac DETACHED DWELLING UNITS ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS BUILDING TYPES COMMERCIAL SF GREENSPACE/PARKLAND/ TREE PRESERVATION GREENSPACE Without golf 150 74 1025 1185 6 7 548,000 sf 120,888 sf 40ac 103 ac. (49 golf, 56 tree preservation, parks and general open space.) 26% 68% 26% 37% EST. VEHICLE TRIPS 19,709 vpd 14,141 vpd C. &' LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE �fas off- ��e{Fe�.11e TAX IMPACT it I�.RA�-ta-9r 51110 -r ENTITY TAX RATE COLLECTED Washington County - General 4.7 $ 64,860.00 Washington County - Roads 0.22 $ 3,036.00 TOTAL $ 67,896.00 Fayetteville - Schools 25 $ 345,000.00 Fayetteville - Schools Debt Service 18.8 $ 259,440.00 TOTAL $ 604,440.00 Fayetteville Ci - General 1.3 $ 17,940.00 Fayetteville City - Police 0.4 $ 5,520.00 Fayetteville City - Fire 0.4 $ 5,520.00 Fayetteville City - Roads 0.88 $ 12,144.00 Fayetteville City - Library 1 $ 13,800.00 TOTAL $54,924.00 GRAND TOTAL 52.7 $727,260.00 TOTAL ANNUAL SALES TAX IMPACT OF LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE $532,332.50 (Using IMPLAN 2004) ANNUAL SALES TAX FOR FAYETTEVILLE $118,296.00 TOTAL ANNUAL SALES & PROPERTY TAX IMPACT $ 1,259,592.50 FAYETTEVILLE ANNUAL IMPACT $173,220.00 (Property Tax plus 2% Sales Tax) J Estimated Fees to City of Fayetteville Links at Fayetteville 1 Building Permit Fees 51 Custom / Classic Buildings 3,700.00 = 188,700.00 16 Churchill Buildings 7,400.00 = 118,400.00 4 Multi -Use Buildings 10,600.00 = 42,400.00 71 Townhouse Units 436.00 = 30,956.00 74 Single Family Homes 620.00 = 45,880.00 Total Building Permit Fees 426,336.00 2 Sewer I Water Impact Fees 612 Custom / Classic Units 812.00 = 496,944.00 352 Churchill Units 812.00 = 285,824.00 76 Multi -Use Units 812.00 = 61,712.00 71 Townhouse Units 1,143.00 = 81,153.00 74 Single Family Homes 1,143.00 = 84,582.00 Total Sewer/ Water Impact Fees 1,010,215.00 3 Police / Fire Impact Fees 612 Custom / Classic Units 312.00 = 190,944.00 352 Churchill Units 312.00 = 109,824.00 76 Multi -Use Units 312.00 = 23,712.00 71 Townhouse Units 431.00 = 30,601.00 74 Single Family Homes 431.00 = 31,894.00 Total Police Fire Impact Fees 386,975.00 4 Park Fees (Some of these fees to be offset by 17.3 acres park land dedication) 612 Custom / Classic Units 658.00 = 402,696.00 352 Churchill Units 658.00 = 231,616.00 76 Multi -Use Units 658.00 = 50,008.00 71 Townhouse Units 658.00 = 46,718.00 74 Single Family Homes 658.00 = 48,692.00 Total Park Fees 779,730.00 Estimated Total Fees Paid to City of Fayetteville $2,603,256.00 • ((! N+ O M0 NN V N> (N!l A W 0 (O N V W N A W N J O (m OD V Ol OI A W N J () ,) n C G) CD c m 2 c (� o o= m a Q 0 n C8 a 7n m^ m^ 3 m o m x d' u n m^ 3 yaT 3 3 3 (1 .. d J N y N m ii N Ca, y 3CD ' w= Fl 4 ` Ci 3 a m m i a 4� =• x= r�_ �= • v o G) G) m m o _ a aCC • 3 00 m a • 0 C .. w o o z m m x o o o o p o m G mm mm JC T. Yri = p •� O .� c_ m N N N m o;; r, r• n x y g m 3 3=$ n 0 5 = m( n m= �S = 3 w P 0=" m i° = N N n0. 3 m 3 me = a o C S. O J N N VOi A O W N O N A O 1i O N N O D) � N fT O A N O fAll O N (Wl� O N W N O O N O � fn N Ol �p J (� J J N (' J ((,� J J J N (4 J J O) N J W N++ N O O OOi N O A fOll 0 W (All V N O N N O O m W W O O w q N N W N V W fO O J 0 Ol (� 4 O O o O o O O O O O O O+ O O O Nl O Vl O O O O O O u O NO N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 00000000000000 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O y ?_m O a cr N O 7 Q) 0 O Mq2tY ts ''R -'- - - - z t.Ip*Sm I___ •r. 2a f O r, I ., 'I ml\ 4 a _ a �1.. � � qtr sr. � u�o fl { rr 11 � � O ; sR�R� °V. ��,�� �� o`o� �r',`•11� • n m�.e •: '- .xmro s l .... • ; . .• i • .-n F≥ r'`• * \ l `ram f y ywQ• ... `♦h. ' r w • L&L j�j W l I'.� �' `1 1. ' V 1 /. f f - •tl , ?t:L THE LINKS @ FAYETTEVIL i1FAYETTEVILLEDARKAVSAS - r • I. •..0 -♦.,.fly.. V +` . a*4f�a. Fes" R `I4 ? fa . , .Y `i ~ )= . •' _ • S♦ ST/1o7 r- O N;1y�'Y. �... r�+a �� : a� • 'a.. .. �' \ i� . Ian ' �I�"4♦ R 1 �+V.Y.� •Y a L' �a If . M �� a�{I� a ✓� sec � � l .ru iM1i e y � �R � � i. 9 N � 'i t✓' _II/'• yC On. • • �a f • / if ^L. lie Frvr I r(' L a . S \. � ® 'e .� O A O l e i f it &.w a.d a h.Oeira Iaa ,.emu. WiSSYJN3 c*,]aleNdla—. .a_ -A • En p I'm Bears a su'rve yor s IF The Links at Fayetteville Master Development Plan Date Submitted: 1/18/07 (Revised 3/27/07) Project Representative: Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: 501-664-3245 Fax: 50l-6646704 Project Owner/Developer: • The Links at Fayetteville, A Limited Partnership 1200 East Joyce Boulevard P.O. Box.13000 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Phone 479-521-6686 Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. -1- I The Links at Fayetteville Master Development Plan Date Submitted: 1/18/07 (Revised 3/27/07) 1 1 1 1 Project Representative: 'Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 ' Phone: 501-664-3245 Fax: 501-664-6704 ' Project Owner/Developer: The Links at Fayetteville, A Limited Partnership ' 1200 East Joyce Boulevard P.O. Box 13000 • Fayetteville, AR 72703 'Phone 479-521-6686 I • tCrafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 1 - Index Title 1 Index 2 Overall concept plan 3 Current Ownership 4 Scope of Project 4 General project Concept 4 Proposed development phasing and time frame 7 Proposed planning areas and development standards ' • Planning Area I — Market District 9 • Planning Area II — Clubhouse 11 • Planning Area III — Multi-Family/Golf Course 13 ' • Planning Area IV — Town Center/Mixed Use 15 • Planning Area V — Public Park 17 • Planning Area VI — Town Homes 19 • Planning Area VII - Single-Family/Golf Course 20 Zoning Districts Comparison Chart/Environmental 22 ' Recreational facilities, open space, and access 23 Reason for requesting the zoning change 23 Relationship to the existing and surrounding properties 23 ' Compliance with Fayetteville City Plan 2025 24 Traffic Study 24 Impacts on city services I 24 Statement of Commitments 25 Conceptual Description of Development Standards 27 Il H II Li L I ICrafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 2 - H I I H El C A) Current Ownership The current ownership of the property is The Links at Fayetteville, A Limited Partnership. B) Scope of Project The Links at Fayetteville is designed around the idea that density, variety and walk - ability in a modem development can be achieved while preserving 68% of the community in green areas such as a golf course, ponds, tree preservation area, park dedication, and trail corridor. Organically situated within this natural setting, The Links at Fayetteville anticipates the range of residential, entertainment, service and recreation opportunities that will be attractive to all citizens in the population of Northwest Arkansas. Keeping the greater Fayetteville community in mind, The Links at Fayetteville offers an affordable, upscale housing area with amenities in walking distance. The Links at Fayetteville vision of a first class community goes hand in hand with the vision of Northwest Arkansas. ' Overall Summary of Density Non -Residential uses 120,888 SF ' Residential units 1220 units Recreational buildings 16388 SF 'C) General Project Concept 1) Street and Building Layout The site plan for The Links at Fayetteville has been designed as a community ' development that provides pedestrian access to its abundance of amenities. This goal is achieved by providing interior public streets that extend from the perimeters of the site and converge to a central "Town Center" destination. ' A "streetscape" is developed by reducing building setbacks along the curvilinear public streets providing wider sidewalks, parallel parking, and street trees. Direct access from most residential units to the sidewalks encourages the use of the street and its pedestrian opportunities. ' Traditional parking lots are positioned behind the buildings so they are screened from the public streets. Mixtures of buildings are provided along the public streets and have been positioned so no identical building will be directly across from each other. 1 The public streets proposed all lead to a central "Town Center" were mixed use development will be provided including restaurants, retail, and office space. The layout is ' a typical town square that creates a destination spot for the community. 2) Site Plan Showing Proposed Improvements ' Proposed improvements to the city include the dedication of over 17 acres of wooded and open green space to the Parks Department including many large canopy trees. Other improvements include the design and development of a walking trail to be located along a 1 Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. -4- I tributary of Hamstring Creek for potential access to trail in the park area to be provided by City of Fayetteville Parks Department. Improvements for the residents in the area include a 9 hole golf course, a swimming pool, a tennis court, and a club house. Additional amenities include lakes, playgrounds, and picnic areas. ' Several internal streets will be constructed that will provide for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Rupple Road is designated as an arterial street and planned to be a boulevard with landscape median. It is the intent to construct half the boulevard, east side, the length of ' the project. Reference: Overall concept plan sheet 3 in this booklet and full size plats provided ' separately with this R-PZD. 3) Buffer Areas Substantial areas of tree preservation and parkland along the eastern border of the property will buffer the neighboring developments. The golf course and tree preservation ' will buffer the north border. Some golf course area will be seen on the western edge along Wedington Road. The south edge has some golf course buffer as well as some tree preservation for a buffering area. 4) Tree Preservation/Green Space The Links at Fayetteville will be required to meet 25% canopy preservation for the site. ' Onsite mitigation will be provided for planning areas that can not meet the 25% requirement. As earlier noted, green space and tree preservation is an important consideration in this development. Parkland dedication is at 17.32 acres and ' approximately 100% tree canopy, while golf course dedication is at 47.07 acres, with large sections of tree preservation proposed. These two alone are 45% of the available property. However, we are adding an additional 39.12 acres of green space for The Links ' at Fayetteville community. This brings the total number of green space to be 103.5 acres, or 68%. IS) Storm Water Detention Areas and Drainage Storm drainage from the area travels predominately to the east side of the development. The water will have to pass through the golf course area and the dedicated park area into ' Hamstring Creek Tributary HS 2. In addition to water flowing through the buffered areas, The Links at Fayetteville will have a series of small lakes for detention purposes to meet the Drainage Ordinance of the City of Fayetteville. The developer has agreed to ' construct a well, off park land, that will provide water fro the existing pond to remain on park property. Said well will also provide irrigation resources to the golf course. 6) Undisturbed Natural Areas Parkland dedication will be approximately 17 acres and additional tree preservation areas that will remain undisturbed and natural are shown on the master plan. I ' Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 5 - Li �LJ I I Li I I I I I I 7) Existing and Proposed Utility Connections Utility connections such as water can easily be made to the existing water main located within the right-of-way of Wedington Drive. A gravity sewer main flows to the west along Hamstring Creek Tributary HS 2 just to the north of The Links at Fayetteville. This sewer main could serve the entire community. 8) Development and Architectural Standards Five primary building types will be arranged on the site along with numerous support structures. In the "town center" four "mixed use" buildings will be incorporated to create the "town square" area. The "mixed use" buildings will house commercial and/or office uses with one building providing a fitness/community center on the first floor with residential units on the top 2 floors. A 4 -story building (Churchill) will be constructed along the "streetscape" consisting of 22-2 bed/2 bath apartment units, and will be incorporated in strategic areas to take advantage of golf course/park views. A townhouse plan will be introduced in groupings along Rupple road. These townhouses are 1032 sf with 2 bed/1.5 bath design. These 3 buildings are completely new entries in the Lindsey repertoire. The remaining two building types are both 2 story, 12 unit buildings containing 8-2 bedroom and 4-1 bedroom units each. All five primary building types shall be constructed of 50% brick with "hardi-lap" siding accents. Custom & Classic Building: The "Custom" and "Classic" buildings are both 2 story 12 unit buildings designed with classic Architectural elements and proportion rooflines and facades are varied and delineated with dormer/balcony elements and 2 story "Veranda" entry. The buildings make use of masonry (50%) and hardi-lap siding with stucco board on its exterior. Churchill Building "4 -Story": The "Churchill 4 -story" will be incorporated to provide alternative massing throughout the development. This is a 22 -unit building designed with architectural elements alluding to the "Bungalow" style. The building uses an entry/egress balcony on the parking lot side and individual "stacked" balconies on the street side to create vertical visual elements and private outdoor areas. These buildings are constructed of masonry (50%) and hardi-lap siding with "wrought -iron" look railings. Mixed Use Building: The "mixed -use" building is a 3 -story 19 unit building with ' approximately 6575 sq ft of commercial/office space on the ground floor. The mixed use building is designed with a 1920's urban flavor and eclectic style. The buildings are constructed completely of masonry exteriors. ' Parkway Town Homes: The "Parkway Townhome" building is a 2 story structure typical townhouse plan with 2 bedrooms and a bath on the second floor and the kitchen/dining/living area on the 151 floor. These buildings can be connected in groups of up to 6 units before a separation and can be varied in floor elevation to adapt to the planned topography. The front entrance for the units along Rupple Road will face the ' public street and be considered the primary entrance. Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 6 - I I I I Li I Single Family Homes: Single family homes are located in 2 areas. "Group one" is located on Rupple road between the 2 access roads. "Group two" is located along the northern access road adjacent to the golf course. "Group one" will be comprised of rear loading homes that have the "fronts" along Rupple road and the golf course and have their 2 car garage access from a private drive between the 2 rows of houses. The private outdoor space for each home shall be located between houses. The homes in "group two" shall have their "fronts" along the proposed public street and incorporate a single car garage attached to the side of the home and pushed to the back wall of the home to create a second parking space in the drive and keep the garage doors as remote from the street as possible. All single family lots will be platted as "zero lot -line" allowing the homes to be built on the lot lines in both areas and also to allow the homes in "group two" to be attached at the garage portion of the home. The single family homes will have varying facades and materials and be designed in a traditional style. ' 9) Building Elevations The buildings elevations included in this booklet are arranged with the planning area that it would be built in. D) Proposed development phasing and time frame ' The development of the community is planned in 3 phases to span over the next 5-10 years. Thirty percent of the multi -family units will be offered for sale as condominiums or as single family homes, for each phase of the development. The 151 floor of the mixed- ' use buildings in the town center will be offered as commercial/office space for lease with one of the buildings serving as a fitness/community center for the tenants and property owners of the development. ' The phasing of this development, sales of condominiums, and lease of commercial/office space is based on market trends and growth in the Fayetteville market over the course of ' the project. With this R-PZD zoning, the developer reserves the option to lease the condominiums if negative market forces dictate and reserves the option to convert the first floor of the mixed -use buildings to multi -family dwellings if market forces are not ' favorable. Phase I Phase I of The Links at Fayetteville will be to construct approximately 600 dwelling units, the golf course, the club house with amenities, and the park dedication. Interior ' roadways will be constructed to serve the units and amenities constructed in the first phase. This initial phase will begin to allow affordable and attainable housing and provide amenities of a golf course, club house, swimming pool, and a tennis court. ' Construction will begin in Summer 2007 and be completed in early 2009. Phase II ' In phase II, approximately 300 more residential units will be constructed with favorable market conditions. This phase may include some of the town center, town homes, and 1 Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 7 - single family planning areas. Outside developers are expected to build in the "Market area" along Weddington Road and Rupple Road in this phase as well. Phase II is anticipated to be completed by 2014. Phase III Phase III will include the construction of any remaining un-built units. Construction of the remaining areas will be dependent on market conditions. Phase III is anticipated to be completed by 2018. E & F) Proposed Planning Areas and Development Standards for Each Planning Area Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. ' - 8 - Planning Area I - Market District The Market Area is designed to encourage the functional grouping of these commercial and retail enterprises catering to the residents of the surrounding area. Banks and restaurants will be located within easy walking distance of the residents not only of The Links at Fayetteville, but also within walking or short commute distance for the surrounding area. This area is strategically positioned along the Arterial corridor of Weddington Road and Rupple Road, so this it may provide visibility and accessibility to the surrounding area. Additionally, there will be limited access to Weddington Road and Rupple Road. (a) Permitted Uses Unit 1 City wide uses Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eating places Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods Unit 16 Shopping goods Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 25 Professional offices (b) Conditional Uses Unit 2 City wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 14 Hotel, Motel, and amusement facilities Unit 17 Trades and Services Unit 24 Home Occupation Unit 34 Liquor store Unit 35 Outdoor music establishment (c) Residential Density and Non-residential Intensity Planning area acreage: 7.82 acres Number of Dwelling Units: None Non -Residential square feet: 78,200 Residential Density: NA Non-residential Intensity (square feet/acre): 10,000 Bulk and Area Regulations (d) Min Lot width none (e) Min Lot area none (f) Land Area per dwelling unit: NA (g) Min Front Setback 20 feet Min Side Setback 10 feet Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 9 - Min Rear Setback 20 feet (h) The maximum building height shall be 50 feet. (i) On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. Site Planning (j) Landscaping — In accordance to the Fayetteville Landscape Ordinance (k) Parking will be in accordance with the Unified Development Code (1) Architectural Design standards shall be in accordance with the attached building elevations that follow this planning area description. They shall also be consistent with the description of buildings as identified on page 6 of the PZD booklet. All buildings are to be 70% brick/masonry. (m) Signage shall be in accordance with the Unified Development Code PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. I - 10 - r, rr® I lJIfl _{ /l arms. �� _S I I� rr CC 6 a a R� J 1 Planning Area II - Clubhouse The clubhouse is planned to be a multipurpose area whose permitted uses include cultural and recreational facilities, offices, golf pro shop, tanning beds, business center, hot tub ' and management living quarters. The clubhouse is for the use of the projects tenants and "pay for play" golf. Planned occupants include the Office of The Links at Fayetteville, offices as appropriate for a clubhouse, and storage for recreational equipment. (a) Permitted Uses '• Unit 1 City wide uses Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facility Unit 5 Government facilities ' Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eating places Unit 15 Neighborhood Shopping goods Unit 19 Commercial recreation, Small sites Unit 20 Commercial recreation, Large sites Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings (b) Conditional Uses Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit (c) Residential Density and Non-residential Intensity Planning area acreage: 5.17 acres Number of Dwelling Units: 1 Non -Residential square feet: 16388 Residential Density: 0.19 units/acre Non-residential Intensity (square feet/acre): 3170 Bulk and Area Regulations (d) Min Lot width none (e) Min Lot area none (f) Land Area per Dwelling unit: 195,000 sq ft (g) Min Front Setback none Min Side Setback none ' Min Rear Setback none (h) The maximum building height shall be 40 feet (i) On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. Site Planning 1 Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 11 - 0) Landscaping — In accordance to the Fayetteville Landscape Ordinance (k) Parking will be in accordance with the Unified Development Code (1) Architectural Design standards shall be in accordance with the attached building elevations that follow this planning area description. They shall also be consistent with the description of buildings as identified on page 6 of the PZD booklet. All buildings are to be 60% brick/masonry. (m) Signage shall be in accordance with the Unified Development Code Proposed Building Elevations Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 12 - iceArHrd U _A�� I ' Planning Area III — Multi-Family/Golf Course Area Planning Area IV is the largest of the planning areas because it includes the golf I. course. The residential area is designed for moderate density development that is appropriate for the area. There are several styles of buildings available including the mixed use building located in the "Town Center (3 story), the Classic (2 story), the Custom (2 -story), and the Churchill. There will also be recreational activity areas located throughout. The recreational area is to include the golf course, play grounds, lakes, sidewalks, and tree preservation areas. The front facade of each building that fronts a public street shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between a line 10 feet and 25 feet from the Right of way line that leads to the town center L I Approximately 2 additional clubhouses with office facilities to serve the residential community will be positioned near the center of the site and near the north end of the site. These additional clubhouses will be located within one of the structures proposed on the site plan or an additional clubhouse building added. I(a) Permitted Uses [I n I I I [[I L Unit 1 City wide uses by right Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services (clubhouse only) Unit 19 Commercial recreation, Small sites Unit 20 Commercial recreation, Large sites Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings (b) Conditional Uses Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 24 Home Occupations Unit 25 Professional Offices (c) Residential Density and Non-residential Intensity Planning area acreage: 78.66 acres Number of Dwelling Units: 1000 Non -Residential square feet: NA Residential Density: 13 units/acre Non-residential Intensity (square feet/acre): NA Bulk and Area Regulations ' (d) Min Lot width Multi -family dwelling 60ft 1 (e) Min Lot area ' Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 13 - • Multi -family 4500 sq ft (f) Land Area per Dwelling Unit: 2000 sq ft (g) Buildings that face a public street shall have a build -to -zone that is 10' — 25' from the right of way. All remaining buildings will be as follows: Min Front Setback 10 feet Min Side Setback none Min Rear Setback none (h) The maximum building height shall be 40 feet (i) On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. Site Planning 0) Landscaping — In accordance to the Fayetteville Landscape Ordinance (k) Parking will be in accordance with the Unified Development Code (1) Architectural Design standards shall be in accordance with the attached building elevations that follow this planning area description. They shall also be consistent with the description of buildings as identified on page 6 of the PZD booklet. All buildings are to be 50% brick/masonry. (m) Signage shall be in accordance with the Unified Development Code Proposed Building Elevations ICrafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 14 - Itun�4l ijlni ri Azi f L24 4 �ltbLLY $ If' 'DIV S:I,LV).p.)OSSV �8 1': liilUni II :dxft'l (I :)NISV I.I) Ag U ti 'Mt nI .IM.L�.'ml .14 n Im16nlII MI IM V I )NI'.I,JiLL[I IJN\+ tiNIV! JUSHV Y. ttisni I 1 III Axn•I9(l IAOI.s.1.) '1 V U!t' U.II)f U.I&Ij�IM —II T1J ni.O I I II Planning Area IV — Town Center/Mixed Use The town center is positioned in the center of the project, so that it becomes a destination spot for the community and surrounding neighborhoods. The area can host a myriad of occupants and offers a slightly more urban feel with the option of 1 and 2 bedroom spaces over small retail, local service and cultural businesses. The professional living area will have permitted uses that include cultural and recreational facilities, government facilities, single family, two family, three family, multi -family dwellings, office, studios and related services, home occupations and professional offices. It is the intention of the design of this area to offer unique high quality cultural goods and services while providing attached residences. This area requires a reduced setback to create the urban style development pattern intended for the site. (a) Permitted Uses Unit 1 City wide uses Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facility Unit 5 Government facilities Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eating places Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods Unit 16 Shopping goods Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 26 Multi -family dwellings (b) Conditional Uses Unit 2 City wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 14 Hotel, Motel, and amusement facilities Unit 17 Trades and Services Unit 24 Home Occupation Unit 34 Liquor store Unit 35 Outdoor music establishment (c) Residential Density and Non-residential Intensity Planning area acreage: 3.04 acres Number of Dwelling Units: 108 ' Non -Residential square feet: 26300 Residential Density: 36 units/acre Non-residential Intensity (square feet/acre): 8651 ' Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 15 - I. I I 1 1 1 1 Bulk and Area Regulations (d) Min Lot width none (e) Min Lot area none (f) Land Area per Dwelling Unit: 1700 sq ft (g) Min Front Setback none Min Side Setback none Min Rear Setback none (h) Buildings are to be 3 stories with a maximum building height of 50 feet. Auxiliary buildings such as gazebo's will be permitted. (i) On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. Site Planning (j) Landscaping — In accordance to the Fayetteville Landscape Ordinance (k) Parking will be in accordance with the Unified Development Code (1) Architectural Design standards shall be in accordance with the attached building elevations that follow this planning area description. They shall also be consistent with the description of buildings as identified on page 6 of the PZD booklet. All buildings are to be 70% brick/masonry. (m) Signage shall be in accordance with the Unified Development Code Proposed Building Elevations ' Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. -16- Planning Area V — Public Park The purpose of the Parkland Dedication Area and the tree preservation areas is to encourage a sense of community through use of natural areas allowing space for outdoor recreation. Open spaces, preserved tree space and walking trail combine to form a pleasant, natural setting intermingled with the more urban spaces in The Links at Fayetteville. These areas will also serve as a wide buffer area between The Links at Fayetteville and neighboring developments to the east and north. (a) Permitted Uses Unit 1 City wide uses (b) Conditional Uses Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities (c) Residential Density and Non-residential Intensity Planning area acreage: 17.32 acres Number of Dwelling Units: NA Non -Residential square feet: NA Residential Density: NA. Non-residential Intensity (square feet/acre): NA Bulk and Area Regulations No permanent structures proposed for this planning area Site Planning (j) Landscaping — In accordance to the Fayetteville Landscape Ordinance (k) Parking will be in accordance with the Unified Development Code (I) No Buildings Proposed (in) Signage shall be in accordance with the Unified Development Cod Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 17 - II 1 I. Planning Area VI Parkway Town Homes The parkway town homes will provide an element of property ownership to the overall ' planned zoning district. The parkway town homes are strategically positioned between the proposed multi -family uses and the single family uses to the west. The town homes are planned to include two-story traditional town home dwellings with bed -rooms upstairs and living areas down stairs. The Parkway town homes are built adjoining each other but are sold separately. ' (a) Permitted Uses . Unit 1 City wide uses I. Unit 9 Two family dwellings Unit 10 Three family dwellings Unit 26 Multi family dwellings (b) (c) Conditional Uses Unit 24 Home Occupation Residential Density and Non-residential Intensity Planning area acreage: 5.28 acres Number of Dwelling Units: 75 Non -Residential square feet: N/A Residential Density: 15 units/acre Non-residential Intensity (square feet/acre): NA Bulk and Area Regulations (d) Min Lot width 16 (e) Min Lot area 500 sq ft (f) Land Area per Dwelling Unit: 2000 sq ft (g) Facing on to Rupple Road Min Front Setback 10 ft Min Side Setback none Min Rear Setback none (h) Buildings are to be 2 stories with a maximum building height of 35 (i) . The proposed town homes will either be sold has a horizontal property regime or lots will be created over the building footprint, in which case 100% of the lot will be occupied by the building. Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 18 - i Site Planning 0) Landscaping — In accordance to the Fayetteville Landscape Ordinance (k) Parking will be in accordance with the Unified Development Code (1) Architectural Design standards shall be in accordance with the attached building elevations that follow this planning area description. They shall also be consistent with the description of buildings as identified on page 6 of the PZD booklet. All buildings are to be 70% brick/masonry or hardi-plant siding. (m) Signage shall be in accordance with the Unified Development Code Proposed Building Elevations Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 19 - a Planning Area VII Single Family/Golf Course The single family homes will provide a lower density as you continue to transition from the core Town Center out to the edges of the development. The single family homes will provide an affordable detached housing component to the overall development. Permitted Uses Unit 1 City wide uses Unit 8 Single family dwelling Conditional Uses Unit 9 Two Family dwellings Unit 24 Home Occupation Residential Density and Non-residential Intensity Planning area acreage: 34.94 acres Number of Dwelling Units: 74 Non -Residential square feet: N/A Residential Density: 3 units/acre Non-residential Intensity (square feet/acre): NA Bulk and Area Regulations Min Lot width 35 Min Lot area 2500 sq ft Land Area per Dwelling Unit: 2500 sq ft Min Front Setback Min Side Setback Min Rear Setback Maximum building height of 35 Building Area — Shall not exceed 90% Site Planning Landscaping - In accordance to the Fayetteville Landscape Ordinance Parking will be in accordance with the Unified Development Code Architectural Design standards shall be in accordance with the attached building elevations that follow this planning area description. They shall also be consistent Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. with the description of buildings as identified on page 6 of the PZD booklet. All buildings are to be 60% brick/masonry. (m) Signage shall be in accordance with the Unified Development Code Proposed Building Elevations Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. -21 - I a I G) Zoning Districts Comparison Chart Current District (R-PZD) Proposed District (R-PZD) PA -1 Garden District PA -1 Market District PA -2 Parkway Town Homes PA -2 Clubhouse PA -3 Clubhouse PA -3 Multi-Family/golf course PA -4 Condominiums PA -4 Town Center PA -5 Mixed Use Development PA -5 Public Park PA -6 Market District PA -6 Parkway Town Homes PA -7 Open Space/Parks/Tree Preservation PA -7 Single-Family/golf course Zoning Comparison • Planning Permitted Use Units Number Density Square Intensity Area ' Area of footage of (acreage) Dwelling Non - Units residential ' use Existing Wellspring PZD Zonin PA -1 1,8 150 6 NA NA 28.55 PA -2 1,8,9,10,26 300 14 NA NA 29.13 PA -3 1,4,12,19 NA NA 12000 * 1.44 PA -4 1,10,26 500 40 50000 * 16.65 ' PA -5 1,5,8,9,10,12,13, 225 10 461000 * 33.13 15,16,19,25,26 ' PA -6 1,5,12,13,15,16, 19,25 NA NA 25000 * 3.33 PA -7 1 NA NA NA NA 40.00 TOTAL 1175 548,000 152.23 ' Proposed Links at Fayetteville PZD Zonin PA -1 1,5,12,13,15,16, 19,25 NA NA 78200 10000 7.82 PA -2 1,4,5,12,13,15,19,20,26 1 0.19 16388 3170 5.17 ' PA -3 1,12,19,20,26 1000 13 NA NA 78.66 PA -4 1,4,5,12,13,15,16,19,25,26 108 36 26300 8651 3.04 PA -5 1 NA NA NA NA 17.32 ' PA -6 1,9,10,26 75 15 NA NA 5.28 PA -7 1,8 74 3 NA NA 34.94 TOTAL 1258 120,888 152.23 1 1 • Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 22 - Environmental Hazardous, Sensitive, or Natural Resource Areas: No natural or:manmade hazards have been found on the site. A letter was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife on January 26, 2005 regarding development in the area. In the response, U.S.F. &W. stated that the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the listed species, unless a cave is found within the proposed project area. Wetland data sheets have been prepared and may be submitted to the U.S. Corps of Engineering; upon their review we will be notified if the areas of planned development lie within a wetland. In the case that the U. S. Corps of Engineers presents areas that indeed are wetlands on the site care will be taken to preserve and maintain them. Research performed at the property indicates that there are no suspect wetland areas where development is anticipated to occur. H) Recreational Facilities, Open Spaces and Accesses Open green spaces will be incorporated throughout the layout of the community where possible. Pathways in the form of sidewalks as well as a trail connection among and between selected areas will allow viable and readily available access to the parks located in The Links at Fayetteville and ultimately to the planned trail along a tributary of Hamstring Creek. Directly west and northwest of the Bryce Davis Park, over 17 acres are reserved for the proposed Park Dedication. The Links at Fayetteville tree preservation areas are located throughout the property, offering a natural setting while providing a buffer. Also, as always, The Links at Fayetteville 9 hole golf course with several lakes creates not only an open space, but also a recreational facility for the whole community. Playground and picnic areas are positioned near the north end and the south end of the project and are strategically located in the center of the units. A clubhouse is planned to be a multipurpose area whose permitted uses include cultural and recreational facilities, offices, golf pro shop, tanning beds, business center, hot tub and management living quarters. I) Reason for Requesting the Zoning Change The zoning changes are critical for this type of development to allow for its unique character and style as current zoning does not allow for an economically feasible development. The Links at Fayetteville allows for a moderate to high density and making it affordable to the tenet. As well as being affordable it has amenities such as the golf course and the park dedication. PZD zoning will allow more coordinated development to take place, making it possible to create a livable, walk -able, community, which would not be possible with traditional zoning. J) Relationship to the Existing and Surrounding Properties The Planning Areas that are being proposed for The Links at Fayetteville development offer a smooth transition form neighboring zoning and building requirements. The areas along the northeastern end of the property are adjacent to the neighboring subdivisions which are zoned RSF-4 and RMF-24. The undeveloped areas will offer a natural setting for park atmosphere and will allow for an almost seamless transition form the existing naturally enhanced pond recreational area to the adjacent Bryce Davis Park that is located Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 23 - centrally and to the east of The Links at Fayetteville. Also, The Links at Fayetteville on site tree preservation area, borders almost all neighboring property boundaries. The proposed Market areas along Wedington Road and Rupple Road will offer a cohesive yet unique blend of mixed uses that is overall consistent with the intent of the zoning in the area which is currently C-1, C-2, and R-0. K) Compliance with Fayetteville City Plan 2025 The design of The Links at Fayetteville is in compliance with Fayetteville City Plan 2025. The first and second principles cited in The General Plan are creating a sense of place and connectivity within neighborhoods and community and containing and strengthening the emergence of multiple activity centers. As a PZD, the development of The Links at Fayetteville offers a unique opportunity to capture the strengths of both of these principles. Connectivity between and among surrounding districts allows for neighborhood and community cohesion. The Clubhouse district within The Links at Fayetteville offers a planned multiple activity center. Overall, The Links at Fayetteville design works with the natural environment and is in compliance with Fayetteville's City Plan 2025. L) Traffic Study A traffic study was prepared under the original submittal of Wellspring development. The overall density is relatively the same and the traffic patterns will be relatively the same. The traffic study will be updated based on the proposed development, and will be provided for City review at the time of development. M) Impacts of City Services Water and Sewer Effects on water and sewer are unknown at this time. Subsequent studies will provide the answers needed to properly assess specific impacts and the responsibilities of the developer to mitigate any adverse impacts, and the responsibility of the developer to mitigate any adverse impacts. Roads The Links at Fayetteville may impact traffic on both Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. To help improve with this additional traffic The Links at Fayetteville will do half street improvements to Rupple Road, the length of The Links at Fayetteville frontage. Design of the half street improvements will meet the City of Fayetteville's standards for Principle Arterial Streets. This would include a 28' roadway (back of curb to back of curb), 10' of median, 55' of right-of-way, and proper landscaping Also the developer will pay for part of the traffic signal at Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. The Links at Fayetteville also is connecting into the subdivision to the east. This connection allows access for the residents of that subdivision, and connecting subdivisions, to travel to Rupple Road without having to travel on Wedington Drive. Sidewalks along this road also encourage foot traffic from the neighboring subdivision to The Links at Fayetteville Market Area and Mixed Use Area. Cra$on, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 24 - I ' Fire and Police The Links at Fayetteville was designed to have access from 3 different locations — Wedington Drive, Rupple Road, and the subdivision to the east. Also the parking lots have a loop access internal system to the roads throughout The Links at Fayetteville. ' These two factors make the entire development easily accessible by both fire and police. The Links at Fayetteville will be served by the Fayetteville Fire Department. Station 7 of the Fayetteville Fire Department is located less than .25 miles away, just south of the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. Fayetteville Police will serve the ' area, as it currently does. ' Solid Waste Solid waste will be provided for by City of Fayetteville. Dumpsters will be placed in accordance with the recommendations by City of Fayetteville solid waste division. I L H 1 Storm Sewer Storm Sewer will be collected on site and released in accordance with Fayetteville's Code. Statement of Commitments 1. Dedication Directly west and southwest of the existing Bryce Davis Park, over 17 continuous acres are reserved to be dedicated to the City of Fayetteville for The Links at Fayetteville City Park. Additional funds will be given to the parks department to fulfill the requirements of the parks board. With those funds, a walking path will be designed and constructed along a tributary of Hamstring Creek that will be available for future trail connections. The Links at Fayetteville will also provide a well to maintain a germinate level of water within the existing lake that is being dedicated to the parks department. Parking, streets, sidewalks and drainage improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with The Master Street Plan, City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 172: Parking & Loading, Chapter 171: Streets and Sidewalks, and Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage & Erosion Control respectively. Maintenance of these areas will then be provided by the city, as city ordinances dictate. 2. On or Off Site Improvements Off -site improvements will also be determined upon review of sewer and water ' studies. The timing of construction for improvements may be determined during development. Sewer and Water improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Specifications which ' include the Standard Water Line Specifications of Fayetteville, Arkansas April 211(1, 1996 and the Sanitary Sewer Specification. The Links at Fayetteville will impact the traffic on both Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. The developer will widen Rupple ' Road with half street improvements as well as pay for a portion of the cost for a traffic signal located at Rupple Road and Wedington Drive. The widening of Rupple 1 ' Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 25 - ' Road will be per the Master Street Plan Specifications for a principle arterial along that part that abuts The Links at Fayetteville property line. 3. Natural Resources and Environmental Sensitive Area ' The developers of The Links at Fayetteville are committed to preserving the natural resources of our City and protecting its environmentally sensitive areas. As the Bryce Davis Wetland Park lies on the adjacent property to the east, the developers of The ' Links at Fayetteville offer to dedicate over 17 acres of the site's most beautiful landscape to the City of Fayetteville Parks division so that the adjoining Wetland remains not only undisturbed but can be enhanced. The property that is being ' dedicated to the City contains many healthy large canopy trees including the following varieties: Post Oak, Black Oak, Mockernut Hickory, Pignut Hickory, Black Gum, Eastern Redbud, Persimmon, Sycamore, American Elm, White Ash, ' Sweetgum and Black Cherry. 4. Project Phasing Restrictions The phases and estimated completion dates have been established as presented previously herein the master plan for the community. As phasing has been identified, described and approved as part of the PZD master development plan process, phasing ' may vary from the requirements of Chapter 166 of the Unified Development Code with regard to expiration of permits and plans. '• 5. Fire Protection The Links at Fayetteville will be served by the Fayetteville Fire Department. Station 7 of the Fayetteville Fire Department is located less than 0.25 miles away just south of the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. 6. Other Comments Imposed by the City ' 7. Parks/Trails/Open Space Commitments In addition to the more than 17 acres of park being dedicated to the City, City of Fayetteville parks department will construct a walking trail to be located along Hamstring Creek. The trail will offer a connection to the north as well as a connection to the east. Tree preservation and protection will be implemented in accordance with the City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances Title XV Unified Development Code: Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protection. Landscaping within The Links at Fayetteville will be designed in accordance to the City of ' Fayetteville Landscape Manual which sets forth the standards and specifications for Tree Preservation, Protection and Landscaping. ' 8. Proposed Preliminary Building Elevations (Residential and Commercial) The proposed building for this development will be consistent with the building elevations presented in this booklet. ' Conceptual Description of Development Standards, Conditions, and Review Guidelines ' Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc.- 26 - I I 1. Screening and Landscaping ' The screening and landscaping will be provided as set forth in Unified Development Code. Any modifications shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Traffic and Circulation Adequacy, circulation, design, coordination and provisions will be in accordance with ' the Unified Development Code. 3. Parking Standards ' The off street parking, on street and loading standards found in Chapter 172 Parking and Loading shall be used as general guidelines to establish parking and loading standards for The Links at Fayetteville Master Plan. Any deviation from these ' established standards shall be approved by the Planning Commission, as permitted. 4. Perimeter Treatment ' All uses of land or structures will meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of the Unified Development Code. Some privacy fencing will be allowed. The specific type and placement of the fencing to be used will be carefully chosen. ' 5. Sidewalks Sidewalks will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Master Sidewalk ' Plan and Section 171 of the Unified Development Code. 6. Street Lights ' Street lights will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Unified Development Code. ' 7. Water Water lines will be designed and constructed in accordance with The City of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Specifications. A water study will be submitted to the I City with the preliminary plat and/or large scale development. 8. Sewer ' Sewer. lines will be designed and constructed in accordance with The City of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Specifications. A sewer study will be submitted to the City with the preliminary plat and/or large scale development. 9. Streets and Drainage Streets and drainage will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Unified ' Development Code and the Master Street Plan. Any modification to Master Street Plan cross sections shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. All streets located within the PZD are planned to be public streets. In the event that the ' need of private streets to be incorporated into the PZD design, the private streets will be designed following all applicable conditions of the PZD Ordinance Amendment that apply to private streets, the traffic laws that govern them, building setbacks, Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. -27- signage, their maintenance and the required protective covenants if and when such covenants would apply. One street will connect The Links at Fayetteville to Wedington Drive to the south. One street will connect The Links at Fayetteville to the west onto Rupple Road. One street in the northeast comer of the project will ' connect to the abutting subdivision to the east. 10. Construction of Nonresidential Facilities Within the market district and mix -use district, approximately 120,888 sq. ft. of office, commercial, and retail space will be provided to serve the community. A clubhouse, pool, golf -course, tennis courts, and additional playground areas will be provided as shown on the master development plan to provide recreation facilities for ' the community. Iii. Tree Preservation Tree preservation will be designed in accordance with Section 167 of the Unified Development Code. Green space requirements will be met for The Links at ' Fayetteville. Tree preservation areas have been located in several areas of the development rather than as a single block. This situation allows easier access to these areas for residents. 12. Architectural Design Standards Building design standards shall be in accordance with the architectural design standards and building elevations presented in the PZD booklet. 13. Signage I. All signage within the Mixed Use Area and the Market Area shall be permitted in accordance with commercial zoning criteria as set forth by Chapter 174 Signage of the Unified Development Code. All signage within the Residential Use Area shall be ' permitted in accordance with applicable residential zoning criteria as set forth by Chapter 174 Signage of the Unified Development Code. No pole/pylon signs shall be permitted within The Links at Fayetteville ' 14. View Protection No existing views will be affected. The design of the site is unique in that all the ' interior streets have no parking lots fronting them. Building have been brought closer to the streets, and parking lots are positioned behind the buildings helping to achieve the view of a true streetscape. Also, the proposed buildings alternate, and are mixed ' up so you have a variety of looks as you travel down the street including tree preservation areas, and views of the golf course. ' 15. Revocations The developer understands causes for revocation and will take all measures necessary to avoid revocation. 16. Covenants, Trusts, and Associations I ' Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - 28 - The owner will not only An The Links at Fayetteville, but also undertake the responsibility of maintaining areas of The Links at Fayetteville not owned by the City of Fayetteville and Market Areas sold to separate owners. No separate covenants, trusts or associations will be necessary. 3 I I I U 11 I I I 1 Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. - - 29 - • LI ii tj-riR1 f♦7.1♦I•I•p I•I.1.7♦I•PI •I• •P7.1•I♦Pl•I.1•I.7•I`I•i•7•I♦I•I.1.I•I•I• =:a oru -s ra:a �:3msvrn e.°,�.,r s•em.x:;t:>'J v.r--��. _ ♦ awe • Qii �.. •�Zs 5 • • _•X.il� �\t •t t'ev.\ p OUOpn \.�• 0 �1� a�t`• • • •••Y••• I• e el '- v__ 1. In --AY�✓� J t Lt/ I:t 1. - ---_-- It THE LINKS •@ LAYETTE FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANS. Amenities A variety of housing styles gives polenhi.I fssidenls a wide it nge o1 housing ahoitgo. Wellspring can sacomodate resident* with many different IINoiyl.. economic. or logistical needs. Lars* @logo of gNentpete and tres Preservation, as wall is Bells and pones oiler a plethora of outdoor activity Pogoubintlgo to Wallopring r..b ents and 1M pugilt AddltlonNly,the development's oioae proximity to the Fareltevllia Boys and Girls Club means rho wno,. family whi have access to a wide variety of physical activities. Wellspring'. integration of living spaces *no outdoor recreation s paces combined with retail and office Sr... create& a community which encourage& residents to leap their cars at home and bike or welt to work. This meant Wellspring encourages health for both its rnldenh. and the environment. Potential Traffic Potential T.ellic r , y 1i O 4r ri I -/ t Community Green gpsc* . 1. ,.ne .ras 1� eJyY 'I �1�• `�- Trail 0 ) QY %Q9 ® ,� 000 ° O _Q p. r + O F ,.'e'�rV.uo C� y tilrQ Pyae =&a.r ,,,,,j:••� • .&^^f ,y.,.® v vn• QLiVj, G%�•Y. D eve Ip m en t��-�",��—I �1 < o _ O Planning Aroa 1 - Garden Homes 1Y0 •."-��`.© ..L'. _�,' .O® .Part of Phase 1 Q. ems+ - 0 �QC Planning Area 2 - Parkway Town Homes Planning Area 3 - Clubhouse -Part of Phase I 0 Planning Area 4 - Condominiums P • =V -Part of Phase 3 © Planning Area 5 - Mixed Use Development .Port of Phase 2 �1 0 Planning Area 6 -Market District 16; LGIIIL .Port of Phase t 0 Planning Area I- Parke Area, Community Green Space and Tree Preservation Area T— - —"'" — I`` Port of Phasn t --- ._ Wellington Ave./Mw. It West -- - 7 61 rs.Prde sr. -- NORTH s � f 1•.:•F T...,T.q`,' -r.•TIC .. —...�. C vl .-.. J • Irv•.. _ .rvf. Vrv.� f�•ti� v A G n Ct .4. i �A_ 41 . w -� - rOOrO oo p.I�u � .i •, ry � • ��� m 1 1 i. .. �11r;1 yysLLL� ..I( w i. � ' Y �Y^I ) i. 1 if ''I li I _ ' .9Vyiyl ! I 3 I tr c 17 I ,�i, e 1. !► ♦♦rvl! '� M �.♦ r ♦gyp • 0 n •A` � 1 ' I. p I • • r • � • • f .� .;.��! l J�' Mkt �F. ♦ • . • .. • • . p, p� 17 a /'� � • • • I • •l • • Pa l7p ` w I • • P • � __ __ •..jj::J f . : : : 5:it.'- - 2 : : lit • shy. #jtr �,1a t•Y li• � ' .e I• t • • y. * z. .C' .11- III: ai . • I —P• . •—f a \ • • • ' • •i • •• • P • • • I I•�•V,:. e'I*. _: • P r ? . . _. - - • :: . .A%*;*.J_i10t?%\ :" '.:$. f• • � I •ti' • • n • %• n � • `} r 71• •r• :!t; I1 • • P ii: yc- S I • I . C 00 - ..;•L_ % r • Y •• w, • n T • • p • i • �i h -- • •. •0 • yM 5 0C1a . . :., :_. •.; , - 3AIM0 NOIDJNf03M • p - n C t[ ' Ia t. I ! L52307) Clarice Pearman - Ord. 5015 _ Page 1 From: Clarice Pearman - To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 5.23.07 1:29 PM Subject: Ord. 5015 Attachments: 5015 R-PZD 07-2452 Links.pdf; 5015 R-PZD 07-2452 Links MasterPlan.pdf CC: Audit; GIS Jeremy, Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by City Council, May 15, 2007. If anything else is needed please let me know. Have a good day. Thanks. Clarice Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman, CMC City Clerk/Treasurer Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.575-8309 coearma n (alci.favetteville. a r. us NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION • Benton County Daily Record P. O. BOX 1607 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 PHONE: 479-571-6421 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Nathan Bogart, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat Gazefte newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: Ordinance no. 5015 MAY 31, 2007 Was inserted in the Regular Editions: Publication Charge: $147.70 Subscribed and sworn to before me This 8 day of , 2007. Notary Public My Commission I e d' lQ14O/S Do not pay from Affidavit, an invoice will be sent Thy, ursday, May 31, 2007 UDINANCE N0. 907E E GSTASLISCING A RESIDENTIAL a *e evi le S A DIAYETTE TREED CATS 0 TS AT RNER EVILLE, LOCATED ATST CORNER OF WEDINGTON AND pgKAN5A5 ; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY IG.THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELUVMtNI rvu° - ar° E`Il ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYLI,EVILLE, ,ARANSAS: „hereby Chen etlasfol- actlon 1: That the zone classification of the fdlowing'described property Is Y 9 to 'ram Rhe= In bit'Asl andtlal Planned Zoning depicted In Exhibit District. attached hereto andPZD made a2452 part herett k& as section 2: That he change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master development Nan, development standards, statement of consniurhents il ll by he rCItyance, and te e, anccithfurthnditionS 01 err. that the approval as submitted, determined appropriate and app 5ondi[rons of approval shall be Filed and available for viewing In the office of the City Clerkffreesurer of the City of Fayetteville. Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be In full force at such time as all of the require- ments of the master development plan have been met. Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided In Section 1 above. . and APPROVED this 15th day of May, 2007. 4PPROVED: ATTEST: By: 3y: SONOM E SMITH, CNy CInt/Deatlrlsr DAN COODY, Mayor Exhibit A is a map and may be viewed in the office of the city clerMreasurer during rarmal business hours, EXHIBIT '8' BED AS FOLLUW�. IL'^"- . D N03°03 -08-E 102.59FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 AND RUN 41' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE N02°40'05 -E 1716.06' TO A F( '40-00-E 2143.06' TO A FOUND IRON PIN. THENCE N87°4642 W 7' I flCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE nSO GTTHW ESTaC 751 15W 48,69,' 502°2709W Saw 51.59'. OR Taye teI J ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267 To: City Council, Mayor Dan Coody �p From: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning Date: April 27, 2007 Subject: Links at Fayetteville R-PZD Updated Traffic Study Please fmd the attached traffic study prepared by Peters and Associates for the Links at Fayetteville Residential Planned Zoning District. This study was prepared using the latest information submitted for review of this rezoning and Master Development Plan. The study was submitted to the Planning Division on Thursday, April 26, 2007. i K:Veremyd2007 CorrespondenceiBoard MemostLinks Traffic Study.doc Traffic Study THE LINKS A T FAVETTEV/LLE prepared for: Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Associates, Inc. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. • CIVIL& TRAFFIC ENGINEBRING Wedington Drive And Rupple Road Fayetteville, Arkansas I' ARKANSAS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ERNEST J. PETS No. ET Ar Project No.: P-1258 April 25, 2007 5507 Ranch Drive -Slate 205 (501) 868-3999 Little Rock, Atasas 72223 Fax (501) 868-9710 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION THE SITE STREET SYSTEM SURROUNDING LAND USES EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS TRIP GENERATION & SITE TRAFFIC PROJE TRAFFIC VOLUME ASSIGNMENTS CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS MASTER STREET PLAN CONSIDERATIONS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURES APPENDIX Site Plan Trip Generation Data Vehicle Turning Movement Count Data Capacity and Level of Service Calculations Traffic Signal Warrants and Results PETERS & ASSOCIATES IcN, cc 1 4 5 7 8 10 13 15 16 25 29 30 34 Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc., has conducted a traffic engi- neering study relating to a proposed mixed -use development (The Links at Fayetteville) located on the north side of Wedington Drive (also Highway 16) and on the east side of Rupple Road in Fayette- ville, Arkansas. The mixed -use development is proposed to consist of a variety of commercial, office and residential uses as indicated on the project site plan (a reduced copy of the plan is included in the Appendix for reference). There are other developments planned in the vicinity of this develop- ment which have been taken into consideration as a part of this study to also consider future projected traffic operations. Existing 24 -hour traffic counts were made in the vicinity of the site at the following locations: • Wedington Drive, just east of Rupple Road • Rupple Road approaches to Wedington Drive. Existing AM and PM peak hours vehicle turning movement counts were made for the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. There are no planned Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) or City of Fayetteville projects in the immediate vicinity of the site. Projected traffic volumes for full build -out of the proposed develop- ment were calculated. These projected site -generated trips were added to the existing traffic volumes. Traffic operational analysis has been conducted that includes the vehicle trips expected to be gener- ated by planned developments by others in the in the vicinity of the site, which resulted in total projected traffic volumes at full build -out of the site plus surrounding planned development. Additionally, projected traffic volumes for the development of Phase I (consisting of 600 multi -family residential units and the golf course only) were calculated. These projected Phase 1 site -generated trips were added to the existing traffic volumes, which resulted in total projected traffic volumes at Phase 1 development only in the vicinity of the site. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENQM®6. INC. Page 1 L' �I .,.• n '� df �� Recommendations of this study are summarized as follows: Site Phase I Development It was found that acceptable traffic operations along Rup- ple Road at the site access drives are expected with ex- isting Rupple Road lane geometry along the site frontage. It was found that acceptable traffic operations at the inter- section of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road are ex- pected with the existing lane geometry and signal control for Site Phase 1 conditions. Site Full Build -Out It was found that acceptable traffic operations along Rup- pie Road at the site access drives are expected with Rup- pie Road constructed to half a four -lane boulevard road- way section on the site side. It was found that acceptable traffic operations at the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road are expected with the existing lane ge- ometry and signal control for Site Full Build -Out condi- tions. Roadway lane geometry and traffic signal control should be constructed as shown on Figure 10, "Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry - Site Full Build -Out." The improvements should be constructed co- incident with full site development. • It is recommended that a fully -actuated traffic signal be installed at the Wedington Drive and Drive A intersection coincident with full site development. Drive A should be constructed with alignment that will also allow signal con- trol of the existing drive serving the Ozark Electric Coop- erative on the south side of Wedington Drive. The inter- section should be constructed in accordance with inter- section design standards of AHTD and the City of Fa- yetteville. • It is recommended that a fully -actuated traffic signal be installed at the Rupple Road and Drive C intersection co- incident with full site development. The design of this traffic signal should include provision for the planned in- tersection of Chantilly Drive to the west. The intersection PETERS &N ASSOCIATES II Page 2 should be constructed in accordance with intersection de- sign standards of the City of Fayetteville. • The recommended traffic signals at the intersections of Wedington Drive and Drive A and Rupple Road and Drive C should have provisions to be interconnected and coor- dinated with the existing signalized intersections of Wed- ington Drive and Rupple Road and Wedington Drive and Salem Road (east of the site). • Rights -of -way necessary for roadway widening and traffic signal operation and maintenance should be dedicated as a part of this development. Full Build -Out of the Site and Vicinity Development As other development occurs in the vicinity (including on the west side of Rupple Road) it is recommended that the S roadway lane geometry be constructed as shown on Fig- ure 11, "Recommended Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry Vicinity Full Build -Out" for the full build -out con- ditions. These proposed roadway improvements are con- sistent with the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan standards for Principal Arterial streets. • As a part of roadway improvements herein identified as necessary for the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road (full build -out of the site and vicinity devel- opment), the existing traffic signal will require re- construction. • Roadway improvements and traffic signal designs (and modifications) on Wedington Drive, in the vicinity of the site, must conform to AHTD and City of Fayetteville stan- dards and will require approval by both AHTD and the City. • Roadway improvements to all other roadways, in the vi- cinity of the site, must conform to City of Fayetteville stan- dards and will require approval by the City. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 3 Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc., has conducted a traffic engineering study relating to a proposed mixed -use development (The Links at Fayetteville) located on the north side of Wedington Drive (also Highway 16) and on the east side of Rupple Road in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The mixed -use development is proposed to consist of a variety of commercial, office and residential uses as indi- cated on the project site plan (a reduced copy of the plan is included in the Appendix for reference). Also included as a part of this study are projected traffic volumes for the development of Phase 1 (consists of 600 multi -family residential units and the golf course) only. There are other developments planned in the vicinity of this development which have been taken into considera- tion as a part of this study to allow analysis of projected traffic operations beyond development of The Links at Fayetteville. This is a report of methodology and findings relating to a traffic engineering study undertaken to: o Evaluate existing traffic conditions at the site. o Ascertain projected traffic operating conditions at the adjacent study intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road and the access drives intersections with Rupple Road and with Wedington Drive proposed to serve the development. o Identify the effects on traffic operations resulting from existing traffic in combination with site -generated traf- fic associated with the development of The Links at Fayetteville as planned and for Phase 1 conditions. This was also evaluated for site -generated traffic as- sociated with additional planned development by oth- ers in the vicinity. PETERS & ASSOCIATES a`MM. INC. Page 4 o Evaluate proposed access to the site and make rec- ommendations for mitigative improvements which may be necessary and appropriate to ensure mini- mum impact and acceptable traffic operations. In the following sections of this report there are presented traffic data, study methods, findings and recommenda- tions of this traffic engineering investigation. The traffic engineering study is technical in nature. Analysis tech- niques employed are those most commonly used in the traffic engineering profession for traffic impact analysis. Certain data and calculations relative to traffic operational analysis are referenced in the report. Complete calcula- tions and data are included in the Appendix of the report. The location of the development is within the City of Fa- yetteville in Washington County, Arkansas. The site is located on the north side of Wedington Drive and on the east side of Rupple Road. The proposed development site location and vicinity are shown on Figures 1 and 2, which follow. PETERS P & ASSOCIATES�� �I) EWHSS. MG Page 5 Access to the site, as shown on the site plan, is from five access drives or streets. Drive A is proposed to intersect Wedington Drive at the south edge of the site approximately 1,750 feet east of Rupple Road. This drive is opposite the existing drive serving the Ozark Electric Cooperative. Three of the access drives (Drives B, C and D) are proposed to intersect Rupple Road along the west edge of the site. Drive B is planned to be located approximately 580 feet north of Wedington Drive. Drive C is planned to be located ap- proximately 1,610 feet north of Drive B and serve as the east leg to the future Rupple Road and Chantilly Drive intersection. Drive D is located approximately 1,020 feet north of Drive C. There is one access drive (Drive E) on the east side of the site which is proposed to serve access to the residential development immedi- ately to the east. There is one additional minor point of access between Drive B and C. Volumes at this drive are expected to be minimal. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Ecm flfC- Page 6 'tttr4 fi'r9fl s. The locations of the access drives and distances between them are shown on Figure 4, "Directional Distribution - Site Traffic." The site development plan calls for the con- struction of approximately 1,108 multi -family residential units, 75 residential townhouses, 74 residential single- family lots, approximately 91,350 square -feet of retail, ap- proximately 13,150 square feet of office and a 9 -hole golf course, plus associated parking, landscaping, new streets and access drives. The site plan shows the proposed building locations, the golf course and the approximate location of the streets or drives proposed to serve the site. The site currently is an undeveloped tract. Wedington Drive, in the vicinity of the study area, is ap- proximately 44 feet wide consisting of two eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes. At both the eastbound and westbound approaches to its intersection with Rupple Road, Wedington Drive widens to allow for the addition of a left -turn only lane. Wedington Drive widens again to the east and is a five -lane section at Drive A proposed to serve the site. Wedington Drive is asphalt and con- structed with curbs and gutters. There are sidewalks along both sides of the street and the speed limit is 45 miles per hour in the vicinity of the site. Wedington Drive is classified as a Principal Arterial on the City of Fayette- ville Master Street Plan (MSP). Rupple Road, north of Wedington Drive along the site frontage, is approximately 20 feet wide consisting of a northbound lane and a southbound lane. On the north leg at Wedington Drive, Rupple Road widens to 38 feet consisting of a 12 -foot right -turn lane, a 12 -foot thru / left - turn lane and a 14 -foot receiving lane. Rupple Road is asphalt and constructed with shoulders and drainage ditches along the site frontage and curb and gutter at Wedington Drive. There are sidewalks on Rupple Road at Wedington Drive (none along the site frontage). The speed limit is 30 miles per hour. On the south leg at Wedington Drive, Rupple Road consists of a northbound PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 7 Th'- may, right -turn lane, a northbound thru / left -turn lane and a southbound receiving lane. Rupple Road in the vicinity of the site is classified as a Principal Arterial on the City MSP. There are two existing traffic signals in the immediate vicin- ity of the study area. The intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road is signalized. This is an existing 5 -phase signal operation with signal indications mounted on mast arms. The controller location is on the northeast comer of the intersection. Approximately 0.6 of a mile east of Rupple Road, the T -intersection of Wedington Drive and Salem Road is signalized. This is a 3 -phase signal operation with signal indications mounted on mast arms. The controller location is on the northwest comer of the intersection. The site is currently undeveloped. There is Westside Stor- age and a shopping center (consisting of a pizza restau- rant, tanning salon, coffee shop, etc.) on the northeast cor- ner of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. There is an E -Z Mart on the northwest corner of this intersection. D & C Electric is just north of the E -Z Mart. There is an access drive serving Ozark Electric Cooperative located on the south side of Wedington Drive directly across from where Drive A is proposed to be constructed. There are several planned developments by others south of Wedington Drive along Rupple Road including residential uses, a school and other uses. These have been taken into consideration as a part of this study. The following photos show the general layout of Rupple Road, Wedington Drive and surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the site. These were taken at locations as indi- cated on the photo captions. PETERS & ASSOCIATES flICR�9�tS. INC Page 8 ' `m' rr: , _ 1• �~ SSA \' -• l� � �_ �_A ♦ 11 I 4. � �.�s. �. 0 PETERS & ASSOCIATES EKCI EERS. INC Looking north on Rupple Road toward Wedington Drive. Looking east on Wedington Drive toward Rupple Road. Rupple Road Looking west on Wedington Drive toward Rupple Road. Hourly, 24 -hour traffic counts were made at the following locations in the vicinity of the site by this consultant as a part of this study: STREET 24LHOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME TABLET& CHART Wedington Drive, Just East of Rupple Road 18,305 Table 1/Chart 1 Rupple Road Approaches to Wedington Drive 2,755 Table 2/Chart 2 PETERS & ASSOCIATES BNCINWS. M. Hourly 24 -hour traffic count data for these locations are summarized on Table 1 and Chart 1, "24 -Hour Traffic Counts — Wedington Drive, Just East of Rupple Road," and Table 2 and Chart 2, "Rupple Road Approaches to Wedington Drive." Other traffic count data collected as a part of this study include AM and PM peak hours vehicle turning movement counts at the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. The peak hour vehicle turning movement count data at this intersection are summarized in the following peak hour turning movement charts and are presented in more detail in the Appendix of this report. 24 -hour volume count data and AM and PM peak hours vehicle turning movement counts made as a part of this study are shown on Figure 3, "Existing Traffic Volumes." I TIME Wedinglon Driw, Just East of Rupple Road Eastbound Westbound EB + WB 01:00 PM 524 545 1069 02:00 PM 536 539 1075 03:00 PM 522 677 1199 04:00 PM 532 917 1449 05:00 PM 556 1139 1695 06:00 PM 484 727 1211 07:00 PM 440 544 984 08:00 PM 298 371 669 09:00 PM 258 313 571 10:00 PM 205 209 414 11:00 PM 104 115 219 12:00 AM 60 44 104 01:00 AM 50 51 101 02:00 AM 47 45 92 03:00 AM 62 37 99 04:00 AM 85 43 128 05:00 AM 186 71 257 06:00 AM 469 105 574 07:00 AM 1173 293 1466 08:00 AM 653 320 973 09:00 AM 528 383 911 10:00 AM 494 521 1015 11:00AM 428 469 897 12:00 PM 545 588 1133 24 -Hour Total: 9239 9066 I 18305 Table 2 —Chart 2 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Rupple Road Approaches to Wedington Drive. 250 200 2 150 a 100 so Q-4 Qo Q�Q�Q�Q� Q� e e e 8401 P�P�P�P�P#Y 1�Y P� o�sPosPa sP�x.Pyydl�.cP0�& All CP^osP^�.d�^,�.d1,�gPa.$e x.Air° %P Sd'O�gPoycP�d>,yx.P,�5P`,�& Hour 1400 1200 1000 000 � 800 000 200 0 Hour Table I —Chart 1 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Wedington Drive, Just East of Rupple Road. TIME Rupple Road Approaches to Wedington Drihe Northbound Southbound NB + SB 01:00 PM 23 114 137 02:00 PM 27 123 150 03:00 PM 44 159 203 04:00 PM 51 149 200 05:00 PM 121 194 315 06:00 PM 138 122 260 07:00 PM 124 61 185 08:00 PM 59 79 138 09:00 PM 53 65 118 10:00 PM 22 54 76 11:00 PM 19 25 44 12:00 AM 3 13 16 01:00 AM 2 8 10 02:00 AM 5 4 9 03:00 AM 6 6 14 04:00 AM 4 13 17 05:00 AM 5 41 46 06:00 AM 17 60 77 07:00 AM 4 182 186 08:00 AM 11 81 92 27 75 102 09:00 AM 10:00AM 30 62 112 11:00AM 33 92 125 12:00 PM 35 88 123 24 -Hour Total: 863 1892 2755 PETERS & ASSOCIATES 6I Umms. INC. Page 11 13 ■ FWibl�i5Rd. FM WRd. 1M1 13 0 Fr,,Fml{eeft ■ From�Y1 Akt From m-u.0 e5 13 ■ Fd. r,,WN1e11 ■ FFr te~ F .fl u VS4aiDr. From tg F4*Rd. Fran SatARru YA*#Md. From b -tetl i2 100 0 I■t■ i� I•■■■ ■IOI■I■I■nw N. 1"JIM iIuIMMI HUHHHUUU V V.W X V 0 0 o e Time of Day W N --_ 6_ Chart3 1117 1217 1288 1117 AM Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data _ Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. —1-3 Chart 4 PM Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data Wedington Drive and Rupple Road. 3 uauyt �midMj ■ fmm5d�th4al Reamex Fr 13 RiSRd. 0 . ■ watpmd. fID[.eft From *st- t From Nat-Rru From ■RakRt e4Cre Rd. wtyw d. FM Atb t FmnY!!-TFu Fit., XVIMeR Fe ES- t ■ From Saab- ■ Fan &. 250- 260 € 1e0 150 � 100 100 60 60 a s s a s a a a a a a a a a o e e n o m o m $ $ $ $ o 0 0 0 Time of Day PETERS & ASSOCIATES DICINEImS. INC. I V 110 k worth -888 998 473 555 LL; •,• F:1 ::: 674. 4.73 Page 12 S • • • • . The Trip Generation, an Informational Report (7th Edi- • tion), 2004, published by the Institute of Transportation • ' ' • • • Engineers (ITE) and The Trip Generation Software • (Version 5 by Microtrans), were utilized in calculating the • magnitude of traffic volumes expected to be generated by of build -out of the site by the proposed residential, office and retail land uses of this development. These are reli- able sources for this information and are universally used in the traffic engineering profession. • Using the selected trip -generation rates, calculations • were made as a part of this study to provide a reliable es- timate of traffic volumes that can be expected to be asso- • ciated with the development as proposed. Applying the appropriate trip -generation rates to the land -uses pro- posed for the development makes these calculations. Results of this calculation are summarized on Table 3, • "Summary of Trip Generation - Site Full Build -Out," be- • low. These calculations indicate that approximately 12,199 • vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday are projected to be generated by the proposed residen- tial, office and retail land uses for full build -out on this site. • • Retail Market* 78,200 Sq. Ft 820 2,686 39 25 113 122 Residential Apartments 1000 Units 220 6,720 100 410 400 220 • Goff Course 9 Holes 430 322 16 4 11 14 • Residential Apartments 108 Units 220 726 11 44 43 24 . Reta5* 13,150 Sq. Ft 820 452 6 4 19 21 General Office 13,150 Sq. Ft 710 145 18 2 3 16 Residential Town Homes 75 Units 230 440 5 28 26 13 • Residential Single-Famly 74 Lots 210 708 14 41 47 27 • TOTALS: 12,199 209 558 662 457 • TOTAL ENTERING + EXITING fl • *These volumes adjusted to reflect 20% inernal capture. • Table 3 — Trip Generation Summary - Site Full Build -Out PETERS & ASSOCIATES iJ/ENCINC699, INC. Page 13 jrrfffr r Of this total, approximately 767 vehicle trips are esti- mated during the traffic conditions of the adjacent street AM peak hour and approximately 1,119 vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the adjacent street PM peak hour. The data for the retail land uses have been adjusted for "internal trip capture" (i.e. multi -purpose trips within the site as opposed to new trips for each site land use). These data have not been adjusted for "pass -by" trips (i.e. that portion of the site -destined traffic that could come from the existing adjacent street traffic stream) due to the land uses and location of the site. Additionally, projected traffic volumes for the development of only Phase 1 (consists of 600 multi -family residential units and the golf course) were calculated. These calcu- lations indicate that approximately 4,354 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday are projected to be generated by the proposed residential and golf course land uses for Phase 1 development on this site. Of this total, approximately 326 vehicle trips are esti- mated during the traffic conditions of the adjacent street AM peak hour and approximately 397 vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the adjacent street PM peak hour as a part of Phase 1 development. Results of this calculation are summarized on Table 3-A, "Trip Generation Summary - Phase 1," below. ' PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME ENTER EXIT PROPOSED APPROXIMATE ITE LAND USE SIZE CODE 24 -HOUR TWO-WAY WEEKDAY VOLUME AM PEAK HOUR VOLUME ENTER EXIT 326 397 i J/ i PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 14 Residential and office traffic, as will be associated with this site, ordinarily does contribute to the adjacent street traffic conditions during the on -street AM peak traffic hour and the PM peak traffic hour. Accordingly, both the AM and PM peak traffic periods of the adjacent streets in the immediate vicinity of the site are the traffic operating con- ditions which have warranted primary traffic analysis as a part of this study. Once projected traffic was estimated for the site, direc- tional distributions were made to reflect the percent of left and right turns at the study intersections. Directional dis- tribution percentages used in this report are shown on Figure 4, "Directional Distribution - Site Traffic." The directional distribution percentages for site traffic have been equated to percentage turns for each move- ment at study intersections. These values are shown on: • Figure 5, "Entering Traffic Percentage Turns" • Figure 6, "Exiting Traffic Percentage Turns." The projected traffic volumes shown on Figure 7, "Full Build -Out Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours," and Figure 7-A, "Phase 1 Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours," result from applying the projected entering and exiting percentages shown on Figures 5 and 6 to the projected site -generated traffic summarized on Table 3, "Trip Generation Summary - Full Build -Out," and Table 3-A, "Trip Generation Sum- mary - Phase 1." The site -generated traffic volumes for site full build -out, shown on Figure 7, and existing background traffic vol- umes have been combined and the results are depicted on Figure 8, "Full Build -Out Site -Generated Traffic Plus Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours." Ad- ditional traffic volumes expected to be generated by PETERS & ASSOCIATES H.'OW6RRS. INC Page 15 A r � planned developments by others in the vicinity of the site have been combined with the traffic volumes depicted on Figure 8 and the results are depicted on Figure 9, "Site - Generated Traffic Plus Other Planned Developments in the Immediate Vicinity - AM and PM Peak Hours." The site -generated traffic volumes for Phase 1, shown on Figure 7-A and existing background traffic volumes have been combined and the results are depicted on Figure 8- A, "Phase 1 Site -Generated Traffic Plus Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours," which resulted in total projected traffic volumes at Phase 1 development of the site. Traffic volumes shown on Figure 8, 8-A and 9 are the val- ues used in traffic volume assignments and capacity and level of service calculations conducted as a part of this study. The effect of existing background traffic (i.e. the adjacent street non -site traffic which exists) as well as known development plans in the vicinity has thus been accounted for in this analysis. Generally, the "capacity" of a street is a measure of its ability to accommodate a certain magnitude of moving vehicles. It is a rate as opposed to a quantity, measured in terms of vehicles per hour. More specifically, street capacity refers to the maximum number of vehicles that a street element (e.g. an intersection) can be expected to accommodate in a given time period under the prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Level of Service (LOS) ordinarily has a letter designation relative to the various operating characteristics, ranging from "A" as the highest quality to "F" representing consid- erable delay. The various Levels of Service are generally described as follows: 1 PETERS & ASSOCIATES �• "G Page 16 4 - - Av Total Delay (sec./veh.) Description . This LOS is a free flow condition, with vehicles acting nearly A <10 — independently to one another. There is little or no delay. This LOS is slightly restrictive condition with short traffic delays. B >10 and <20 — The presense of other vehicles is noticable by the driver. This LOS is the design level that engineers strive for during the C >20 and <35 service life of the facility. LOS C results from an average delay. The traffic flow is stable, but more restrictive. This LOS is noticeably more restrictive, and there are long D >35 and <55 traffic delays. This LOS results in poor driver comfort and in greater accident probabilities. At this LOS, the intersection is operating at capacity with little or E >55 and <80 no gaps. There are very long traffic delays and unstable intersection operation. At this LOS, there are more vehicles arriving at the approach F >80 than can be discharged. Extreme delays will be encountered. • Av Total Dela sec.lveh. Descri tion . This LOS is a free flow condition, with vehicles acting nearly A <10 — independently to one another. There is little or no delay. This LOS is slightly restrictive condition with short traffic delays. B >10 and <15 The presense of other vehicles is noticeable by the driver. This LOS is the design level that engineers strive for during the C >15 and <25 service life of the facility. LOS C results from an average delay. The traffic flow is stable, but more restrictive. This LOS is noticeably more restrictive, and there are long D >25 and <35 traffic delays. This LOS results in poor driver comfort and in greater accident probabilities. At this LOS, the intersection is operating at capacity with little or E >35 and <50 no gaps. There are very long traffic delays and unstable intersection operation. At this LOS, there are more vehicles arriving at the approach F >50 than can be discharged. Extreme delays will be encountered. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 17 if Gtrylf Traffic operational calculations were performed as a part of this study for traffic operating conditions of existing and projected traffic. This analysis was performed using Syn- chro Version 6, 2003. This computer program has been proven to be reliable when used to analyze capacity and levels of traffic service under various operating condi- tions. Detailed calculations for all capacity calculations are included in the Appendix. The adjacent street AM and PM peak traffic periods were used for these calcula- tions. Factors included in the analysis are as follows: • Existing traffic patterns. • Directional distribution of projected traffic volumes. • Existing and proposed intersection geometry (including elements such as turn lanes, curb radii, etc.). • Master Street Plan design standards. • Existing background traffic volumes, projected site - generated volumes (for Full Build -Out and for Phase 1) and projected volumes generated by other planned developments in the vicinity. • Existing or proposed traffic control. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Existing Traffic Conditions Capacity and level of service analysis was performed for existing traffic conditions for the adjacent street AM and PM peak hours for the Wedington Drive and Rupple Road intersection. As indicated in Table 4, "Level of Service Summary — Existing Traffic Conditions," all existing vehicle move- ments for existing traffic conditions at the Wedington Drive and Rupple Road intersection presently operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic volumes used for this analysis are shown on Figure 3, "Existing Traffic Vol- umes." PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 18 ________x EXISTINGTRAFFICCONDITIONSo I. r r r r •1.1 x r r x r -= r rcW I W W La j Z Z 'a N W O 0 I II PM Wellington Drihe and Rupple Road SIGNAL A A A A C C C C B C PM A A A A C C D B Table 4 - Level of Service Summary - Existing Traffic Conditions Site Projected Traffic Conditions Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for the site full build -out of projected traffic conditions. Capacity and LOS analysis was also made for only Phase 1 de- velopment of the site projected traffic conditions (consisting of the first 600 multi -family residential units and the golf course). This analysis was performed for AM and PM peak hours for both projected traffic condi- tions. This analysis was performed for the following intersections: o Wedington Drive and Rupple Road o Wedington Drive and Drive A o Rupple Road and Drive B o Rupple Road and Drive C / Chantilly Drive o Rupple Road and Drive D. Site Phase I Projected Traffic Conditions With Existing Lane Geometry For Phase 1 projected traffic conditions, analysis was conducted with the existing lane geometry on Rupple Road and on Wedington Road. Additionally, Phase 1 conditions were analyzed with Rupple Road con- structed to half a four -lane boulevard on the site side only (consisting of two northbound lane and one southbound lane). PETERS & ASSOCIATES vmcccas' me Page 19 li Cli'r % Traffic volumes used for the projected traffic conditions for Phase 1 development are shown on Figure 8-A, "Phase 1 Site -Generated Traffic Plus Existing Traffic Vol- umes - AM and PM Peak Hours." The operating condi- tions projected to exist at the study intersections are sum- marized in Table 5, "Level of Service Summary - Pro- jected Traffic Conditions - Site Phase 1 - Rupple Road Existing Lane Geometry." As indicated in Table 5, vehicle movements at the study intersections with capacity and LOS results demonstrat- ing very long to extreme traffic delays (LOS "E" or "F") during the AM or PM peak hours projected traffic condi- tions at Phase 1 projected traffic conditions with Rupple Road existing Lane Geometry are the southbound left - turn turn (LOS "F) and the southbound right -turn (LOS "E") vehicle movements on Drive A at Wedington Drive during the PM peak hour with "Stop" sign control. All other vehicle movements analyzed for these conditions are expected to operate at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. . .. PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS PHASE I CONDITIONS .sA. e � Bill w•z•z J I Fa:JR'SITE z m N w }� o' m - PM PM Wetlington Ddve and Rupple Road SIGrt A B I. A I A C C D C B D A A B C C D ICI B wedington Dd�e and Dd�e A SIGN A A A A D ! C Na tea» B A dal Na AMRupple Road antl Dd�e B SIGN B B A A A ! Na � ! ! B B A A A ! Na �_� ! ! mpm--d Rupple Roadand Ddhe C SIGN AA ! Na AARupple Road and Dd�e D SIGNS B B ! A A A AE ! Na ! B B A A A ! ! .E Table 5 - Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions - Site Phase I - Rupple Road Existing Lane Geometry PETERS & ASSOCIATES f INEE13. INC. Page 20 Site Phase 1 Proiected Traffic Conditions With Rupple Road Constructed to Half a Four -Lane Boule- vard on the Site Side Only Traffic volumes used for the projected traffic conditions for Phase 1 development are shown on Figure 8-A, "Phase 1 Site -Generated Traffic Plus Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours." If Rupple Road is improved to half of a four -lane boulevard section, the operating conditions pro- jected to exist at the study intersections are summarized in Table 6, "Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions - Site Phase 1." PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SITE PHASE 1 CONDITIONS . o J w U. x H III1 w a: J x F g x = J N y - ° u 0 ACC AM PM Wedington Drhe and Rupple Road SIGt44L11 A B A A C C D C B A 1A1 B C C D C B AM PM ___I_1A1 Wellington DflW and Ddee A SIGN A B A A A F ! E Na e PM Rupple Road and Driee 8 SIGN B ! B A A A ! Na B ! B ■� A A A PM Rupple Road antl Dd�e C SIGN �^ B ! B ! A A ! Na B ! B ! A A _�_ Na_ PM Rupple Roatl and Dme D SIGN B ar B ! A A A Ne B ! B ! A A A Na Table 6 - Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions Site Phase I PETERS & ASSOCIATES m"�•� Page 21 As indicated in Table 6, vehicle movements at the study intersections with capacity and LOS results demonstrat- ing very long to extreme traffic delays (LOS "E" or "F") during the AM or PM peak hours projected traffic condi- tions at Phase 1 projected traffic conditions with Rupple Road constructed to half a four -lane boulevard on the site side only are the southbound left -turn turn (LOS "F) and the southbound right -turn (LOS "E") vehicle movements on Drive A at Wedington Drive during the PM peak hour with "Stop" sign control. These are the same results as projected traffic conditions with Rupple Road existing lane geometry. All other vehicle movements analyzed for these conditions are expected to operate at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours for these condi- tions. Site Full Build -Out Projected Traffic Conditions For site full build -out projected traffic conditions, analysis was conducted with the roadway improvements and schematic lane geometry shown on Figure 10, "Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry - Site Full Build -Out." Traffic volumes used for the analysis of projected traffic conditions for site full build -out of are shown on Figure 8, "Full Build -Out Site -Generated Traffic Plus Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours." The operating con- ditions projected to exist at the study intersections are summarized in Table 7, "Level of Service Summary - Pro- jected Traffic Conditions - Site Full Build -Out." For these projected traffic conditions, analysis was conducted with the roadway improvements and schematic lane geometry shown on Figure 10, "Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry - Site Full Build -Out." PETERS & ASSOCIATES l vGm .me Page 22 '9l1 Imo n I % �( • " ••• • -. O 12W I- it mJ • W o7ii A C K IS Z 2 0' 2 N • (a C H @ p PM Nkdington Dme and Rupple Road SIGNAL PM B B Ajf_ 6 C C D C B AM PM Wedingtan Drive and Drive A SIGN A A A A F D Na SIGNAL A A A A C C A �� SIGN C A A A r F F nla SIGNAL B A B A C C A •� PM pM Rupple Road and Drive B SIGN C C A A A Na ra•�� C C __ A A A Na AM Rupple Road and Drive C SIGN S C a A A A A A Oda SIGNAL B A A A A B PM SIGN C A A A A n/a gala SIGNAL B A B A A B AM PM Rupple Road and Drive D SIGN B B A AA � Iva B B A A A Na i Table 7 - Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions Site Full Build -Out Rupple Road Constructed to Half Blvd. on Site Side Only As indicated in Table 7, vehicle movements at the study intersections with capacity and LOS results demonstrating very long to extreme traffic delays (LOS "F") during the AM or PM peak hours projected traffic conditions at site full build -out are the southbound left -turn turn and right -turn vehicle movement on Drive A at Wedington Drive during the AM and PM peak hours (LOS "F") with "Stop" sign con- trol. This vehicle movement improves to an acceptable LOS "D" during the AM and PM peak hours with proposed traffic signal control. All other vehicle movements analyzed for these conditions are expected to operate at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Site Full Build -Out Plus Planned Developments in the Vicinity by Others Traffic volumes used for the projected traffic conditions for full build -out plus planned developments in the vicinity by others are shown on Figure 9, "Site -Generated Traffic Plus Other Planned Developments in the Vicinity - AM and PM Peak Hours." The operating conditions projected to exist at PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. I"` Page 23 jn J I - .. • •ir 4 — ii e o W _ M W W j _ 3 Z _ Z Z - N .II _ N N o o ro AM PM UVetlington Dnhe and Rupple Road SIGNAL I D C A D A C D D C D C B C ID C 8 C B A D D C C C _IC AM PM Wedington Dnve and Ddae A SIGN A A A A F F Na ��1 SIGNAL A A A A D D A �� SIGN C A A A F Illrll F Na SIGNAL B A B A D D A -AM- --- -- Rupple Road and Ddhe B SIGN B B A A A Na PM C C A A A Na �� AM PM Rupple Road and DiKe C SIGN C A D B A A A A Na SIGNAL D D D D A A A A B SIGN C A C C B A A A Na SGNAL D D D D A A A A B Rupple Road and Ddhe D SIGN PM 8 B A A A Na Table 8- Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions Site Full Build -Out Plus Planned Developments in the Vicinity by Others the study intersections are summarized in Table 8, "Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions - Site Full Build -Out Plus Planned Developments in the Vicinity by Oth- ers." For these full build -out projected traffic conditions, analysis was conducted with the roadway improvements and schematic lane geometry shown on Figure 11, "Recommended Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry Vicinity Full Build -Out." As indicated in Table 8, vehicle movements at the study inter- sections with capacity and LOS results demonstrating very long to extreme traffic delays (LOS "F") during the AM or PM peak hours projected traffic conditions at site full build -out plus planned developments in the vicinity by others is the southbound left -turn turn and right -turn vehicle movement on Drive A at Wedington Drive during the AM and PM peak hours (LOS "F") with "Stop" sign control. This vehicle move- ment improves to an acceptable LOS "D" during the AM and PM peak hours with proposed traffic signal control. All other vehicle movements analyzed for these conditions are ex- pected to operate at LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours for full build -out of the site plus planned develop- ments in the vicinity by others. PETERS & ASSOCIATES fl1CNB[RS. IKU Page 24 'I Ilfllao sa In evaluating the need for a traffic signal, certain estab- lished warrants must be examined by a comprehensive in- vestigation of traffic conditions and physical characteristics of the location. The decision to install a traffic signal at a particular location must be evaluated quantitatively relative to these warrants. Satisfaction of conditions for only one of the warrants, as specified, is required for signalization. These warrants, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), are described in detail in the appendix of this report. They are summarized as fol- lows: ♦ Warrant One: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume ♦ Warrant Two: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume ♦ Warrant Three: Peak Hour ♦ Warrant Four: Pedestrian Volume ♦ Warrant Five: School Crossing ♦ Warrant Six: Coordinated Signal System ♦ Warrant Seven: Crash Experience ♦ Warrant Eight: Roadway Network Traffic signal warrants analysis was made for projected traf- fic conditions for full build -out of the development and for Site Phase 1 development for the following intersections: • Wedington Drive and Drive A • Rupple Road and Drive C. Signal Warrants Results Site Phase 1 It was found that traffic signal warrants are not projected to be met for the intersection of Wedington Drive and Drive A at Site Phase 1 development. Volumes are projected to not be sufficient at this intersection to satisfy any warrants. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for this intersection are summarized in Table 9, "Traffic Signal Warrants Re- sults - Wedington Drive and Drive A - Site Phase 1 Pro- jected Conditions." PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 25 It was found that traffic signal warrants are not pro- jected to be met for the intersection of Rupple Road and Drive C at Site Phase 1 development. Volumes are projected to not be sufficient at this intersection to satisfy any warrants. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for this intersection are summarized in Table 10, "Traffic Signal Warrants Results - Rupple Road and Drive C - Site Phase 1 Projected Condi- tions." Full Build -Out Wedington Drive and Drive A It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Wedington Drive and Drive A at full build -out of this development. Volumes are projected to be sufficient at this intersection to sat- isfy Warrants 1 B, 1AB, 2 and 3. Traffic signal control would be appropriate for this intersection to coincide with the development as proposed and the herein rec- ommended roadway improvements. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for this intersection are sum- marized in Table 11, "Traffic Signal Warrants Results - Wedington Drive and Drive A - Projected Conditions Site Full Build -Out." Rupple Road and Drive C It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be met for the intersection of Rupple Road and Drive C at full build -out of this development. Volumes are projected to be sufficient at this intersection to sat- isfy Warrant 1A. Traffic signal control would be ap- propriate for this intersection to coincide with the de- velopment as proposed and the herein recommended roadway improvements. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for this intersection are summarized in Table 12, "Traffic Signal Warrants Results - Rupple Road and Drive C - Projected Conditions Site Full Build -Out." PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 26 • S FINAL RESULTS: Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis • Projected Conditions Phase I Hour warrant was met: • Major St.: Wedington Drive Minor St.: Drive A VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Peak • 420 630 336 504 • 140 70 112 56 SUM MAX. • HOUR MAJOR MINOR 1A 1B 1AB 2 3 7:00 1595 88 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 • 8:00 1038 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Table 9 9:00 977 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic Signal Warrants Results 10:00 1094 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 on Drive and Drive A 11:00 968 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wedin • � 12:00 1221 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site Phase 1 13:00 1152 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Projected Traffic Conditions 14:00 1157 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 15:00 1296 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16:00 1574 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 17:00 1867 59 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 • 18:00 1321 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 1063 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 20:00 703 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21O0 597 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 1 0 1 0 • • This intersection DOES NOT SATISFY the warrants for signalizatton • as outlined In the "M.U.T.C.D." • FINAL RESULTS: Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Projected Conditions . PHASE 1 Hourwarrantwas met: Major St.: Rupple Road Minor SL: DriveC VOLUME COMB. 4Hr. Peak 420 630 336 504 • 140 70 112 56 • SUM MAX. HOUR MAJOR MINOR to 1B 1AB 2 3 • 7:00 388 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8O0 176 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 9:00 161 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 10 10:00 186 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic Signal Warrants Results 11:00 213 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 275 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Rupple Road and Drive C Site Phase 1 13:00 277 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 299 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Projected Traffic Conditions 15:00 363 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 16:00 330 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 410 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 18:00 295 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 134 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 20:00 154 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 21:00 130 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • This Intersection DOES NOT SATISFY the warrants for signalization • - as outlined In the M.U.T.C.D. • PETERS & ASSOCIATES 1. ENGNEEM. INC. 'I �12 Page 27 • • • FINAL RESULTS: Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Projected Conditions • Full Build -Out of Site Hourwarrant was met: • Major St.: Wedington Drive Minor St.: DriveA VOLUME COMB. 4Hr. Peak 420 630 336 504 140 70 112 56 SUM MAX. HOUR MAJOR MINOR 1A 1B 1AB 2 3 • 7:00 1848 201 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8:00 1180 104 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 • 9:00 1122 86 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Table 11 ' 10A0 1287 96 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Traffic Signal Warrants Results 11:00 1203 93 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Wedington Drive and Drive A • 12:00 1469 115 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 13:00 1417 113 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Projected Traffic Conditions • 14:00 1418 114 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Site Full Build -Out. 15:00 1570 115 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 16:00 1884 112 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 17:00 2275 179 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 18:00 1618 129 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 19:00 1310 103 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 20:00 871 62 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 • 21:00 707 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 8 13 10 This Intersection SATISFIES the warrants for signalization as outlined In the "M.U.T.C.D." • FINAL RESULTS: Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Projected Conditions • Full Build -Out Hour warrant was met: Major St.: Rupple Road • MinorSt.: Drive C VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Peak 420 630 336 504 • 140 70 112 56 SUM MAX. HOUR MAJOR MINOR 1A 16 1AB 2 3 • 7:00 468 183 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 8:00 235 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 12 • 9:00 225 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traffic Signal Warrants Results 10:00 272 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 11:00 336 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rupple Road and Drive C • 12:00 491 150 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Projected Traffic Conditions 13:00 430 159 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Site Full Build -Out. • 14:00 456 170 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 15:00 521 181 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 16:00 525 150 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 17:00 632 152 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 18:00 465 149 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 19:00 235 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 247 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 200 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • 8 1 3 0 0 • This Intersection SATISFIES the warrants for signalizatlon • as outlined in the "M.U.T.C.D." • PETERS k ASSOCIATES ENCIN8ERS. INC. lll�' Page 28 The City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan (MSP) sets out the classification and function of various streets (existing or planned) in the city. The several street classes of streets have associated with them a Design Service Vol- ume. This is a value of typical 24 -hour two-way traffic vol- ume considered to be normal for the respective street classification. This is not the "capacity" of the street, but rather is a desired typical volume. In the vicinity of this study, both Wedington Drive and Rupple Road are classi- fied as Principal Arterial streets. In addition to the intersection capacity and level of service analysis performed as a part of this study for the several study intersections (existing and projected) an examina- tion of the MSP service volumes was made. Existing, and projected two-way 24 -hour traffic volumes have been summarized for the streets included in this study. This information is summarized on Figure 12, "Master Street Plan Two -Way 24 -Hour Design Service Volumes." As shown on Figure 12, this summary indicates only the volume for Wedington Drive in the vicinity of the develop- ment has projected volume in excess of the Design Ser- vice Volume. PETERS & ASSOCIATES INC. Page 29 k tr 4- fl_ Findings of this study are summarized as follows: • Traffic volumes projected to be generated by the site at full development are approximately 12,199 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday. • The AM peak hour of the adjacent street (7:15 AM — 8:15 AM) and the PM peak hour of the adjacent street (5:00 PM - 6:00 PM) have been determined to be the worst -case traffic conditions in the vicinity. It is esti- mated that approximately 767 additional vehicle trips will seek ingress and egress at the site during this ad- jacent street AM peak hour and approximately 1,119 additional vehicle trips will seek ingress and egress at the site at full build -out during this adjacent street PM peak hour. Capacity and LOS analysis for existing traffic condi- tions (existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traf- fic control) were conducted for the Wedington Drive and Rupple Road intersection. Currently all vehicle movements operate at what calculates as an accept- able LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours at this intersection. • Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for the full build -out of this development projected traffic condi- tions that includes the vehicle trips expected to be generated by planned developments by others in the in the vicinity of the site. Also, Capacity and LOS analysis was made for the Site Phase 1 development projected traffic conditions (consisting of the first 600 multi -family residential units and the golf course). • It was found that traffic signal warrants are not pro- jected to be met for the intersections of Wedington Drive and Drive A and Rupple Road and Drive C at Site Phase 1 development only. • It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENELYEEIB. NC. Page 30 irI to be met for the intersections of Wedington Drive and Drive A and Rupple Road and Drive C at full build -out of the site. • The recommended signal control at the intersections of Wedington Drive and Drive A and Rupple Road and Drive C would allow acceptable traffic operations and add safety and convenience for these intersections, as well as help accommodate growth in the vicinity of the site. Recommendations of this study are summarized as fol- lows: Site Phase I Development Acceptable traffic operations along Rupple Road at the site access drives are expected with exist- ing Rupple Road lane geometry along the site frontage. Acceptable traffic operations at the in- tersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road are expected with the existing lane geometry and signal control for Site Phase 1 conditions. Site Full Build -Out Acceptable traffic operations along Rupple Road at the site access drives are expected with Rupple Road constructed to half a four -lane boulevard roadway section on the site side. Acceptable traf- fic operations at the intersection of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road are expected with the ex- isting lane geometry and signal control for site full build -Out conditions. Roadway lane geometry and traffic signal control should be constructed as shown on Figure 10, "Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry - Site Full Build -Out." The im- provements should be constructed coincident with full site development. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 31 • It is recommended that a fully -actuated traffic signal be installed at the Wedington Drive and Drive A inter- section coincident with full site development. Drive A should be constructed with alignment that will also allow signal control of the existing drive serving the Ozark Electric Cooperative on the south side of Wedington Drive. The intersection should be con- structed in accordance with intersection design stan- dards of AHTD and the City of Fayetteville. • It is recommended that a fully -actuated traffic signal be installed at the Rupple Road and Drive C inter- section coincident with full site development. The design of this traffic signal should include provision for the planned intersection of Chantilly Drive to the west. The intersection should be constructed in ac- cordance with intersection design standards of the City of Fayetteville. • The recommended traffic signals at the intersections of Wedington Drive and Drive A and Rupple Road and Drive C should have provisions to be intercon- nected and coordinated with the existing signalized intersections of Wedington Drive and Rupple Road and Wedington Drive and Salem Road (east of the site). Rights -of -way necessary for roadway widening and traffic signal operation and maintenance should be dedicated as a part of this development. Full Build -Out of the Site and Vicinity Development As other development occurs in the vicinity (including on the west side of Rupple Road) it is recommended that the roadway lane geometry be constructed as shown on Figure 11, "Recommended Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry Vicinity Full Build -Out" for the full build -out conditions. These proposed road- way improvements are consistent with the City of Fa - PETERS & ASSOCIATES Page 32 yetteville Master Street Plan standards for Minor Arterial streets. • As a part of roadway improvements herein identi- fied as necessary for the intersection of Weding- ton Drive and Rupple Road (full build -out of the site and vicinity development), the existing traffic signal will require re -construction. • Roadway improvements and traffic signal designs (and modifications) on Wedington Drive, in the vicinity of the site, must conform to AHTD and City of Fayetteville standards and will require approval by both AHTD and the City. • Roadway improvements to all other roadways, in the vicinity of the site, must conform to City of Fa- yetteville standards and will require approval by the City. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ®vGm .Im. Page 33 PETERS & ASSOCIATES GLI\'EEE . INC. 00) LLW w p.) m m m Z) M D Co a b w 1-p 49239 - 130' Y a t33 CD > 888. i <J 0-473 z D a 9066' A 62 a= �49 O N 0. 4 A 0) m N W aD O N T N WEDINGTON DR. Cr N LU n O M w b 6 9 Y t13 267-0 C<7O o-111 88 0-r 487 CD m N O w J LU J J W a W Y Q a uO) w •`' U Q I- (5) Y 0 w J � W 2 F Qv Q7 W U O in Ca C4 a 2v !fl N O� ao O LLZO 1 m • m w� • w -I- (0_ • o � IL • t0 z O • w • WEDINGTON DR. 25% p " I XIIR w mw • x o . 511. IM }y/��}] wll mlPl� ..1....1. x11.. V _ IXI11. IXXI1, ' Txlxx., 1X11 DR .1 a O\n nnenl 11X1 i [ 1 IIIILI L..11 Invl " ® 111❑•1 '14111111 IXIIM1 IMI .nl.l E i [ X1 Iblm •0 4. .x n w. a la T11 rl(� - H • c c { J i Inlnl i uln C'O F W 0O 5 [l .Iglu. y,aul� i i Q ss y N 0 Iii Q F I ,.11-M1 lW��f � � a , . pnp qq^^6y . ��/��pp 3 y(�p . ;lJn,� v' L,6 v •OIJO ,[ � O_ • 1.[ �: t (rI(/III [p 91Mu • 1% ` DRS . 5 •1. • r W • l" f I VQ • �Iq! h�l \ Q OH • V z I CC 6 LL WY/ 26%-0 N < G 55% d 10% b w 26% d 17% w W z U Z W W WEDINGTON DR. ,n.Ml.n 0 icc ffn > O C I Ilnln N '/) x V/ W c K 0 M rrnml I O ,,. . f�� '1�( Ol�-e�Omn I Illin mmne /� LI( uunwe, 1 1 ��jf II n....... a M III Ilm . i 1 Pllmll l � III - I I ® ❑ 1 fllP i O In1IP M. ���••• VVV LLJ � ` ^ mil(' J •e� i'6 N 3 s 2il JQ �o� \.I•' LL.I Q II�II.Ij1 w (/•yam _ _ ] nneYl y.J - �• Q • ] y �I.53 Illl.11: " .p1(/�I1L� 6 O n 111P - � l! � C I;Iy�ry. i MMr yjvV` - M41 V F� � • YVY1.W✓Iln. Q n'IMu IF Fb ' ao VZ o- 26% LL • aq W • 0. A 2% ' OO F W z < • M 8%..Z z Z • a q a ww U • N a W • L • WEDINGTON DR. A a • w m� • R 0 X U) W • n,n in µ »uv .mn v .m.n•.. vnm. w �m,4 vuu..r� • „ -a° oo p V % Xy nV 1/� ® r . � It 'fl ii ;[II !tflj 4 n y °.ry nnr n n • • OflW Id C ,» y -P Y arty 5. � .n„»� Y,•.n, � � Y • V _ ;® Q r • ���^4yy ®- 4 Y �l �3Eyyo w �n'.� i Jy(•''rlY� AI1yV j • • `� f '. nn. y,M1 ,Y x V 4•Ly • ORl Eo iao F� ZN • ib U< a 71J Oti • z ao • J` • 54-p g Y i.-145 73 b at�Ox. 621 m � 172 -0 g a 4-119 232 a a 0 466 0. tO 0 a �aflMO 4� 000) 6 eN �O P- ero o w b w o Y 4 11' YK 9 p Y2 Z 450 2a o-17 37-0 �aw7) o-53UJO UW 54 a 0-i 636 172 a= 4113 WLLd a. q .o 0,t.• H 2 a Nm m ao ano~Z K M a PC m cc .-c1) W N Co *• N N 1O N w b b VF 39 D Qa 281 III....... Q s ba1O 5 baa0 L C 0- a N N N N 2 _J Map ti lit// Q Q 00 w Y )O N m V) Q i- Q ' a' b c - '� Li. 184 p Y 151 p a 22 a w 0 18 a wa0 Q J :® b x b x E w a q a q 1n Q O < N Z W ® 3 • } W 2 o H VI 0 O U) Co C U) )c E� =oai as 20-0 g¢j 4-6 27 b aa= d8 ?. A m 1O E 65-0 88 b a a °x d 25 A A N � N M '3 5) 204 C¢w0 o-6 20 ax 613 a Q A X1 o a 0 In - 4 -3 f 3 12b aw0 o-20 65 ax 443 q 4 A N N r1 o-' b 17'2 D ¢ 2 b¢wa0 A Q NO O N *1� 53t 10 b¢a0 c - 't M trio 1 •13 10' :D 1 bawwO a 4 NW N N Teo a b 48' 6 borWQ ax 0. 4 h N T pv O OC WI' V�m�mwm�300 F� V YV cocC Q O'WT ZV L0- N 0)0) wo -it o > Q QUA LLa LLg LL z Q Q W W W V) LL U Q O Li Y af Z H J LU 2 I- F U] m d �R` _ •N F .10 -o iw V ZN Of as 415-c � G W o-14 73 b a a 0 6 21 0. A E i 197-0 a 4-777 232, a a 466 A A � a t13 312.. 142 0-i 4 123 A 4 A O N M a c N W a m M i t33 139 Y K 9404 a w 0 e514 224 0-i 6 162 4-'4A M N N 0 -a io) N N 'on a b w b 39 p� aYQ 28'2 6 b¢aO 5 baa= N p a r 'I- '0 co (0.- 1jI a b a b 184' 151'ci e 22 b¢Wa= 16 aaa0 N N N J (0 to 2.0 J rWg goo O Ow U -0 - LL F- ❑ Ve Z z 4 ui Q W rn LL bJ J W } LL 1n QU _ LL 1n LL Y Z U) 0 W rn rn NQl iii L -o a 0 �tJ as 381-0 z,yj o-1 27b < 48 4. A m 1p i 180 -0 yya a-708 88 a 425 A N � 0 n n 1' 413 287.0 ¢ w .-112 OO 108 a x 4 100 a 4 A N � n r N 0) c W o_ c0 m 133' y t33 goo y a w D .-493 127 0r �92 O' Q A h N n CD N N a b 413 17 i� 10 t D Q Q 2 1 ao_WO baaO N OD N O N M N O m ,- N.— a b w b 83p 48 10 ba a= 6 WO ba 0.= y n n .c'1 li W d' i <DO Q HQ J Y .00 J wOw Li W�a W~Z Z Q (0< � X r W W to uJ J W CO I- } COz W 0 6 < F - c L� 1n w U d L` I- w z � Q U- LU F — VI F I.' C UT iw ao L��� pap Ew aN Wz ZN as OLLw= z 712-0 gaj 4-1974 656-0 gaj 4-1391 • 73 b ¢ w4- Ox 4 21 232 b °— f d 66 o-, _j . 468 p Y i 234 Z > N e m a 296-* o-1100 962-0 2W0 4-514 my02 m • 136 - x 4 140 274 b 0-x 4 187 w w oo 0. Q A •'9e0 LL j Z Q • N n O m M¢ N— • O 0 Z U W ULLx �._ eq WEDINGTON DR. ~ y • _ nl.xLU _ W J • � JJ�� uJ rn � � a ul w CL1J O • nY min • Ylnn iYl,.nu 141111,11 •..,,,,....1Y.. „�py4£-.n.1111,pr1�011., Ill'" x111 x1111111 DR 39 28 o Y.Ix.1111 11%: _ __ 6 b¢ a x 5 b n,n. n • �Ilnrlll • ...I,II,In .1141 41.4111.111.. rr •" .11.111 - A Q Q • 1111 prn .,. ,, in' •® ❑ nn 1un1 1 n Inn 'n'.,. N (nJ 1\ a�^ ° J Inr1 yI Y/ t✓ ry n. .LIIn.- 11yn � IIII. !ln £ x 9 e • � a . 4 -' - I nnL .1144x. z V - •}{a ="`O .. 151 4 W yy¢ 4 zs H U J • ® t6 ax 410 U) Q F _ ` --a 4 1,1111.... UTURE 2 4-g �`" """"' Ls� o m HANTILLYDR. m ; = Im r Ou m 1�F£/�/51�' -- Ix �Nu OPO� V oC� • CLO54.� O.o/ P y r C O p :'mvq • zo=08-E 1c� �� d BONN Z VIb o!S 5 y£ �- "7;tI+^prp 184 4 N b `° Q5o •A �j V ° 11. -F 10-0 a W o -t0 • E 50'0 = ' QO 22 a ax 410 •g 2 C r 1 3= •al.un. n.rn nn xF ,mu COO D •°voo e/ R,9 • DRI Eo 4 '3y g d� 4 • • pia 9de���� -g wad 20 P•. W • ti °1 e ZOJ owl .i yI • • • } Zgoo ® A owm �► y - w I Wedingbn Dr. N a a C m F O o We0ingM 0r. WEDINGTON DR. PP® VI 0w m� > c c 1PIIxI. 0 U w ml,, t 111.1 4N411u I411Iu11 1111111W. n1 AF. xl Pllx In ... NPPI - R IYII •y ILI.PIII 1 v � -1 a F F .nl nun iu" 111n1n i i •. 114•II'I tIfl . 10 X1 ..1...1 I. C uPO41nI inm 1m1„i O n ® I p'.' [ nX/ M i i 1011 0 w ,�S mm. o :x W o : g X_Y_ [ llr Li.j •L.xm O� (/V�(� £ iGi . y .ILn �1ne.n F V G r z a p � 4[ L ` _ l/ �:v i[. if yi as � � 3 t 8 ? Q LL O': sE 403, -• €= tJ(q;: �� ii'1t Z Imo- > •CHANTILLY DR. a 40 /1, Y.. O Jul U1 YVAI k7 ' � ld DRS d� or VGA' • WL� a • r tt w0o '- • '' ® i X Ilk 2'1 y F m r♦� O • a' y ~T Q' Z LL • Weaingian or. om +i+i OF •0 01 WeChglan IN. Q WEDINGTON DR. }OW mR > T,W 1,111 N X • u X • M\� ° W tt 3 11111.1 n1 a ♦! i •,O n ' . 1 ul. mn..nu.lnl.l l p i nl Jn...uln • J 11irJ 111m1 11,11n,1', •DR 11^ 1.111 nlYvn t . - • luu r• .nYll s Iua ilvl.nlu .I 4YuaJ11' • � ?^V } i [ U1tl , Ip1M a... ,n ' 'Imp, 'mll .11,1.1•��_-� I.W. rnEO • e i r11 ` • P .,; l l ti t t o e w • • £ V' a �p..p O . - ay (l1�1iT� 3 °E � Im.J. .Ills... V Q • �. Y6 9J tt : ' n1 7 Chan Or. K A V : 1.J� �ij/�p] - mm � V�',j a i w ^ Q I Mi 1 M ;` SS '` ll+it`l+ z r 4 r I,J. J J � • . """ 5�+ o ruCHANTILLY DR. • c o Q� yf�O act n • V }E V e a •• ` QQ. • • • lJ 20 • U< �Wo � as • • r • S • zarn • N O to to O H O= D W 1 Z v m M n too Z N • N N WNo • W0 Q • C7 W zU F w Z w L O W • d h @ W p aW Q z a� K 2 C7 wag o rn w a • w WEDINGTON DR. . Q w o of o • Y..•I 1 w mm z a • o w (I)C ...q u,l».n .,.nn .4...+.+,,Z W }vY mm .nmArv. mu•••• Pmnl 0 DR Tll,n .Mln In Ip • w a �y'^pAy V O e eV I e !nnnl. E e e Anna •••al »llm .1.... . O•n rylllnl.1,111 1 m • c %t fl.C IXtnl"al i } _^^ I-. o w !/�� nT { 1^Vnr yv{ s''Im[ 0 •avyv n �. �-O"� o Q �Y Y{ • ]]]y IO (�Q • }ie g: 'S'J(tN Li at LLV) ��^qq wa f _U bJ a• Li -> IL hi • • Gall, O I. •,n a ENO t0OO:J l� Y 0 Y r tD m,Mi s _ nhI •• lJ W O mn i A F s £ ,Mm, VZ ,• 0' 'p. wa • • oa,{� . n1141,Y1141Na1 .ly Vl F �F • o � •� Of O O • OnJ agoto • DRI E � '� z v Q V 0 V • Q G w W a • 2 w • F 'i ptj co W a zN W • V,I ilk, wag 'W • • H A z PETERS & ASSOCIATES BNCME06. INC. PETERS & ASSOCIATES 6NElNEHR9. INC. !' 1I�rL �q� ry4 wa7 II I� rR !� � ,■ � fir, d91IIIi& SGrafton, lull & Associates, Inc. 10525 Fl.k AFT l Center Pe wav S ile 900 Lttle iRuck AR 12X11-35554 501.6643245 FAX:501.664-6714 MvNtda'.nntuI.mn• Engineers & Surveyors Q 2006 * Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. •y I I U. PETERS & ASSOCIATES EWCNt CV C. • THE LINKS AT FAYETTEVILLE • Fayetteville, Arkansas P1258 - Rev. 4-20-2007 Retail Market*, 78,200 Sq. Ft. 820 2,686 39 25 113 122 • Residential Apartments 1000 Units 220 6,720 100 410 400. 220 • Golf Course 9 Holes 430 322 16 4 11 14 Residential Apartments 108 Units 220 726 11 44 43 24 Retail* 13,150 Sq. Ft 820 452 6 4 19 21 General Office 13,150 Sq. Ft 710 145 18 2 3 16 • Residential Town Homes 75 Units 230 440 5 28 26 13 • Residential Single -Family 74 Lots 210 708 14 41' 47 27 • TOTALS: 12,199 209 558 662 457 TOTAL ENTERING + EXITING flfl *These volumes adjusted to reflect 20% inernal capture. • • PHASE 1 - Residential Apartments 600 Units 220 4,032 60 246 240 132 • Golf Course 9 Holes 430 322 16 4 11 14 TOTALS: 4,354 76 250 251 146 TOTAL ENTERING + EXITING • • • • The Links at Fayetteville Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation Average Weekday Driveway Volumes April 19, 2007 Land Use Size 24 Hour Two -Way Volume AM Pk Enter Hour Exit PM Pk Enter Hour Exit Shopping Center 78.2 T.G.L.A. 3358 49 31 141 152 Apartments 1000 Dwelling Units 6720 100 410 400 220 Golf Course 9 Holes 322 16 4 11 14 Apartments 108 Dwelling Units 726 11 44 43 24 Shopping Center 13.150 T.G.L.A. 565 8 5 24 26 General Office Building 13.150 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. 145 18• 2 3 16 Residential Condominium / Townhouse 75 Dwelling Units 440 5 28 26 13 Single Family Detached Housing 74 Dwelling Units 708 14 41 47 27 Total 12984 221 565 695 492 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS E 0 S PETERS & ASSOCIATES MINE 5. INC. 4 A Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data • AM Turning Movement Count Data File Name : AM-Rup • Wedington Drive and Rupple Road Site Code : 00000000 Springdale, AR Start Date : 01/16/2007 P-1091 Page No : 1 • Grows Printed- AM Count Data Rupple Rd. Wedington Dr. Rupple Rd. Wedington Dr. • From North From East From South From West • Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 2 1 16 19 6 41 4 51 1 0 1 2 2 164 15 181 253 07:15 AM 6 3 29 38 24 45 1 70 1 0 1 2 3 260 28 291 401 • 07:30 AM 13 2 61 76 34 63 1 98 1 0 0 1 3 316 26 345 520 07:45 AM 6 1 54 61 18 75 1 94 3 0 1 4 4 329 22 355 514 • Total 27 7 160 194 82 224 7 313 6 0 3 9 12 1069 91 1172 1688 • 08:00 AM 10 3 20 33 12 84 3 99 2 0 1 3 3 212 11 226 361 08:15 AM 7 1 14 22 14 72 5 91 4 0 3 7 5 140 5 150 270 • 08:30 AM 4 3 12 19 5 61 8 74 3 0 4 7 4 115 11 130 230 08:45 AM 5 3 18 26 10 65 5 - 80 2 0 2 4 8 146 6 160 270 • Total 26 10 64 100 41 282 21 344 11 0 10 21 20 613 33 666 1131 • Grand Total 53 17 224 32 1682 124 1838 2819 18.0 5.8 76.2 294 18.7 77.0 4.3 123 506 28 657 56.7 0.0 433 17 0 13 30 1.7 91.5 6.7 • Total % 1.9 0.6 7.9 10.4 4.4 17.9 1.0 23.3 0.6 0.0 0.5 1.1 1.1 59.7 4.4 65.2 • up Out In Total ® 294 I 541 53 1712241 Rgld Tlw Left S 4I 1 Y • • • • sp • ~H - T 5 North 3 u • Im • S€ /1&2007 8:45:00 AM 9 AM Cane 0ele ( • • • • • '-1 i1r' • LM Thu 131 01 17 • © I 3Ol I 107 • Out In Total Rupple Rd. • • • • • • • • • Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. • Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data • AM Turning Movement Count Data File Name : AM-Rup • Wedington Drive and Rupple Road Site Code : 00000000 Springdale, AR Start Date : 01/16/2007 • P-1091 Page No : 2 • Rupple Rd. Wedington Dr. Rupple Rd. Wedington Dr. From North From East . From South From West • Start Time Right Thru Left .j Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App' Right Thru Left App. Ina. otal Total Total. Total Total • Peak Hour From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 07:15 AM • Volume 35 9 164 208 88 267 6 361 7 0 3 10 13 1117 87 1217 1796 Percent 16.8 4.3 78.8 24.4 74.0 1.7 70.0 0.0 30.0 1.1 91.8 7.1 07:30 13 2 61 76 34 63 1 98 1 0 0 1 3 316 26 345 520 Volume • Peak Factor 0.863 High Int. 07:30 AM 08:00 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM • Volume 13 2 61 76 12 84 3 99 3 0 1 4 4 329 22 355 Peak Factor 0.684 0.912 0.625 0.857 •RupeRd. • Out In Total '751 I. 2081 I 3831 • I I I 35 SI 1641 • Thru Left 1 Y •RiYM • • • • ? • w€� m5 J North = m • 5 �€� !16/20077:15:00 AM 2 m� f16�2007 8:00:00 AM 3 ^p r 5O� �� AM Coiatt Data �� �. w • • • • • Deft Thu RI M 3 01 71 • I 2j I to In • • • • • • • • • Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data PM Turning Movement Count Data Wedington Drive and Rupple Road Fayetteville, AR P-1091 File Name : PM-Rup Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 01/16/2007 Page No :1 Rupple Rd. Wedington Dr. Rupple Rd. Wedington Dr. From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left ApP' Total Right Thru Left APP' Total Right Thru Left APP' Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 04:00 PM 18 3 25 46 7 166 27 200 13 1 1 15 2 104 13 119 380 04:15 PM 9 2 12 23 17 215 11 243 6 0 2 8 2 114 5 121 395 04:30 PM 18 6 13 37 11 196 19 226 12 3 4 19 7 120 6 133 415 04:45 PM 33 5 15 53 18 200 26 244 10 2 5 17 6 150 8 164 478 Total 78 16 65 159 53 777 83 913 41 6 12 59 17 488 32 537 1668 05:00 PM 20 5 29 54 13 230 24 267 25 1 3 29 6 106 16 128 478 05:15 PM 27 2 23 52 17 234 33 284 38 2 6 46 3 91 13 107 489 05:30 PM 23 4 24 51 I 20 212 32 264 24 2 5 31 12 141 8 161 507 0545 PM 22 10 22 54 12 212 41 265 12 3 4 19 12 135 12 159 497 Grand Total 170 37 163 370 115 1665 213 1993 140 14 30 184 50 961 81 1092 3639 Apprch % 45.9 10.0 44.1 5.8 83.5 10.7 76.1 7.6 16.3 4.6 88.0 7.4 Total % 4.7 1.0 4.5 10.2 3.2 45.8 5.9 54.8 3.8 0.4 0.8 5.1 1.4 26.4 2.2 30.0 Rupple Out In Total 210 3701 5801 1701 371 163 Right Thu Left 4-'I Y WhN!O T tar1 a i 1 74:00:00 M F -SC - o /1620075:45:00 PM Irn u o� $ PMOoData N3 a umE Jm Left Thu RI m T 301 141 140 I 3001 I IMI I 484! Out In Total RuDde Rd. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data PM Turning Movement Count Data Wedington Drive and Rupple Road Fayetteville, AR P-1 091 File Name : PM-Rup Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 01/16/2007 Page No :2 Rupple Rd. Wedington Dr. Rupple Rd. Wedington Dr. From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left App' Total Right Thru Left App' Total Right Thru Left APP' Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour rrom u4:uu PM to uo:4o rm - re's Intersection 05:00 PM Volume 92 21 98 211 Percent 43.6 10.0 46.4 05:30 23 4 24 51 Volume Peak Factor High Int. 05:00 PM Volume 20 5 29 54 Peak Factor 0.977 K 1 m 1 62 888 130 1080 5.7 82.2 12.0 20 212 32 264 05:15 PM 17 234 33 284 0.951 99 8 18 125 79.2 6.4 14.4 24 2 5 31 05:15 PM 38 2 6 46 0.679 33 473 49 555 1971 5.9 85.2 8.8 12 141 8 161 507 0.972 05:30 PM 12 141 8 161 0.862 RLJp�e out In Total 1191 I 211 921 211 98 Rlght Thru Left I SIoT �O m -❑r p -J North as i! v l/1 7 5:00:00 PM 4-21 -l9] 3 /16/20075:45:00 PM Isi PM Court Data r oM � E1 r' Lea Tlw Ri 181 81 99 1841 I 1251 I 3091 Out n Total Rupple Rd Ca S. I' Ct O G? PETERS & ASSOCIATES CNOIR[®. mc. ME Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 j.ane Group E EBT BL WBT BT NBR•SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 1228 7 386 3 8 188 38 w/c Ratio90.01 Control Delay 5.1 8.5 5.2 6.8 19.7 F0.02, 11.9 .--.____ 38.2 8.1 Queue Delay 0.0 X0.0___0.0 0.0_000 0 00 . Total Delay 5.1 8.5 5.2 6.8 19.7 11.9 38.2 8.1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 269 5 56 7 9 128 _� Internal Link Dist (ft) 443=' 'r 1306_398 - __442 "- Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) .715•2 3417264 1996 290_ 436-372„457 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpillbackCapReductn 0 0 0 0 000 0"'-��`—"�"�T� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.52 0.02 0.51 0.08 . .0.03 0.19 0.01 _ intersection Summary Page 1 Existing Traffic; Existing Geometrics Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 -' t �, t ,• 3002190019001900Z1900 O1900 119 O,'";19 O 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 rrr 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected��° 0:951.009�,F 0 95100« 0.951.0D ...... 0.95 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 3533 1770 3407 1770 1583 1779 3407 X267 '88 0.92 0.92 1'=fr] Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases a_ "" � 526a i��i''i .,..l 1S ti 61`?12,,2vF;B J x_40 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 ated Gr e end) v 47.53 43. M 4 2 ° - 40 2 39_4 14.0 14.0 .0 14 0 '14 Effective Green, q(s) 47.8 43.2 40.2 39.4 14.0 14.0 Actu14.0 14.0 a .» __ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ie Grp Cap (vph) 665 2180 216 1918 195 317 274 Ratio Perm 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.00 c0.14 Uniform Delay, dl 3.8 7.9 — 6.7 7.4T 22.522.4 ' 26.022.5 Progression actor100 X1.00°� _ 1 0'0, Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 Delay (s) ,•� , ;= r 7 . , :.e.3 98.8 . ' . z 6.8 Z7 x. 32.6,,,,;722.5 I evel of Service A A A A C C C C _..— ApproachDelay(s)--,..;J 8.67°x. a� 76x Approach LOS A A t-.223{2.; C C Page 2 Existing Traffic; Existing Geometrics Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 t Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 550 141 1032 29 108 130 100 v/c Ratio 0 44 0.12 0.32 0 60 031 .. Control Delay 4.7 --� 8.5 4.5 -..I..Y_.� 8.5 . .r 28.3 8.7 42.8 NY.--. � Mi....� . W 8.8 — T-- 0 ---_0b _0 0.00 �._..__, 0 - _.. 0 Total Delay 4.7 8.5 4.5 8.5 28.3 8.7 42.8 8.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) -- 5 58 15 12!13 .... 0 62 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 108 38 214 33 39 108 37 internal Link Dist (ft):":, 443 y- 1306 442 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph), 427 2123 s 671, 2343 406 >495368 489/ 71 Starvation Cap Reductn 09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn0 0�0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 .— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12� 0.26L0.21L6_44__ 0.070.22 0_ 3020 ntersection Summary Page 1 Existing Traffic; Existing Geometrics Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 Lane Configurations... ►j_, f'� t 4_ 4_' r-( p) �.._ Ideal Flow v h I 1900 1900 1900 1900 � 1900 �_- 1900 1900 1900 1. 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 r- 4.0 _ _- 4.0 4.0 -. - 4.0 1__�_ _ 4.0 4.0 _� ...�_______Coo ;Lane Util. Factor 1'000.95 ® i.006195_____________ ._ter._. -r 1.00 1.00 _... '-----._. 1.00 . 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00-0.85 1.000.85 Flt Protected -_ 0.95 1 A0 0.95 •0.97 1.00 0.9_ 016 0 _ _ __ Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 _ 3504 _ 1770 X1.00 3505 1801 1583 1789 1583 Flt Permitted 0.25 1.00., . T.��--. 0.401.00 0.79 1.00 6.74flr 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 466 a . 3504 744 3505 1474 1583 1385 1583 Volume (- P ) v h r- s . 33 130 888 62'= 7d8 8_ 99 98 21 92 - Peak -hour factor, PHF ..49473 0.92 e 0.92 0.92 _ 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92_ 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 514 36 141 965 67 20 9 108 '107 23 100 _-- RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 92 0 0 85 - r__.__T_ Lane Group Flow (voh) _,.,,,. -_ .-,_-,.- 53 546 0'!141 . ,..-- - 10280 -- 0 —_.-__ 29 16 ____ -�-.- 0 — 130 15 Turn Type _ pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 ct Au'ate'd Greee G s 52,C4-459.2 51.8 Effective Green. a (s) 52.4 48.4 59.2 51.8 4A 4.0 Perm Perm Perm Perm 8 8 _�4_ 8 -122_—k_— 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 0. 0 15- -.15 .150.15 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .v c,uv,4. LnP NIVll V.V J.V J.V J.V J.V O.0 °• ' J.V J.V Lane Grp Cap (vph) 370 2120 6452269 225 241 211 241 v/s Ratio Prot` 0.01 0.16 c0 02 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.14 0.02 0.01 c0.09 0.01 u/c Ratio 0.14 0.26 •r • - 0 22 0.45 0.13 0.07 0.62 0.06 Uniform Delay d1 5 1 7.4 12"' 7.0 29.3 29 0 31.7 29.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1'00 1-.- 100 1.00 1.00 1.00"H.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 5.3 0.1 Delay (s) ., 5 2x7.7 3.37.7 , , . 29.2i 37A29.1 Level of Service A A A A C C _ D , C Approach Delay (s) 7.5 7.2 - r ___ 292 33.6 Approach LOS A A C C Intersedtion Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Ca aac tyy ratio' 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s).12.0 _______ Intersection Capacity Utiliiatio 553.1%LCIJ LevelofService c� C Page 2 Existing Traffic; Existing Geometrics Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1256; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 r Volume(ven/h)3^Srw 835338127 $725 :_. ..0 `r °- ,°..?> Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(ph) 414. _ 29957! 27xTrz? Pedestrians None conflicting volume 443 1167 207 .x ,_- Lx. a-. - 1. stacie 1 conf vol cM capacity (veh/h) 1113----------------.v18 X799 L6,: - � r.: bolume,Total , .. _ 1 Volume Left 9 0 0 0 0 0 63 32 Volume Ri ht _ may' S 0 . l) 0 „""' 0 >� ( 29 v 9 ... 027, .,, r cSH 1113 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 185 345 '____. Volume to Capacity g,0 01� 0:43 ...0 12 0.12 0 02 0344 0.17 =sue Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 �..— 0 0 0 0 0 35 15 Approach Delay.(s) 0 0=: Approach LOS D Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Lane Group EBLEBTSW&tWBTN8TpNBRSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 1235 12 429 6 10 270 84 mss V .� � wlc Ratio . 0_- 17 � —5 0.17 0.5500 05�0.230.01_ 03 0.03 0.80_ 0.86 1i 0.19 Control Delay 7.0 11.0 7.3 9.1 19.7 10.8 45.4 6.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 Total Delay 7.0 11.0 7.3 9.1 19.7 10.8 45.4' 6.1 Queue Length 50tt (ft) 1815324520 1260+ Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 327 9 80 10 11 192 29 Internal Link Dist (ft)^ _ 490 '�� .44t.t•'"1674 1874 398 �. Turn Bay Length (ft) i ?C par fin- Base Capac-ty_(vph) 629 W' - 629 2244 229 �� M1901 553 521 521 N 448 _II_ � �l1NWn] M1MaVAHWnVWI $j- >�+.� 571 _ age Cap Reductn 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 iced v/c Ratio 0170.0$` 0 230.010.02�0.60--aT5 Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Lane Configurations tj+ ►) 1. Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 . 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 ._—_ 4.0 4.0 — _-_—..—_._-----�----rw-----__an... 4.0 4.0 4.0 .. _. aYYu._ . 4.0 —. 4.0 Lane Ut--Factor-0_ 1.00.95 1.00 0.95 1:00__1.00 1. 1. 00 • 00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 V e_- Fit 1 ,....09 1 —1 0496 .00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3533 1770 3394 1583 1078583 1817 Flt Permitted 0.45 1.00 0 18 0.74 L00 0.90 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 830 3533 326 --.- 3394 1673 1583 __- 1376 1583 Volume (vph), � Peak -hour factor, PHF'�0.92 100 1123- 13 0.92 0.92 11 2 7 0.92 0.92 - 0.92 --_3� 0.92 3 0.92 -- 0.92 229 19 77 0.92 0.92 0.92 -�-- Adj_ Flow (vph) _,� 109 - ^- 1222 1 - 14 ---- - -7---- 12 312 1 117 3 3� -^ - - -- --r : 10 249 21 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 00 42 0 0 0 8 0 0 63 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1091234 �-�0 12387 Turn Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Pro ' Protected Phases ._ 52 �-�...� 2 - 1�6 . - 8 4._ Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)r,52.4 47.6 43 9 43.1 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 Effective Green, g (s) 52.4 47.6 43.9 43.1 19.619.6 19.619.6 Actuated g/C-Ratio- 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.54 0250.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.l)' "3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 .3a 3o Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 2102 193 1829 410 388 337 388 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.35 0.000.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 c0.20 0.01 u/cRatio 0.18 0.59 0.060.21 0.010.01 0.80 °0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 5.3 10.1 8.8 22.9 22.8 28.4 23.1 9.6 Progression Factor 100 1.00 1 00 1:00 1.00_ 1.00,, 1'.00 0, Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.1 v. -v I ..v J.J J.J - LL.J LL.V ..:. Y I.L LJ.L Level of Service A B A A C C D C Approach Delay () _ __ _ ___ 10.8 9.8 22.9 36.9 B A Approach LOS C D Page 3 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Rupple Road 4125/2007 I t 1 P Lane Configurations ► fi Sign Control __________Stop Free Freed _ Grade 0% 0% 0% Neale Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flowrate v h 18 2 224 5 2 335 - Pedestrians e Width.(ft)� king Speed (.- . � , � :ent_Blockage =� it turn flare (veh) Median type None `^ _"� Median -storage veh) __ _ ,Upstream signal (ft) 570_� �� pX, platoon unblocked ;vC, conflicting volume_566 227 229 ' vC1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 566 227 229 tC, single (s6.4 6 2 4:1 "" _ "` __ "" " tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)� �v3.5 .3 .r..r.� 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 100 100 p apacity (veh/h) 485 813 1339 1 • Y`"�••✓ I bYn1AV.1 V✓ 1 3 ( - ;Volume Total 21 229 337 Volume Left 18 0 2 Uolume RTght 2 5 0 cSH 506 1700 1339 __ __ o Volume to Capacity. _.64 x_•_------ 0.04 0.13 -°- 0.00 __ "] Queue Length 95tH (ft) 3 0 0 _..._-_>1T..•-y�..�.--'�91111---._MIr1...- Control Delay (s) 12.4 .a, .. • __• x. .-.. _a..a. Lane LOS +0.00.1 B A _-.___ A proach Dela s --a 12 4 = : 0.0 _ e 0.1 �. - ,;; Approach LOS B Intersection Summary ; ≥, - Average Delay 0.5 n_.._ � -- —.. __' Intersection Capacity Utilization 6— -- - -- . -- ` 27.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 4 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 s' t t 'J' �► ♦` •— Tin. 1 +_.�v -'1��a Volume (vehlh) 83 10 179 29 4 2277 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)� 90 11 19532, 4247 Pedestrians moo- v�� - ��/Y— A_'.�_..�Y.. _. __ - ice- — • a--. uC, conflicting volume 466210 226 _ vC1, stage I conf vol uC2; stage 2 conf_vol ::n vCu, unblocked vol 466 210 226 tC, 2 stage (s) tF,(s)�3.5�3.3 2.2 �"'' ") p0 queue free_ % 84 99 100 c M capacity(vehlh)„`_553 _1342 830 - Volume Total 101 226 251 Volume Left 90 0 4 Volume Right— 11 32 0 _� ��— cSH 574 1700 1342 Approach Delay (s) 12 6 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary < ' r t.., ,w, - Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilisation 27 0%ate" `ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 _ _ Page 5 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 10: Drive D & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 9yluVCIflellt;(' .n. VVDL VVDN IND I ' INNDL Otli- Lane Configurations Sign Control ►t� Stop ` 0% "Free Free 0% Grade 0% Peak Hour Face 1 burly flow rate Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Percent Blockage ________________ Right turn flare (veh) Median type „_None'" "�"j Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) . pX, platoon unblocked uC, conflicting volume ___497O4 205. vC1, stage 1 conf vol M -1Y�- - vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 439 204 205 ST1' -'�.YI�YMMFa1111111n11��—Y��111nnn' - . IC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 _ tC, 2 stage (s) p0 queue free % 97 99 100 . "-- —_._n--- cM_ capacityi(veh/h) LL575 836 `> 1366 ,VolumeTotal_ 24_2.05__234 _ Volume Left 18 0 1 _ — Volume Right 5 0 2 0 _____j cSH 619 1700 1366 Volume to CapacityA D 04 0.120 00 • "" - ") Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 f --...._w-.� — .w+--.".1. .....-I '"�aaM-''-4'-.v.. `� :rMrv-maxaw.� -, �Mv.t:W Ni.-4+-.� Control Delay (s) _______11.1„� 0.0..��0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay,()___11'1 00 0.0 Approach LOS B ntersec ion Summary Page 6 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 Volume (veh/h),25 708 1180 88 -51 15 _- """—"�1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27y777 0 1283 - Pedestrians 5516 1 •Pedestrians Lane ti(ft) vC, conflicting volume_ 137-. . . 22 641 vC1, stage 1 conf vol yC2,stage 2 cont vol l _ ___ "— _ 7 v_Cu, unblocked vol 1378 1722 641 2.2 3.5 3.3_."-- e free % 94 27 96 city (veh/h) 493 - 7_417 Volume - 27 385:385 641 641 '___. 9.6 "^37 35 _ ,Iotal Volume Left __ 27 0 0� 0� 0 0 37 18 /al mu a Right 0 0'0_"0 0 96 016 �'� cSH 493 1700 17001700 1700�1700� 76 143 0 _. Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.38 0.38 0 .06 0.49 -^�.. - 0.24 '1 - Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 0 0 50 23 _ -. _.� _ ._-.__ Control Delay (s) 12.7 0.0 . ..� ---- 0.0 0.0 . ,--- -- 0.0 0.0 -,. 91.1 --- 42.2 Lane LOS -- B F E Aroach_l]ela pp y (s)0.4 -_ . . 67.4 Approach LOS J _ F ,verage Delay 2.3 iterse&ion Capacity Utilization 42.6% ICU Level of Service`—'� ,nalysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Cane Group .EBLEBWLWBTNBTNBRSBTpSBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 572145 1116 40 113 177 127 pin Ratio 0,36 0.290 .24 0.54 0.13 0.29 j0.69�0.32 _T Control Delay 8.5 10.4 5.6 12.4 25.5 7.1 43.0 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.5 10.4 5.6 12.4 25.5 7.1 43.0 7.1 Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 ovement7577/ EBL .. EST EBR VVBL AWBT WB . NBL7kNBThNBR SBL SBT . SB Lane Configurations ''i tT* ' T� y ' Ideal Flow (vpftpl) _00 1900 1900, 1900 1900 1901) 1 19900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 - 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util'Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Prote'de 0.95 1:00 0.93 —1 00 0.98 1' 100" 0.96 1 O0 Satd. Flow (prot) 1.7.7.0 3506 1770 3474 __ ___ 1817 1583 _ 1788 1583 �— eTR • 7�_lfIP11111r/ Flt Permitted • - T 1 .5-'+MM�1,n1�� 0.20 1.00 _ 0 39 1.00 �-0 0.83 .-Tnn�+� 1.00 0.73 T 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 367 3506 735 3474 1555 y 1583 1366 1583 Volume (vph) 92 493 33 133 900 127 18 "? 18 104 136 27 117; Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj Flow (vph) T1O0 536 36 145 978 138 20TT 20 113' 148 29 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 92 0 O103 La enLa Gr uo p Flow (voh)'"100 567 0 1451106 0 0 �40'� Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 �_' 8..._»_ 4- Permitted Phases 2 6 8 84 4 Actuated_Gnre G (s)�51.3 _ 45.4 54 5 47.0 11 5. 15.1 15.1 15.f Effective Green, g (s) 51.3 45.4 54.5 47.0 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuatedg/CRatio0.64 0.57 068 059�� - - . 0.19'0.. -- 19 0.19 T0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 .... 4 _ 3.0 3.0 3.0:-3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 339 1990 598 2041 294 299 258 299 . v/s Ratio Perm -- 0..17 -_ 0.14 0.03 0.01 c0.13 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.29" 0.29a. x0.24400.54 0.69 0 08 Uniform Delay, dl 6.3 8.9 4.6 10.0 27.0 26.7 30.2 26.7 Progression Factor 1.00-1.00_1 0O _00 ` - 1.00_ 1A0-1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 7.4 0.1 Delay(s),____________ __ 27.2 2.6.8 37.6 26.8 Level of Service AAA— B C___C D— C �— Approach Delay (s) 8.9 —` —. " "°" x"-10.9 --_--- — .� 26.9 _ -- --- 33.1 Approach LOS A B C C HCM Average Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity,ratio 11.5 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization __W 59.6% ICU Level of Service B �� -- �. Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 3 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Lane Configurations ► a Si n Control . Stop Free Free � Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 115 222 2 270 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 _-_�: _ _i1r Houriy flow rate (vph) 11 1 241__....2. 1 16 241 _ 2 � 293 293 Pedestrians unblocked vC1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, un 4:1 vI - V\VV `V/ tF(s)_ 353.S__ 2.2 .e - pO queue free % 98 100 100 cM capacity (vehlh) 577 912 ""1307 _ Volume Total 12 258`29.6 -- - Volume Left 11 0 2 Volume Right_ 1 241 0 cSH 597 1700 1307 Volume to'Capacity 0.02`.150.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s)� 1.1 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B _ A _ r- coact- Delay(s) "" 1 i-I' 0.0 _ 0 1 ._ T'' Approach LOS PP B.� -� - _ _ — . _ .—__ _ _. _ ._ _. —. -- ,_ verage Delay 0.3 -.. ., �_ itersection Capacity Utilization 25.8% ICU Level of Service A'"�' nalysis Period (min) 15 • Page 4 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Lane Configurations -- 4L _. Sign Control . _ Stop Free _ -� Free Grade 0% 0% 0% _ .� . -- Volume (veh/h)� 48 __ - _ _ 6 128 95 13'224 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 — _ 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)52 75 103 14 243 Pedestrians Lane Width ffhl .. .. rig Speed (ft/s) nt Blockage turn flare (vehl - — _ Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) YYG pX, platoon unblocked �-- v 62 -f C, conflicting volume 462,x191 242 vC1, stage 1 conf vol uC2 stage 2 con f vol vCu, unblocked vol 462 191 242 tC, 2 stage (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 _ eue free % 91 99 99 Volume Left 52 0 14 Volume Right 7 103. cSH 574 1700 1324 Approach Delay (s) 120 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary � - Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32"4%_ __ ICU Level of eSirvce 'A w. - Page 5 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 10: Drive D & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Volume (veh/h) 10 3 127 7 2 227 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.92 Hourlyflow rate (vph) 11 3 138 8 2 247" Pedestrians rercent esIocKage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) ,Upstream signal (ft)_ pX, platoon unblocked uC, conflicting volume393142 r 146 y"-"�"" vC1, stage 1 conf vol _ ------- -- -----._ yC2, stage 2conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 393 142 146 tC,_single (s) ___________6A"'2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) ____ ______________ 3.5 3. . - ^t 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 100 - 100 cM capacity (veh/h)611 1436 Volume Total 14146 249 1 Volume Left 11 0 2 3 8 0 cSH 660 1700 1436 Volume to Capacity mo � .0 0 h Queue Length 95th (ft) _029d 2 0 0 Control Delay (s)-- _ 160.0 0.1 1 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) ..-_ , ,,,,,v-a,y,, -.. r Y..�r-��n ---••....-- w�-r'- arm'.. w.k._.w.�.-%.----.-F 10.6 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS — . ..— � .. —._. Intersection Summary •. -I �B Average Delay 0.4 � . _. — Utili_-•zation 2 -------------. CU Level of S Service A 15 Page 6 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; 2 -Lane Rupple Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 Movement • : EBL -. .EBTTWBT'WBR. , $BL SBR = . ° :Ti Lane Configurations ►j ft ti (r ti Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h)81353 381 27 87 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 9 1471414 29 9 5 27 7 Pedestrians Percent Blockage — `._• . - " � Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked yC, conflicting volume— 443 1167 207 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 443 1167 207 • --- - d, single(s) - 4.1 6.8_6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.3 "� _ _ p,_,__2.2 p0 queue free % 99 _3.5 49 97 'cM capacity (veh/h) 185 1113 .799 Volume Total 9 735 735 207 207,29 59 Volume Left 9 0 0 0 0 0 _63 63 32 - •_ Volume Right 0 0 __, 0 _ 0�' __... _0 29 ,— o.� 0 ._. 27 " ) cSH 111.3 1700�1700�1700 1700 17_00 185 345w Volume to Capacity 0 43 0.43 0._12 _. 0.12 0.02 0.34 0.17 �^ •X0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 � 0 0 �35�_15_' _ -I-'- �A�(..s. Control Delay (s)� 11 `�MA4` 8.3 1TM.V"TT 0.0 0.0 �Tr 0.0 - 0.0^0.0 .-•----• Tl� 34.1 T.T.. m....... 19.7 Lane LOS A D C T-.4.. _---.- Approach Delay (s) - 0.0 --_... 0.0 _� _., _________________________ - 27.2 _._. -. ._� -.��� Approach LOS intersection D Summary '... ' ., ., Average Delay 1.7 I'ntersecti'on Ca acit Utilization P Y 47.40/. ��' �— ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; P1258; Wedington Drive and Phase 1 Rupple Site Plus Existing; Road; Fayetteville, Half -Blvd Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 t p 1. r Lane Qroup- EB EB WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 1235 12 429 6 10 270 84 v/cR iato `"'� ~ 0.17 055 0.05' 6-23-0.01X0.03 7 0.80 0'19 ii Control Delay 7.0 11.1 7.4 9.1 19.3 10.6 44.9 6.0 r �s--- -S, vww Queue Delay -----w - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 o 0.0o 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 7.0 11.1 7.4 9.1 19.3 10.6 44.9 6.0 Queue Length s0th (ft)� 18 151. 2 45 2 0 124 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 45 328 9 80 10 10189 29 Internal Link Dist (ft) 443 1674 398' 490 Turn Bay Length(ft) Base Capacity (vph) 628 2236 t.229 1889 560 528 :i453 577 "" -1 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillhack 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 0.17 0.55 O.OSTO 23 0.01 0.02 0 600.15 '"" '"'"""'—"—] Intersection Suthmary Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Movement EBL '."EBT? EBR WBL'T"WBT" WBP NBL NBT NBR ::.SBL:*I S T' -.S R Lane Configurations ►j .' - 1 +j. - Ej r ,4 . r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 .1900 - 1900 1900 1900 1900'-1900 1900 -! l 1900bli 19001900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util Factor 1_00 0.95. 1.00___0.95 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 .EjfProte�td e 0 Sato. Flow (prot) 1770 3533 17 O 3394 1817 1583 17 811 1583 ).90 1.00 672 1583 volume(vph).100 1123 13 <' 11 287 108 3 3 9 229 :"�`19 77 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 0 8 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm ------ -- :.:r...v Protected Phases .- 5 r 2 - _ - 1 - -.- 6 �. - 8 4� Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 46 6.843 0 42.2 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 Effective Green, g (s) `51. 51.6 �.__. 46.8 - 43.0 42.2 - — -_ 19.4 19.4 ._.r...._ 19.4 19.4 Actuated g/C Ratio' t 0.65_0.58 0 54 ' 0.53 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ___ 4.0 4.0 VehFc Extensions ( )�3.0� 3.0 3.0 3.0 ' " — - — 3.0 3.0 3.0 " — ' 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 605 2093 192 1813_ 411 389 338 389 -- v/s Ratio Prot ._-1- c0.0 - 0 00 0.11 ,._ o. __ e -_-_ v/s Ratio Perm -.--- 0.11 .---. - 0.03 0.00 0.00 c0.20 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.59 0 060.21 0.'01 0.bf 0.80 0.05 Uniform Delay, dl 5.3 10.1 8.9 9.7 22.6 22.5 28.0 22.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 , d 0.1 .n -... 1.2 _ _ _— 0.1 0.3 0.0 _ 0.0 --------__- 12.4 - 0.1 Delay,(s)—,_ 9.0""9.9 22.6 22.5 '40.4 28 _----54"'11:3 Level of Service A � B A � A C C D C Approach Delay (s108-_ _? 9.9 ^ 22.$ 36.2_ Approach LOS B A C D Page 3 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Volume (veh/h) ° 2206- • Lis —� � Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vh) x18 2 22cs 5 2 = 335 _. n > , Pedestrians Median pX, platoon unblocked __ - vC, c ° onflictin volume . --566 -115 .. 229 - . - - 71 vC1. staae 1 conf vol vol 566 115 p0 queue free % 96 100 100 b _ .7_:;. v capaaty (vehlh') z°°- 454916 1335 , .t;z Volume Left 18 0 0 2 cSH 479 1700 1700 1336 Approach LOS B )ntersection Summary Page 4 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 t `► 1 Sign Control Stop Grade 0% Free 0% Free_ - 0% Volume veh/h 83 10 -. 179 r- 29 �— -.- � __ 4 227 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.92 � ,_.. ----_- Hourly flow rate 90 --_ 11 195 32 -��.�- _ 4247 _� Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) . Walking Speed (ft/s) —_ Percent Blockage��� — Right turn flare (veh) W� -. '� Median tYPe None Median storage veh) C, Y- sin—gle (s —_) 6 � ....,r— t 6. 8 6.9 4.1 �.•'�=� ti tC, 2 stage (s) p0 queue free % 83 99 100 cM capacfyy(vehlh) 5241340 a®^ 101 130 96 251 ,. Volume Right -... 11 0 _ 32 0 - cSH 549 1700 1700 1340 Volume to'Capacity_ 0 18 0.08T006_ 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 00 0 cnnrrni naiav ii'fl �n flfl ._ n fl) Approach Page 5 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Phase I Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 10: Drive D & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 17 5 187 2 1 214�� Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) �_ 18 5' 203 2�1— _ 233 _ _ Pedestrians --_' Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Riaht turn flare (veh) Median 1 conf vol vol 439 103 0 �.- Volume Right 5 0 2 0 cSH 6021700 1700 1363 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.08_0 04 —6. 0 " " .. — - Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.200 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A —^^r Approach Delay (s)^�11.2___0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B 0.6 Utilizefion y_ 22.1% v __— �-' ICU Level of Service A i) 15 Page 6 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 Uolume(vehlh) .^„ �.`°2 7081180= `88�. 1��,15=` Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians __ Lolume Right " 0""" O.r' '0 0 96, 0 16 � '✓Yn,. ...aWnrrs�ii_ .YmP w _rL�Yi.e _ cSH 493 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 76 143 Approach Delay ti67.4 (s); ..,^� Approach LOS F nterse ctioff Sum ma ^:. Ep,' � �„ Page I Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas • Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour • 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 • Lane Group• BL EBT WBL: WB B SBT SBR . Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 572 145 1116 40 113 177 127 v/c Ra6or° 0.3602 90.240 540.13 0 290•690.32 Control Delay 8.5 10.4 5.6 12.4 25.5 7.1 43.0 7.1 I-00 � 0.0� -=0Os 0.0 0.0 0.0 007 ,Queue Delay z . D� . ' C _^?Za> . . Total Delay 8.5 10.4 5.6 12 4 25.5 7.1 43.0 7.1 • Queue Lengtti5Dth (ft)..-< ',136919217.. -.00 83 n y 0 • Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 127 48 285 38 36 135 38 In'temal Link Diet (ft) • Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 368 1991 633 2083 38i � 517�'J 375• .,r Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .$J • Spillback Cap Reductn 0 '0 0 0 0 a 0 ° , 0 • "" 0" �' xm.aair.—ae.• >-„� Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Reduced vfc Ratio 0.270.290.23„0.54 0.09 0.22""0'47 0.24, • Intersection urrima • • • • OPage 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd + Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas S HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 41 Lane Configurations � ��� (+ )+ Ideal Flow (vphpl)_' 1900_ 1900-1900 — 1900190019001900- 1900 '1901900'1900'-"1900 0 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Ut _ _—_ Util. Factor r� 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 —� --� 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1000.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 3506 1770 3474 1817 1583 1788 1583 Flt Permitted _ 0.20 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.39 1.000.831.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 367 3506 735 3474 - 15551583— 1366 1583 Volume(ph)_- 92 493 33!133!900 127 18 18_104 136 27 117 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92- 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hdj. 100 636 3r-145 978 138 ! 20 20 '113 148 � 29 127 ----- RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 � 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 92 0 0 103 Lane Group Flow (v' ph) T100 567 0�145 1106 0�-0'� 40 21" 017724 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm _ Protected Phases '�5 "�2 ' —. 1- 6� �•• __ 41 8— Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G.(s)N 51 3 4 5 .4— 54 5 _ 47.0 15.1 1 5.1 Tq. 15.1 15.P Effective Green, g (s) 51.3 45.4 54.5 47.0 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 ;Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.57 0.68 0.59 0.19! 0.19 0.19__0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 iyehicle Eictension. (s)� �-- 3.0 --' 3.0 � _ 3.0 9.0 r'�-�- 3 3.0 _.0 3.0 -3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 339 1990 598 2041 294 299 258 299 �. v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.16 c0.02c0.32 an_I v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.14 0.03 0.01 c0.13 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.29 947 0.69 0.08 0.24 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 6.3 8.9 4.6 10.0 27.0 26.7 30.2 26.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1A0 1:00— 1.001.00, Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 7.4 0.1 belay s Y ( ) —T' 6 � 9.3 — 8 4 11:0 27.2_ 26.8 ,-1- 37.6 26_.8 , Level of Service A A A B C C D C Approach Delay (s) 8.9 10.3 26.9 33.1 Approach LOS A B C — �— C e Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B to Capacity ratio 0.55 e Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 15 Page 3 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Yee Free 0%0 0% ;Volume (veh h) 0.92 Upstream signal (8) ___ 570 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume , ___43!T9________ vC1. stage 1 conf vol vCu. unblocke tC, 2 stage (s) 435 129 258 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 r- -..- ,-;,,,,,,�_-„__�...�� - . cM capacity,(veh/h) 549 897 1304 Volume Left 11 0 0 2 Volume_I2igh- ----- --_ 0-, 2410 `— _.�_ _- ___— ..._._� cSH 569 1700 17001304 Volume to Capacity! 0.02 0.01 0.15 0._00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 _ � �0� 0 ra«. �-^...a .. Control Delay (s) -. ___ 11.511.5 _.. 0.0 ----_�T.\.-� vWvf-' �.-..MYs._�- �.f ...Y W. A..... �...e.. �.�--y 0.0 0.1 Lane LOS B —' _ w__ ._ .� A App proach Delay (s) -- — 11.5, 0_0 0.1 Approach LOS B nterse ction Summaryerg z trbu s;��-, Page 4 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 412512007 Lane Configurations Stop Free Free Sign Control_ Grade 0% 0% 0% - -----_ -- -- .9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 " Hourly flow rate (vph)_____ 52 7 139 103 . 14 243 Pedestrians vC1, stage 1 conf vol yC2, ge 2 conf vol _ _ vCu, unblocked vol 462 121 242 2 queue free % 90 99 99 capaaty,(vehlh)_522907 1321 59 93 _150_ 258 Volume Left 52 0 0 14 Volume Right 7 0 103 0� cSH 548 1700 170 0 1321 Approach Delay (s)— 12.47 OA's �0.5 ;_ Approach LOS B Intersection Summary s,a :_ Page 5 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 10: Drive D & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Volu a (vehlh 0 :' 3 127.7 2_227 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flowrate (vph)--11�, 3�1 -- 2_ Pedestrians Lane Wdtth (ft) Median .« I vCu, unblocked vol 4 393 .. 73 146 T6Fle(s) 6.- 1�7 6 i C, single 8_6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) ueue free % 98 100 100 Volume Total 14 92 54 249 1 _ Volume Left 11 0 0 2 Volume Right— 0 308 cSH 643 1700 17001434 Control Dela s 10.7 F'_ 0.0 0.0 ........ Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 0.0 0.1 .... Approach LOS B verage Delay 0.4 - - itersection Capacity Utilization 23.5% ICU Level of ServiceA nalysis Period (min) 15 Page 6 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Phase 1 Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 ane Group EBL_ EBT WBT WB -SBL SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 231558 451 79 212 61 . ar.�' ♦ v/c Ratio .....yam 0.03 . T 1..0� 0.57 0.20 .0fi 0.49 � - ...�. 0.24 1 Control Delay 1.2 3.9 10.32.036.0 - 11.2 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .2 3.9 10.32.0 Queue eng T_ _ m 30 123 16 80 31 Intemal Link Dist (ft)_ -167.4 80.5185 Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 100 100 Base Capacity (vph)�_837 27382390 1342858 442 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 T---.- -AIR-.- .AI.[TT-'V9"T- - .x.A.M.� ..- • '.-Y )ia.✓ i[: N Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 _W Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.57 0.19 0 06 6.25 0.14 ii , queue is metered Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 412512007 Lane Configurations ) Ti' TT P Ideal Flow (vphpl)� �l900:1900 1900 19001 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane ��� Util. Factor Tn 1.00 T- 0.95 0..9595 1.00 Volume (vph)! 1433 415 73 195 56 _ Peak -hour factor, PHF _21 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 � Adj.Flow(vph)�...�.._ 23 1558"451 79 212 61 RTOR Reduction(ph 0 0 0 21 0 53 Turn Type pm+pt pm+ov Perm Protected Ph esa Permitted Phases 2 6 4 ter. -ii Actuated Green, G (s)= . .9 61 1.961.9 48.3_58.4 0:fa�7w 10.110.1 Effective Green, g (s) . 61.9_61.9 48.3 58.4 10.1 10.1 Actuated glC Ratio 077917_0.600 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .041 4.0 Vehicle Extensions i ( ) .� 3 �3.0 3.0 .0l3.0 3.03.0 �"�� Lane Grp Cap(vph) 801 2738 2137 1235 433 200 vls Ratio Prot ' 0.00 c0 440.13 0.01 c0.06' vls Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 0.00 v/cRatio . ,-. "003, r0.57-02110050.49'" 0.04 Uniform Delay, dl 2.3 3.7 7.2 3.0 32.5 30.7 Progression Factor — r— -� — -- 0_:42 1.00 -- - - 1:00 1.00_ Incremental Delay, d2 ,0.821.00 0.0 0.6 0.2� 0.0� 0.9 0.1 Dela s - 1.0 3.6 7.4 3.0 33.4 30.8 �� Level of Service A A A A C C App ch Dela s 3.6 .8"""" x2.8 Approach LOS A A C HCM Average Control Delay 7.6 HCM Level of Service HCM volume to Capacity. ratio 0.56 _'-,..� Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) r _- _.._ �lC .-. Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.8% ICU level of Service Analysis Period .. —. (min) 15 - ,. --• —.__ _. T.� c Critical Lane Group — "— � A Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 SA ~ t r Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) rs�'431558 -- 451°79212 61; x.; Pedestrians "079. Vol061 ume Right 0 �' � :... 0 x ,.0 ,a._ .. s• - v cSH 1033 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 155 289 Approach Delay (s) r .. 0 1 r r^ r "" 0.0 70.1 Approach LOS F .Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd -No -Sig Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Supple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4125/2007 i. 18 493 13 12 370 140 Control Delay 9.9 16.5 4.3 6.0 16.8 9.0 50.4 7.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 9.9 16.5 4.3 6.0 16.8 9.0 50.4 7.3 Queue Length 50t11(ft)�- 206 0 64 4 0 182 0 TI Queue Length 95th (ft) -- 60 360 3 0 15 11 #304 32 T' internal Link Dist (It) 443 -'MfiY' 1674 � 6'4_ 398• YVR- 4---_ 9.0 TurnBay Length (ft) Ba a Capacity (vI h)= 6'19 0840 2 602 625 58 �497�663` ' �1 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s Y Spillback Cap Reductn 9. MO_.�.I.i.��.-. 0 0 __Y. __.OM..w_..�� _...'.� 0 O 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Re uce v/c atT o.n.111r'T� Re duced v/c Ratio L.�f 0.27 0.64 0.06 n� 0.31 0.02 0.02 TM1��. 0.740.21 95th may be longer. Page 3 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 il Movement . '; .. EBL EBT EBR WBL .aWBT R NBL NBT NBR - SBL> SBT. SBR Lane Configurations ►j t1' ►j ` �� +{ t+ +j Ideal Flow (vphpl) ___t1' 1900; 1900 1900 1900 :1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane lltil Factor " 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 <0.95 1.00 1.00~""�"""""`�1,00�1.00 -- - --- Frt __ . 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 0.95 1.00 — _tea, 0.85 1.00 0.85 -t_ TcCed -a..,. Flt Protected 6. r- ---�-•---- 0_95: 1'00 »#-�—� D 95 X1.00 - 0.98 ^--- 76--- --- 0.96 1.00 rt Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3533 1770 3373 1835 . ____ 1583 _ 1782 1583 Flt Permitted 0.31.00 9 0.141.00 0.92 1.00 _ __074_j90: 125 1134 13 17 312 142 4 8 11 309 31 129 PI -IF 0920.92 0.92 0.92 0.920.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 0 61 0 0 0 8 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases _5 2 1__ 6_. 8 4_ Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s)�47.1 41:5 �.� 38_1 36.5 . ,, 24 .9, - -.- -24.9 ---- -- 294.9 _ -- Effective Green, g (s) 47.1 41.5 _ 38.1 36.5 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 Actuated /- Ratio 0.59 0.52 0.48 0'46-W 0.31_ 0.31 0.31 0.31, Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 [*1' 14 6i<1*L_1* fl4 *] v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.00 c0.27 0.03 v/c Ratio 0_.27 0.680.11 0.280.02' 0.01 0.87 0.09 Uniform Delay, dl 7.7 14.3 12.2 13.6 19.1 �19.0� 26.0 19.5 1 1 0.400:49 1 T�16.2 _1 Incremental Delay. d2 0.30.3 2.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Level of Service A B A A B B D O ., - . —.. Approach Delay (s) � -_15.5 ti e`7.0 �19.1_,,,, „• „r_ _4.3 Aooroach LOS B A B D Page 4 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Rupple Road 4/2512007 t T /' �► 1 Volume (veKIfi)_, ,a ., , 39•,x. °6 242; _° 21 , ` 2 410 =,.. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourl�._flow _ rat...- y e"(vph) 42 4 3. 7 263 .. 2 •. 2X446 Pedestrians Median storage veh) i pX, platoon unblocked vC conflicting volume >724 143;•x.7. e 286'' ;'. ,.`", 7 po queue free % 88 99 100 IcM capacity(vehlh)• ,• 360879..,..Ei S9I273 _ Y. 2STAT Volume Left 42 0 0 2 UolUme Rlght Gn �. y.={ „�ty' `�71Y..�.pn`ankv23 ` ` �Q _ .X' f5, °-.�"`+ y`: 4 h" -:w,' 'R•�"e ? aa. .'v'�" �* cSH 390 1700 1700 1273 PpproachDelay(s) v•,15.5"�0.0:-.. a 0.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Page 5 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 ane Group _ L WB NBTa BL Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 24 258 9 248 4.6 5.0 5.6 95th (ft172 1043 559 if 8` *64821947041188 0 0 0 0 0 orage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Page 6 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 tI `► 1. Lane Configurations L Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane J ff Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1 .0 Fit 1.00 0 85 0.96 1.00 __ 1.00 _ Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0 1.0 0.95 1.00 S.atdFlow (prof) 1770 1583 3401 1770 1863 ------a__ Flt Permitted ---._��-- 0.95 1.00 1 1.00.00 00.59 1.00 �� _ Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3401 1103 1863 Volume (vph) 184 22 176 62 8 228 Peak -hour factor, PHF _ 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 dj._Flow (vph)> 200 24 191' X67 9 248 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 27 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 5- 231':"0 9 248 _ Turn Type Protected Permitted Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 8.123.9 — �• - 23.9 23.9 Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 8.1 23.9 23.9 23.9 Actuatee . C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.60 - 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Perm Lane 2032 659 1113 ws Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.02 -0.11 ""`� 0.011 0.22 _ Uniform Delay, dl 14.3 12.8 3.5 3.3 _� 3.7 Progression Factor 1.0O 1.00 1.00 1.00 "1 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.0 -- . 0.1 0.0 � 0.5 Delay(s)`—y 162 12.8 4.8 _ 3.3 4.2`_ Level of Service B B A A A —...�_ Approach Delay (s) W_159 ,� T 4.8 ... 4.2 Approach LOS B A A HCM Average Control Delay 7.9 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 31 ors— Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.0 Sum of lost time (s) Actuated_Cycle ----- --l� —:- Intersection Capacity Utilization 28 9% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 7 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Volume (veh/h) r, 184_ .: 22e 7' 6 62 8228 >sr ,' Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate v h 'x`"'""200 -a � - 24� < 191 Hour67 9� 248 ;.- ; •, - P ' Pedestrians Volume Left 200 0 0 0 9 0 Volume Righter 0;__s 24 < 2 0 67n„flo .._w0 .,.' cSH 504 896 1700 1700 1303 1700 Approach Approach LOS C Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd -No -Sig Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 10: Drive D & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 t �► l,A _ ___._• _ ._. __.. _ - -_..4 1 conf vol. 2 conf vol %ked vol 430 108 215 2 stage p0 queue free % 92 99 100 pM capacity_(veh/h) , 552 926 1352 Volume Total 54 133 83 218 Volume Left 42 0 0 4 Uolume Right __ __ — 12 '"—� ' ,, 0 �16 0 cSH mm 606 r _ 1700 1700 • _ 1352 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.08 0.05 0 00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 _____ 0 Control Delay (s) 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 Lane LOS B A rAroach Dela s y,(-) , . . 11.5 - 0.0 "�""""� — 0.2 _pP Approach LOS B - Delay 1.4 _. -�.� ___ 1.4 r . ion Capacity Utilization . . 23.6% Level of Service A Page 8 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 845 1301 252 174 50 v/c Ratio_____ 0.25.0.30 0 54 0 18 0A3 0.22. Control Delay 6.1 1.7 8.6 0.5 35.8 12.1 Queue D'ejay .0 .0 0.0T0.0 0_0 0.0.0.0 Total Delay 6.1 1.7 8.6 0.5 35.8 12.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)�1_7�160 0 42 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m18 m25 261 10 69 29 Internal Intel Link Dist (ft) 1674 605 185 '� "_" _ ] Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 100 100 Base Capacity (vph)_-3502773 239913894815 414 -"__'� Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 S illback Cap Reductn P P 0 0 00 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vlc Ratio 021 030 0.12 _18:y_0.2% m Volume Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 Lane Configurations ►) ft ft P ►j9 F _ -v.-.. Ideal ✓ —�— Flow (vphpl) nY 0 Y 1901900 .—. .. .rte 1900 1900 1900 1900 ��1 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ,_._---T Lane --- UtilFactor_ 1.00 0.95: 0.95,1 - 00 0.97 - 1.00 Fit 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 .-- 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95_1A0_1.00 1.000.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.17 1.00 1.00 1 00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 310 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 r, PFiF 0.92 0.920.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 72 845 1301 252 174 50' n (vph)-- 0__--_-_- 0 i —_-0- - 54-- 0 44_ ... _ _ _.. _ _ .. rr(4ph) �-�2 -5 72 845 1301 Tom` ___ 198 174 6 � 1 Turn Type pm+pt pm+ov Perm Protected Phases 52 2 6 T 4 4 _ � � — "� ] Permitted Phases 2 _ 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s)i627 62.7_53.4 62.79.3 9.3 Effective Green, g (s) 62.7 62.7 53.4 62.7 9.3 9.3 _ ;Actuatedg/C Ratio_0.78 0.780.67 0 78 0.12 0.12 '�'� Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 340 2774 -mss-._. Ratio Prot,__. 0.01 co.240.37T_ T���--- -.`✓1-�-r--u 0.02 E0.05 '1 __- v/s Ratio Perm 0,15_ _ 0.11 0.00 ,v/cRatio 0.20.300.50.15 1 _ 1) 44 _0. _0.03_ Uniform Delay, dl 6.7 2.5 7.05_ 2.13a931.4 31.4 Progression Factor 0.790.531.001.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 0.9 -1.001.00 0.1 0.8 0.1 Delay (s) ________ � 5.6 1.6 7.9' 2.233.7 "31 4 _- Level of Service A A A A C C Approach Dlay_() 1.97.0 33.2 1 Approach LOS A A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 1ntersection Capaaty Utilization .._r----------. 51.3%_ ...- _,._ ^_ter ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 cCritical Lane Group Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/25/2007 Lane :ontrol _ Free Free Stop Volume (vehlh) V'�66 ' 777 1197�232�' 16'O 46 __ _ _ Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 72 845 Th0C 252 174 50 Pedestrians Lane W O Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft). " "' pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1553 1867 "651 vC1, stage 1 conf vol uC2 sta e 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1553 1867 651 p0 queue free % 83 0 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 422 53" 1 - Volume Total 72 422 422 651 651 252 116 108 1 y___ --.L.vy.y.....yyy Volume Left 72 0 0 0 0 0 116 58 b,"""'_6 """""6`""'.252 _0� cS_H_ 422 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 53 97 T . pa Volume to Capacityy_. 0.17 0.25 0 25 T11111rT 0 38 0.38 0.15 2.18 1.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 0 � 0 0 0 0 290 177 Lane LOS C F F �__d -r-„ Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 465.3 Approach LOS F Average Delay_ 39.1 Intersection Capacity Uti—.lizatio51.3% ICU n Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd -No -Sig Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WB NBT NBR SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 176 595 151 1265 57 122 278 183 u/c Ratio 0.63 0.32 0 29� 0.72 0'14 0.25�0.84�0.35_ Control Delay 21.111.8 5.3 11.7 22.7 6.0 53.7 8.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0_0.0 0;0_.-0.0__0.0 0O__0.0 Total Delay 21.1 11.8 5.3 11.7 22.7 6.0 53.7 8.4___ Queue Length SOth (ft)�33 88 11 259 21 b14 ` 0_1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 94 125 26 85 48 37 #242 36 Internal Link Dist (ft)� 443 1674— 398 490,__�—__ Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Cpacity,(vph)v301-187,516 T 750 �rT 465 542�3844 -.-.mr.-•.�-ti.v.� 586y� _ ] Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�� Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 90 0 0_• 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vLL j Retluced v/c'R'atio 586.32-0.29' 0.72 0.12 0.23 6.720.31 '95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Page 3 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 t t / " t 4 ovement EBL EETEBCWBL WBT WBR NBL NBTNBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 9 T+m 1+ r .--- 9001 19001900 1 1 900 1 4 1 Total Lost time (s) - 400 -..— 4.0 4000-1 400 4.0 400 400 400 Lane Uhl Factor' 11 A0,�0.95 <. 1.00 0.95 1_00,1- 1. I00 IOU Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.65 Flt Protected 0.5 9. 1 0 0.95 1._00 0.98 T 1.00 .--_��.v-..y....Y'.. Satd. Flow (prot) rNY 1770 -.Pb.M�...B®v-. 3507 Y.��- 1770 -- 3437 W1.be WNbYfbW.-.. 1831 YYSK.. .vr-+..1 r.. - 1583 . 1787 1583 It Permitted > 0.41 1.00 D.86 1.00 0.72 1 oo Satd. Flow (perm) 202 3507 759 3437 1606 1583 1338 1583 Volume (vph)__ 162 514 33 139 940 224 18 34 112 217 39 168 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Tom- I,RYr-__�n, Adj. Flow (vph) 176__1559 M 97 5136 1 16-11122 22 243_ - 122__236 42183 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 50 0 23 0 , ____ 0 0 92 0 0 138 Lane Grouo Flow (voh))71766 590 0'151 1242 O -- 3O 0 27R 45 "0'"""" 57 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Penn Perm Perm Perm Prott ecteted Phases 52 �..... r . 1 6 8 4" Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 4 _ Actuated Green, s 50.4 42.3 'Effective _ 46.2"4O.2 46 2' 40.2 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 Green, g (s))50.442.3 6 2 40.219.7 19.7 wW _ 9. ' 19.7 19,7 Tom-------- Actuated g%C Ratio 1_.-- 0.630.53 -- --- 0.58-0.50- - --� 0.25 0.25 --05 0.25_ Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0-4.0 4.0 a' Lane Grp Cap (vph) 286 1854 514 1727 395 390 329 390 .. co- --- -.- - - ---� c0.06 0.17s v/s Ratio Prot0.02_ c0.361't.7 1 . v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 0.15 0.04 0.02 cO21 003 T uniform Delay, dt ._. 11.1 10.7 _..._. 7.8 15.5 .- --- 23.6 23.2 --- - 28.7 23.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1:00 0.62 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.69 Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 0.5 0.3 2.3 0.2 0.1 17.4 0.1 Delay(s) 15.0: 11:1 5.2 11.1- 23.7"232-49.0�39.fi � Level of Service B B _ A B _ C C D D App h'Dela s y,( ) --` 10_ -. .5 - T- - -. -- 23.4 -_ . TI 12.0 Approach LOS B B C D HCM Average Control Delay 17.4 HCM Level of Si HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time Page 4 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 Volume (veh/h)°' 28535066 66 x - 737.~` Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Median storage veh) Upstreamsignal_(ft) ..,,,, 570: a r ,; Volume Total,,.% '. . ;> 36,254199420'.<,.°',,, Volume Left 30 0 0 8 Volume Right ' 5 0 72 0 , �V '• cSH 331 1700 1700 1105 4P!9tcpelayy(s) 17 2 0 0 e; 0.2 .a Approach LOS C )ntersection Summary : , ,; - Page 5 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 t �► j Lane Group Flow (vph) u/c Ratio _____ Control Delay Queue Delay 0.0 Total Delay 16.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)____32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 62 i4emal Link Dist (ft)__ 181 Turn nBBay Length (ft) 100 Base Capacity (vph) �708� 6.2 2.6 4.9 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ _ 6.2�2.6�4.9�5.2� 232 22 m33 11• 58 1531 958 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.18 0.050.21 s is.metered by,upstream Page 6 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple_ Road 4/25/2007 t ,.T Lane Configurations r ►j f •►) x4 Ideal Flow (vphpq x _ 1900M1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 _._ 1.00 0.85 0.92 1.00 Green Clearance Lane Grp Cap (vph) 332 297 1986 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 0.14 ulc Ratio ^ _:; �,nD.49 _ .0.010 1�-� < .0.050.23_x_, �,•;s; ...,-.., Uniform Delay, dl 14.6 13.2 3.3 3.1 3.5 Progression Factor 1 00"1 D01 26 1.001.00_ Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 LOS B Page 7 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 `! t �' �► 1 fl I V V Y111Y,I . i +>.1yff✓I ..-VVSI 1A✓1 IILIl V✓V o. V✓ Lane Configurations if ti. ►( .� �.III�IIV1111. Sign Control .I_.,-----_Jn_ ••.4tir• , x. Stop .III„-- '.1,:111,F Free FAY y Free:._ Grade 0% 0% 0% Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Blockage — -- ` '- Right turn flare (veh) -- - Median type " None__ `�� Median storage veh) Upstreamsignal ft pX, platoon unblocked --� �7—. vC, conflicting_volume 578192 385 _ vC1, stage 1 conf vol .. - ___ yC2, stage 2 conf vo_I _______ vCu, unblocked vol 578 192 385 L J10y0 1.1) 2._� tF (s).3.5�3_.3 3 2.2 � � °� pO queue free % 62 98 98 caci veh/h '� 436" 817 1170 M ca P 11( ) Volume Total ._194....20 113 272 19 254 Volume Left 164 0 0 0 19 9 Volume Right _ , 0 20 215 0 0 cSH 436 817 1700 1700 1170 1170 Volume Capacity.._� O 38, 0_02 lrT �� 0.07 0.16 . 0.02 0.02 a Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 2i 0 0 2"2 Control Delay (s) 18.2 9.5 000M__ 82 Q5 Lane LOS C _w A A A Approach Delay (s) 1730A 11 Approach LOS C Intersection ummary , . e !,, �w, ria,n »tea.. Average Delay 4.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization P y 31.8% ICU Level of Service A ] Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd -No -Sig Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 1O: Drive D & Rupple Road 4/25/2007 t t t IVIUVCIIICIII�Y...SF rm VVOL VVDN. NDl IVR'=DL.. 9r- Wiz, .. Lane Configurations ►r+ fl� Sign Control - ..._.....� .. Stop Free - __ _ _- Free �'"'� Grade 0% 0% 0% -�.- Volume(veh/h)_________32--_ _w,__. _ 9 127_ 46 ��_.. 13_219 '-"� Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph); 5 10 138 238 Pedestrians _5014 pX, platoon unblocked vC, co'nflicting volume 4 vC1. staae 1 conf vol vol p0 queue free % 94 99 99 I. _--'_e_._. ..i�.W--_+•v—fv..®����..n... �nnare•.mr.m-v.nw,r�-- cM capacity (veh/h)548944 __ 1383 j Volume Total 45 92 96_ 2_52 J Volume Left 350 0 14Volume �v�� Right 1O O 5Q_._ 0 cSH _ 604 1700 1700 1383 — Volume to---- O7 __r 0.05 _ 0.06 0 01 n Queue Length 95th (ft) �0 6 0 0 1 Lane LOS B A ____- _ Approach Delay (s) 11.4 0.0 0..55 I_�Y..YY........�... �.�'. ..V�..- ._.�W4fl.v ..W Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Jtilization 306%/o ICU Level of Service A Page 8 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Full -Build Site Plus Existing; Half -Blvd Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/23/2007 ane Group BL . EBT WBT WBR .; BL SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 2146 774 79 212 61 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.76�0.29 0.05 0.53 0.26 Control Delay 2.2 5.6 4.7 0.4 42.4 12.8 4.7 0.4 __- — Queue Length 95th (ft) m3 .._.. mow44_ 283 115 4 93 35 -- w Interhal Lmk Dist (ft).mo --. ---- . 1874 805 . 185 . Turn Bay Length (ft) - W' 10.0_ 120 . 100 __._ �....--v Base Capacity (vph)�568 2816 2658 1475 - 4.5.8 26.4 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 ll SpibackCapReductn 0=- 0_0 0, 0 0 _ ______ Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..-a..11MYV�� Reduced v/c Ratio .....-�� - P�L• - 15 14 0.040.760 29 0.05 0.46 1r� 0.23 queue is metered by. Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/23/2007 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR ;SBL ,.SBR Lane Configurations ►j +4' P I►j►) Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19001900 1900_ 19001900 1900 ""� Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 .. -_..+-s �_t•- ..._.. -. --.---.-. v �.�V..P..��Y ... Y......�..yy_y. Lane Util. Factor ' '•, � -1.00 0.950 Frt 1.00 1.00 1 1770 Satd. Flow 3539 Volume (vph) ._._._ 21 1974 712 73 195•.:.1_56 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)23�2146�774 79 212 61 r� RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 13 0 54 Perm 2 6 4 )71 671.665.2 75.6 10.4 - 10.4 71.6 71.6 65.2 75.6 10.4 10.4 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.84 0.12 0.12 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 -AA43.Ou.3.0 30 3.0"3.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 536 2815 2564 1400 397 183 v/s Ratio Prot _ 0.00 0.01' c0.06�— c0.61 _ 0.2.2 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.04 0.00 �_ 0.04 0.76 0.30 0.05_0.530.04 � v/c Ratio —� Uniform Delay, dl 2.7 4.8 4.4 1.2 37.5 35.4 Progression F actor _ 1.00 - m 1.00 1.00 1.00 ___0.910.82 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.0 1.4 0.1 Level of Service A A A A D D Approach D'elay(s). = 5.2 4.4 381x,y Approach LOS A A D Average Control Delay 7.7 Volume to Capacity ratio________ O.73 of ro Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/23/2007 Volume(veh/h) 21 19747r73___ 95 56 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 . �- w-_---_-.-. ---- -- -may ..-'- -1 -. ._ Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 2146 774 79 212 61 Pedestrians Right turn flare (veh) — _ 4 Median type "� -ed-- w...�_ `�_ ... N_o_ne_ Median storage veh) __ Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked _ - uC, conflicting volume 1892 ___853 vC1, stage 1 conf vol ___3V GC2'stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 853 1892 387 tC, single (s) 4_1 6.8 6.9�µ � _ tC, 2 stage (s) ____ __� . [Fir ------------2:- 3.5��3.3 .`_.�� p0 queue free % 97 0 90 Volume Total 23 1073 1073 387 387 - 79 141 132 Volume Left - 23 0 0 0 0 0 141 71 Volume Right 0 0 0- 0 + 0' 79 0 61 cSH 782 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 60 108 Volume to Capacity 0.63 0.23 0.23 0.05 2.36 1.22 —1 Queue Length 95th . �0.03�0.63 (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 —_-_--.-.._.__& _349 217 Control Delay (s) 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 788.9 -- _� _.� r— -_ Approach Delay (s) '!510.6 0.1 0.0 -— A roach LOS PP _ - F - ., _._ 42.3 Service —C Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development; No Signals Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 Flow (vph) 152 1196 195 434 322 148 217 72 596 trol Delay 45A 25.2 1.6 42.9 8.3 2.8 42.9 53.6 32.6 44.9 39.8 4.4 ueDelay 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 l Delay 'T� 45.1 25.2 1.6 42.9 8.3 2.8 42.9 53.6 32.6 44.9 39.8 4.4 u-� ue Length 50th (ft) 43 3-297 X29 'i. 2-12249 f . 46 1660 1660___4 40 158 i58 112.50 Th1.2___ 5O 4•.-, 0 ue Length 95th (ft) 73 381 17 #186 76 52 97 84 224 #171 98 - 17 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0—, 0, 0 0 0000, „000 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 e --— Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 .07 7r0. 6 20 — 0.76 .r �._—. 0.18 0.13. 0.54 — _ 0.50 0.72 0 76 0.42 0 * 0.30 . ntersectior-Summa x w:,.s .... n,x - x �,. 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may ..�•___ . } Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. .be -. _longer. Page 3 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 1863 2787 34331663 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 .1583 3433 1863 2787 3433 1863 1 1401100179,, 399296;.136 20O°6654834780 r° 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1521196'"195 . 434=322 �.___.�..._ r -x148 -'217 X72, .596377!87 0 0 78 0 0 50 0 0 37 0 0 Turn Type Prot 2 6 6 4 S 0 40.150.T" 14 648.759.310.66_7 21.3 12. 8 716.7 8.0 40.1 50.7 14.6 46.7 59.3 10.6 6.7 21.3 12.6 8.7 16.7 09045 0.56 X0.16 10.66 0.12 X0.070 24 0 14=0:10 x,0.19 X0.52 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 1577 892 557 1836 1043 404 139 783 481 180 364 v/s Redo Prot" R D.04c0 0 020 130.090 010 06;;0.04c0.12c0.110.05,0.01i v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.01 . 10.500.76: - 0.130 78 0.1'$'"0 .09 0 54x0.52 0.71 0 7B'-0:48'0.07 vlcRatio� 7 Uniform Delay, dl 39.1 20.9 9.3 36.2 11.5 5.6 37.4 40.1 31.6 37.4 38.5 30.2 g_ 1.00, x1:00 X1.000 890.69 4.841 001.001:000 870.81 X0.55 Pro cession Factor... Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 3.5 0.1 6.7 0.2 0.0 1.4 3.2 3.1 8.0 2.0 0.1 ,Delay(s)r:.,,. �:� 40424:4<< 9.33908.1 �27.0'38.843.334.7. 40.633.36.8 Level of Service D C A D A C D D C D C B APProachelay,(s):-.•5R >24.0 26.0 Approach LOS C C D C Page 4 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Rupple Road - 4/23/2007 Lane Configurations Y tT+ '1 tt Sign Control Stop Free Free' Grade 0% 0%�— 0% Volume (veti/h) 39 6 2� 522 323 21 Hourly flow rate (vph) 427 351 23 2 567 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft)T____ Walking Speed (ft/s) _�w-__ Percent Blockage _- T� Right turn flare (veh) Median type_ "None �� Median storage veh) __ U—• _.__- pstream signal (ft) 570 _ ._� —. pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume __ 651 187 374 _ vC1, stage 1 conf vol — _. vC2, stage conf7oT1 `"— vCu, unblocked vol 651 187 374 tC, 2 stage (s) IF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 89 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) — 401 823 1181 Volume Total 49 234 140 2 284 284 --_ ! Volume Left 42 0 0 2 0� 0 Volume Right 'MT,4 0 0 M1IM-- V 0 `Y- V/.!'�1�4��IIII�11111n�R+1W1�i_'(VAT'•• - 7 0 23 c SH 430 1700 170O1181 17 00 1700 Volume to Capacity-.,- 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 - 0� � 0 0 -----n. -- .. Control Delay (s) 14.4 --- 0.0 0.0 ---.... 8.1 — 0.0 0.0 °-• Lane LOS B __- �... A �. -.� 'Approach Delayy(s) -. 14.4 0.0 OA Approach LOS '� B __ ritersection Summa ry, .t, r _. Averaqe Delay 0.7 of Service A •_ Page 5 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 I ~ 4N- f �• 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 F-a-ti-.�swx •94-nn��n���--0 v/c Ratio -0.16 Control Delay 41.2 54 0.32 16.8 200 0.52 42.2 35 27 w!r--v�l.s. 0 17 0.04 20.3 2.3 330 9 326 lam+�.1 tee.. ....�...._e-. 0.13 0 010.13_ — ._,_.a__,_ .W _J 1.5 5.9 4.9 Queue 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 Total Delay __ 41.2 16.8 42.2 20.3 2.3 1.5 5.9 4.9 Queue Lengtti 50th.(ft _ _ 12 ___ 0 56 6 2 8 1 28 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 34 87 32 m5 14 7 53 Internal Link Dist (ft)_ 225 181 1531 958 Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 150 150 srv--,aa_..-. -�-_ ___ Base Capacity (vph) 465 _ 445•954 664-'4 --.- 69-v..4: 482 690 �'f y.--. ' 2492 684 2547 ,^� I Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- I.._..a--- SVS Spillack 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 0.05 0.21 0 07 0.04 0.3 0 01 0.13 ,0.12 me for 95th percentile. queue is metered by_ upstream signal. Page 6 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4(23(2007 Lane Configurations (• ►(►) Ideal Flow (vphpl) : , 1906" §00 19bd!' 900 191 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 Satd. Flow 1.00 0.85 1 10`x' 10 50 4.0 0 21 0 0 11 1029 3521 X62 8290.'10 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Perm Protected Phases .� ,°"'=`4 =«-,� 6 " "8 ,-- 2 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Gree G,(s) '.4 4.410.110.1. °63 5 63.5 fl6.563.5 Effective Green, g (s) 4.4 4.4 10.1 10.1 63.5 63.5 63.5 63.5 Actuated g /C Ratio h°-. ^fl05 0 05 0 110.11' k 071-0.71= �,=_ 0 710.71 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) ..">„ `w ^ 3A .3.0 " 3.03A 3.0« 3A ssx .'• ;. ` 3.0 `• ° 3.0 .. --_>> Lane Grp Cap (vph) 89 77 385 188 729 2421 726 2484 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio •,. , '•Z E= 0.25 0.0320 52=6.07 0 04 0.13 „ rr, := 0.01 0.13 a Uniform Delay, d1 41.2 40.8 37.7 35.8 4.0 4.3 3.9 4.3 Progression Factor sue. � � � - 1.00 1 00 1 00"11 00 ,� : 39'x°0.32 Aa aa-, a= -1.00t""1:00 ' '- Incremental Delay, d2 -- 1.5 0.2 1.2 .aw.r_._.'-- ,�.. 0.2 0.1 _. ,.�rs...�u... 0.1 s... 0.0 0.1 Delay (s)V 4r 42.74f0 - 38 8 a 35.9 1.71.5. ,,,,, . •, tw 4 b4 4. Level of Service D D D 0 A A A A Approach Delay (s) 241.5 tZ2flfl1W4Z!EZE!EE Approach LOS D D A A ntersection summary .:• .• .r: ,;..- HCM Average Control Delay 14.1 HCM Level of Service B Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 120 Page 7 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4(2312007 7 ` ~ A. I /0 Lane Configurations � � ., ►jam � tt ►� tf, Sign Control Stop Stop Free _ __ Free' Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% _. Volume (veh/h) 10 : 10 50 -6-4 — 184 10 -- — 22 25 — 24262 — --�-- 8 290 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 -__�.,,,.,�._-_,..,.-1 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 .a 11 54 200 11 --- 24 27 _.. 263 -.e_--.. ___ _.�_. 67 9 315 11' Pedestrians .nt Blockage .. m 1 turn flare (veh) unblocked iC,conflicting volume_ _ __723 163 586 695 165 326 330 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 553 723 163 586 695 165 326 330 tC Pingle(s)� - , s . 65 6.9 7.66.5 7 5 _ , 6.9 4,1 — - __ _-� tC, 2 stage (s) 4.0__3.3 354.0 2.2 2.2 � ���_3.5 p0 queue free % 97 97 94 43 97 _3.3 97 `� � 98 _ 99 cMcapacity (veh/h)_ ___386_ 3 341 85352__,354_850_`-1 _ 1226 ' ... ,Volume Total 22_54__.200 35 27 175 155 9 210 116 Volume Left 11 0 200 0 27 0 0 9 0 0 0 67 0 0— 1 i Volume Right 0 54`-0- 24 0 cSH 362 853 352 591 1230 1700 17001226 1700 ___"�� 1700 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 ._�. 5 84 .� -.--..._..�-- 5 2 ----------------- - - - 0 0 1_ 0 0 Control Delay(s) 15.6 9.5 27.9�11.5'�8.0 OA�0.0 8.0 0.0 0.01 y Lane LOS C A D B A A A• pproach Delay (s) 11.2 25.5 �0.6� _ 0.2 Approach LOS B D Intersecti...SUnini�ry Average Delay 7.1 _.e-----_:.� .m.T_-...-_.ThlTf- ttersection Capacity Utilization _38.9% ICU Level of Service A nalvsis Period (min) 15 Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development; No Signals Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 10: Drive D & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 Lane Configurations ►� ► ,::IH: Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) :;N °•i:39 11 259 = 15} , .4, 269 ,'° ,cairi Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 yC, conflicting volumey445 149 e • -�� 298;.� .te ; vC1, staqe 1 conf vol VolumeRight:x_12:0 16w-_0 cSH 589 1700 1700 1260 1700 1700 rite ieitioN Summary. z. ;x. Page 8 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/23/2007 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 1512 1802 252 174 50 rT T ! 'T _ -S--T 4 T 8 T .l „11111111 Lv/c Ratio 0.29 0.53 0.74 0.180.48 0.24 Control Delay 15.6 5.1 12.4 0.5 42-1 137 iwucuc uciay u.0 u.0 . u.0 u.0 u.u. U.0 Total Delay 15.6 5.1 12.4 0.5 42.1 13.7 -------- --- Queue Length 6 (ft) _ — 11157 0 48� -_ _ ._ .. . 0� Queue Length 95th (ft) _333 m20 201 447 10 79 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1674 805 Tum Bay Length (ft) 120 1__j85________________________________________________ 100 100 Base Capacity (vph)— m262 2850 2441 1368 420 237 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0� 0 Storage Cap Reductn i 0 0 0 � 0 0 0� Reduced v/c Raatio 0.27 0.53.0.18'0.`41 0.21 ume for,95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/23/2007 f 4- t r Lane Configurations . tt t+ _;' r ►)►) (deal Flow (vphpl) - t 1900 1900 1900_ 1900':_:1900y 1900 � Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 _ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane UtiL Factor 1.00 -— . -- 095 0.95 1.00 097 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.851.0 1.00 FIEf?rotected0.95_1.00 -.T__' 1.00 1:00; 0.95 1.00_ 'j Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 136 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 66 1391 1658 232 160 46 Peak-hnur fartnr PI -IF (107 fl O (1W) A 09 A 09 n o9 Effective Green, g (s) 72.5 72.5 61.3 70.8 9.5 9.5 Actuated g/C Aatio' 0.81 0.81 0.68__0.79 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 _ Vehicle Extension s __3.0 - "-"� 3.0� 3.0 3.0 3.0 ''1 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 240 2851 2410 1316 362 167 v/s Ratio Prot' 0.02 c0:43 c0.51 0.02 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.11 0.00 vlc Ratio 0.30.530.75 0 0.15 "0.48 0.03 - Uniform Delay, dl 16.5 -- 3.0 9.3 2.3 _. 37.9 36.1 1.-,.� . •aL ..VV� I.VVA'.�Y I. ncremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.6 2.2 0.1 1.0 0. uoley.l�l Level of Service B A B A D D Approach Delay(s) _, 5._510.4 3.8_.3• Approach LOS A B D HCM Average Control Delay 10.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM VoluumeoCapcityratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s1 80 15 Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; -Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 2: Wedington Drive & Drive A 4/23/2007 Volume (veh/h) 66 1391--1658�232 160'46 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 _ T_ --...r..-- ,-- Howdy flow rate (vph)721512 1802., 252 j 174_50 Pedestrians Percent Blo ge Right turn flare (veh) 4 Median t— yp�e None Median storage veh) Upstream sgnal(ft) �"— � pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2054 2702 901 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 2054 2702 901 tC, singIe_(s). 4.1 _6.86.9' tC, 2 stage(s) _ ______ tF (sj w 2.2�' 3.53.3— �, p0 queue free % 730 82 cM capac ty (veh/h) ' `269 13; 281 Volume Total 72 756 756 901 ' 901 252 X116 108 Via. I Volume Left 72 0 0 0 0 0 116 58 Volume Right' .< 0 0 0 0<.E '. • 0 252- 0 50 -I cSH 269 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 13 23 -.r- Volume to Ca aci p ty 0.44 0.44 0.53 - 0.53 0.15 9 21 21__ 4.76 Queue Length 95th __-- (ft) 26 0 0 0 0 � 0 Err Err Control Delay (s) 23.1 0.0 0.0 0 0._ 0.0 0.0 Err Err Lane LOS �C F F Approach Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 Err Approach LOS F Intersection Summary.,... - �...� .-,. ... Page 1 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development; No Signals Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 ahe Group BL EBT EBR L T R BL BT N BR SBL SBT S R Lane Group Flow (vph) 254 562 203 509 1046 298 232 90 701 324 99 199 v/c Ratio F D.55 .. - X0_66O0.62 0.65 0.49 0.41, -----------------_________t_____ Control Delay 41.6 _0.45 24.8 1.8 31.1 12.9 1.5 40.2 47.9 19.9 34.8 37.3 14.5 _u.u__u.0 u_u u.u„ uu U.0 U.u___u.0 ®u.0 u.u�u.0 u.u, 41.6 24.8 1.8 31.1 12.9 1.5 40.2 47.9 19.9 34.8 37.3 14.5 X70 3 0 X87 4_62 41__ 83___45___32 109 187 19 162 217 m21 100 96 196 108 89 71 ciia' u"n'J'.11 kii/. _�.. 'U(f.._..�.-.�._,Qo � V_.�..—j rn Bay Length (ft) 200 150 200 150 200 150 200 150 se Capacity,(vph) 458 1260 887 815 1580 1056 479 207 1158 572 2694 arvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • — -� illback Cap Reductn D 0 O orv1�10 0 O� O o vpN[V0MMW0MT.��0 .�_...�.... )raoe Cao Reductn 0 0 e� 0 0 .� 0 _ 0 0 __mod 0 0 �_ 0 0 0 Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by.upstream signal. Page 3 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 4: Wedington Drive & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 Lane Configurations VI tt._.. (_ it.. ttY AL rr =1 l C-- i Ideal _ Flow (vphpl) 19019001900q_1900 ..L1_ 19001900 1900 1900,1900 __ _. _ 1900_1900 Total ___1900_j900 Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 a Utd Factor T ' -.....may..- --� �. +�-•-.� . ��� �O Fit��1. 1.00 1.00 0.8511.00 11.000.851.00 — 1.000.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95�1A0-1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 95 1.00 1.00 0.951.OOY_1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 1863 2787 3433 1863 1583 , Flt Permitted 0.95 - TM-�-�F�1�- 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 .�'• 1.00 _ 1.00 v._ ..-..- - 1 ..��.�--.. . 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(Perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 1863 2787 3433 1863 1583 517 187 468 ,..962 274 213 83 298 91183 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 _ _ 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 562 203 509; 1048 tea.,._._ 298 232 9070132499'199 .� 0 104 0 0 90 0 0 112 �._. 0 0 39 Lallc viuup riuw wpuiJ LJY JVL "'OJ ovJ--.1'o'o '1 YVo <Jt Du JOJ JGY cJ 'VU Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov Prot pm+ov - ._ ,_....- Protected Phases 5 2 -...a..--...... 3� ..�--.d.�� x- 1' -. 6:. 7 3 8 _________ 1 7 4 .,.� 5 Permitted_ Phases 2 6 8_ 4 Actuated Green, G s 12.0 32.1 44.1 _ _ __ _ 20.1 40.2 53.3 12.0 8.7 28.8 13.1 9.8 21.8 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 32.1 44.1 20.1 40.2 53.3 12.0 8.7 28.8 13.1 9.8 21.8 Hctuated gIC Ratio f 0.130360.49 0 22 ,O 45' b 59 O 13x'0-d�0.i2�o 15�0.11�0.24' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 . _ns_..., .ate ------...� �Uehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 -_� ® _ --._..., .-.--� - �- .0 3.0 3.0 .: 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 . "-3.0 .r 3.0 - 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 458 1262 776 767 1581 937 458 180 1016 500 203 454 _-_.,_..* . -..�--,rte...._-__ . ______________ -__-- -.- Uniform Delay, dl 36.5 22.1 12.5 31.9 19.6 8.6 36.2 38.6 25.6 36.3 37.7 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.56 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 0.65 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 1.1 0.1 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.9 2.2 0.8 2.9 1.8 0.5 Delay (s) 38. 3.3'� 12_6 29 5 2 6.8 37.1 40.8 26.4 31 5 -� 1 _5_18,8, Level of Service D C B C B A D D C C C B r �_b y (() Approach Dela s)„_,. 24.8. 27.4 x16.230.1 ______4Tff__________ Approach LOS C B C C Page 4 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 6: Drive B & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 Volume (vehlh) i{28° - -5 4782. --66;,; Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 30_.. Pedestrians iC, conflicting volume 861 92 6 - _ ,-591-' =fir:. " vC1. stage 1 conf vol vCu. unblocked vol 861 296 591 0 queue free % 90 99 99 M capacity (veh/h) 292 X701 980 sx -. VolumeLeft 30 0 0 8 0 0 Volume Right;, 5°_ . 072 Oy;O";aa 0 cSH � 321 1700 1700 980 1700 1700 Approach LOS C Page 5 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas Queues Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 _._. ulc Ratio0.10.19 .... .� _ _ 0.46 0.160.080.190 O.1 OS 0.15 Control Delay 41.5 18.1 42.0 22.0 6.7 3.8 5.5 4.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.5 18.1 42.0 22.0 ___ 6.7 ___ 3.8 5.5 4.6 Queue Length 50th 12.0 456 7 6 434 Queue Length 95th (ftl 35 25 74 31 m37 90 15 58 T n Bay Length (ft) 100 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 444_407915_ 463. 640:2477 545 2586 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sck Cap Reductn�0 0 0 0 0 0 '� �'T] Storage Cap Reductn 0 ___"00'___ 0 0 0 0_0 0_ 0 __ .-. ..1.��.. .qtr .. Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 —. 0.07 M 'n T) ..-A� 0.18C0.07�0.08 �0. -'�. 0.19 0.05 0.15: m Volume for.95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. S i i Page 6 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 Movement EBL EBTEBRWBL WB ;. WBR NBL NBT NBR 5 L SBT SBR Lane Configurations___ $ .. roff . ►j►j Ti '1 +1. ►j t� '• Ideal «T. Flow (vphpl)^ 1900 1900 T � wi 1900 1i 900 1900 19001900 1900 1900 +1900 "1900' 1900 Total Lost time (s) . 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Utd Factor 1.00"1.00 0.9T�1.00 Cb 0.95 _ _ ' 1 00 0.95_____ Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.951.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.981.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1817 1583 3433 1682 1770 3299 17703524 Flt Permitted" 05 01 0.9 052. 1.00 0.48_1.00, Satd. _________0.9i'_1.00 Flow (perm) 1817 1583 3433 1682 975 3299 892 3524 Volume (vph) _ ...__._ Peak -hour factor, PHF Adl. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 0.92 1'1 0 0 0.92 11 0 22 0 25 151 - 10 0.92 0.92 0.92 27 164 11 � 26 0 18 1 164 13 18 0: .._5240 198 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 20 54 261 "212e 0 0 61 0�0�1i0 0 . 54 415 028 26 345 10 0.92 0.92 0.92 376 �_ 385 0 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Perm Protected Phases" 4��4 -'8 8 ---2 6 ' Permitted Phases 4 _ - 2 6 - Actuated Gren, G (s) 4.3 4.3 9.3 9.3 64 4 84 4 64.4 64.4 Effective Green, g (s) 4.3 4.39.39.3 64.464.4 64.4 64.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.050.050 0.05005 *10110 0 720,72 0 720.72 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 _: 4.0 _ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 _ 3.0 3�.0 3.0 � -- 3.0 3.0 3.0 ___; Lane Grp Cap (vph) 87 76 355 174 698 2361 638 2522 uls Ratio Prot c_0_.01 O5_ 0.01 �:=.s,* . c0.13-- 011 v/s Ratio Perm ______Co 0.00 0.06 0.03 G%c Ratfo _ __ 0.25J _0.02-0.46� 0.08 0.08018 0 04 0115" Uniform Delay, dl 41.3 40.8 38.0 36.5 3.9 4.2 3.8 4.1 •IVIV VV VI11 YV\VI I.VV \.VV I.VV I.VV•Kib_ LLl I.VI I.VV I.VV Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Delay,(s) 42.8 40.9 38.9 36.6 .. 5.0 5.8 3.9 4.2 Level of Service D D D D A A A A A roach pp_ s 41.8Dela 38.6 " "" 5.8 4.2_____ _ _y,() Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.1 HCM Level of Service B t�— HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.21 j Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3% ICU Level of Service A 15 Page 7 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 8: Drive C & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 Lane Configurations .� '� yj �j. ►j �� .n Z _ ,. Sign Control �«- _. — �. Stop .. - Stop Free ..,,..r Free__ Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 10 25 151 10 18 .: 50 240 168 26 345 10 _ Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly,fiow rate (vph) 11 1___27 164 1 20 54 6 8�' 37 5 iii __215 __ Pedestrians turn Median type None None vCu, unblocked vol 701 1022 193 754 920 238 386 476 !O[single W7.66.5 6.9 X7.5.6941°""`"'""" x"4:1 tC, 2 stage (s) 96 97-- 95 — 97 816_ 262 250 763 1.169 1082 ___ Volume ota� 22 Y_..I. v� 27 82 �_-. 82 i 30 Y.W .54.1174-- W. ilYil-..4 302 28 W 250 136 1 Volume Left 11 -_- 0 .-. 82 -Y. 82 0 54 0 �..! 0 -__-� 28 -- ----yy,.� 0 0 /olume Righ 0 27 0 0 20 d'0 215 0 0 11� cSH `_t 249 816 262262 441 1169 1700 1700 ^ 1082 17001700 Volume to Capacity 0.09` 0.03 0.31 0 31 0 07 0.05 0.10 0.18"0.030 50,08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 3 32 � 32 6 4 0 0 2 0 0 Control Delay4(st 206__6__ 9. 24.9 _ 24.9 13.8 6.2 0.0 0.0��8.4 �0.0 Lane LOS _ CA C - C B� A LL^ �A Approach Delay (s) 14.6 23.1 J8 � 0.6 ^""__T Approach LOS B C ` ntersection Summary Average Delay 5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.30°/ICU Level of Service �A Analysis Period (min) 15 Page 2 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometries; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development; No Signals Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1256; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 10: Drive D & Rupple Road 4/23/2007 < < t ti l Movement •x: Z- , WBL WBR NBT _NBR SBL ; SBT : - r=_ Lane Configurations -" tt, tt Sign Control`" ' . Sto Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh%h} 32 6 224__ 300 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 _4613 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35_ 7 243 50 _ 14 326 None __.- — 3 volume 46O147 293 — —K.7 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 460 147 293 tC, single ('s)" 6.8 6.9� 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF n,T 3.5� 3.3—'� -- --u------ i p0 queue free % 93 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 524 874 1265 Total 41 162 131 14. 163 163 Left 35 0 0 14 0 0 cSH 559 1700 1700 1265 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity ;__, —. 0.07 - 0.10 - 0.06 0 01- 0.100.10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 0 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 11.9 0.0 �0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS � B _�--�____ A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 . 0.3- Approach LOS B Page 8 Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; Site Plus Existing and Planned Development Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1258; Wedington Drive and Rupple Road; Fayetteville, Arkansas PETERS & ASSOCIATES rnmx�v, me q a C p _0000-------000 Ip �0 U _memo-«.---.-000 CC 3 N m z .22 GO J p a •-000000000-0000 N Ya E $ ' 2 3 F s I5 0 'o rn �8$$R--.--- K$ ae8 u a o E u $ —E w � LL"33m a f F u$i a i 0 emi % nm R Si' bC Nmm� H iP�3fp y.7-•--� --�'- U� m u g $p>pp 888$88558 mNN j,HH99_'m'mm$- rS �� S N m$ A-$ e m$$$$ e 8 o m pp p 0- - - l[3 N $$$$ tlmm$$$mmm E OotO E X, E b n E a ♦g -�N mom yy S 36m- Nn $fr@ O d� ceecmmcemcccce N w . E F—Cmeeeoeeee000a q6 € e NI . -.- nm-'n fNJ 33 -gym mm N VU AO9t 9L. ��P S S 00NoS�I��WN�N P LL Ev!y! day mm -n eennamm$�- m n r P N N m n m = 0 c 8 O m a 9 e m u 33e�ii� f - C m m q t w LL E ♦ yrtm—? E g m n n b m N$ 0 W W N n m n N C UU y W6 C U s.sas8.888888858 Q� i�mmc-�-U-- - -- @ w� F I 3 N•-OOOOOOOOOOOOO It Y� .-000000000-000 3 0'i 00000000000000 U 00000eeeee0o00 20 W•-OOOOOOOOOOOOO �SO C 00000000000000 .-.--6.--- l ._,-�p Dl Ti �j a N$ V{ C p C C C G C p p p p C 8 8 O 8 N h Onmm 0 0 O O O 9 O O AO G - - - m 1LEi m�p666p 8m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 5 Ti iSv Vrl irimSN Sn o F58F �p LL ♦ C0RS 1(� p N N N 5 !) 1"I fl N Imp Itp I- 0 Ip E�y` aI+eI �0n N & u TI Vm) W nt u W LLm ♦}Z rmo Vmo Vmr mp$$ R' {{ "i939]] SyWY 'S(bj O 4 y,Eg5HV?EEH8Hg5 9 noA -- N« - m - - 55 wF 3j$C I N 000000000000000 O Z b � C00000000-.-.-0000 C a ee00000e.- .-0000 m EC a C ¢ N _0000.-.----.-.-000 N i C It b I 00 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 tl C W n C C U -000e�.-���--ee0 m N a A I-. tS C xQ Y 0 IZ -nnnm-a$�m tp E p Y Q � o Q e H eu mi TCCZ LLLKO v� T[T[p�F�F ��CCCCC ¢ £O UUN p3K �9eyy rc 888888888888888 ''iSSim O naA b- r a ��u�ba nti 99h� 6 2 �LL n q Cm pay pq 9 S pnbi%--Yimm� Yia60 T$ $W LL t o w h m n- a N m a m �'a N tV FI N m m s N Id'1 N N y5 p LL , p pp Y� f ��pp qq t q O - '- Q {- N N N 0 0 Cr P O tP-O C'.N Si m giniV Flm m.�i N$ 5 - A OT Cg _____ ___ I •2 E G LLmY nnwnnnnn s8s.88 s,a.8800a,,s. Z�nba b - -$ - - - m m nti ZF 0 dl ` C! 000000000000000 ; , , ! ,,,,,,,,,,,,0„ , 8!: 0 | | 000000000,,,,,, { | .,,0000,0,0000„ , | �!. | U §�« 0 { ,,,,,,,,,,,,,0,0 | ` < / 2slo !!! . ! ■;l,:B;,E!!I!!! § §§/} | it ;| - dl '�'■«■■,,.as;;.,,, f ......._,_ ,C CM / �!,!!!;:!l,l;;:! S ! ,:- : ^ •,n!!l=,E !x; ! !!!li;.,,�,�.�,,,����, ; ,,,,0x00,00000, !,| s [ i! ! -` i § | C')NC' ,., ) | ;, _ § ■ !' §/�/\ 8 RRS§GeeR = 18,.,,,.�; ( | til - ��04 IL4 | weRRl�; 1€ i ; \^ g@� . — g c c .-- » §§§; | f U - | $88S8$8..;! „ § 0,% «,,�= „ ! „ « r.; r ll • • • • • December 2000 Page 4C-3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Section 4C.02 Warrant 1. Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume • Support: • The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application where a large • volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. • • The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application where the is heavy intersecting traffic volume on a major street so that traffic on a minor street suffers • excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. Sect. 4C.01 to 4C.02 • • • • Page 4C-4 December 2000 Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively; to the intersection. In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h (40 mph), or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Sect. 4C.02 December 2000 Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Page 4C-5 Condition A —Minimum VehicularVolume -Vehicles per hour on higher -volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor -street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%° 80%b 70W 100%° 80%° 70%` 1 ................. 1................. 500 400 350 150 120 105 2 or more... 1 ................. 600 480 420 150 120 105 2 or more... 2 or more... 600 480 420 200 160 140 1 ................. 2 or more.... 500 400 350 200 160 140 Condition B —Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per hour on higher -volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor -street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100W 80%b 70%` 100%° 80%b 70%` 1 ................. 1................. 750 600 525 75 60 53 2 or more... 1 ................. 900 720 630 75 60 53 2 or more... 2 or more... 900 720 630 100 80 70 1 ................. 2 or more .... 750 600 525 100 80 70 Basic minimum hourly volume. Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures. ` May be usedwhen the major -street speed exceeds 70 km/h (40 mph) or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. Sect. 4C.02 Page 4C-6 Guidance: December 2000 The combination of Conditions A and B should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. Section 4C.03 Warrant 2. Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Support: The Four -Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h (40 mph) or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1. Section 4C.04 Warrant 3. Peak Hour Support: The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of I hour of an average day, the minor -street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. Standard: This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases. Such cases include, but are not limited to, office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. Sect. 4C.02 to 4C.04 December 2000 = 500 0- > = 400 w ¢ d 300 wa cC 0 200 z 100 2 0 Page 4C-7 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume ���■■■WOMEN '115 80 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h (40 mph) ON MAJOR STREET) = 400 o- 2 l_O 300 W W Q F-- a Q 200 OW z0 J > 100 2 2 �2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES .20R MORE LANES&1 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE 80 60 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Sect. 4C.04 December 2000 .11 500 400 W O Q. 300 Co a 1= W z 2 200 > 100 Page 4C-9 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour ■M:.'■■■■■■■■■ aecss_ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ *150 *100 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) `Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h (40 mph) ON MAJOR STREET) I 0- > = 400 HQ Wa 300 F y a. L z 2 200 � O 100 2 IT■■■ • •100 75 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Sect. 4C.05 Page 4C-8 December 2000 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day: 1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor - street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach; or 5 vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach, and 2. The volume on the same minor -street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h (40 mph), or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to satisfy the criteria in the second category of the Standard. Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Support: The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Seel. 4C.04 to 4C.05 Page 4C-10 Standard: December 2000 The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met: A. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or midblock location during an average day is 100 or more for each of any 4 hours or 190 or more during any 1 hour; and B. There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length to allow pedestrians to cross during the same period when the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied. Where there is a divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, the requirement applies separately to each direction of vehicular traffic. The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 m (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and a traffic engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads conforming to requirements set forth in Chapter 4E. Guidance: If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and a traffic engineering study: A. If installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. B. At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic -actuated and should include pedestrian detectors. As a minimum, it should have semiactuated operation, but full -actuated operation with detectors on all approaches might also be appropriate. C. At nonintersection crossings, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian - actuated, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 m (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 m (20 ft) beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. Sect. 4C.05 December 2000 Page 4C-11 Option: The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major roadway may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the average crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 1.2 m/sec (4 ft/sec). A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street, even if the rate of gap occurrence is less than one per minute. Section 4C.06 Warrant 5. School Crossing Support: The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of school children at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the children are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 students during the highest crossing hour. Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade -separated crossing. The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 m (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Guidance: If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and an engineering study: A. If installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Sect. 4C.05 to 4C.06 Page 4C-12 December 2000 B. At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic -actuated and should include pedestrian detectors. As a minimum, it should have semiactuated operation, but full -actuated operation with detectors on all approaches might also be appropriate. C. At nonintersection crossings, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian - actuated, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 m (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 m (20 ft) beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. Section 4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Support: Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning. B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. Guidance: The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 300 m (1,000 It). Section 4C.08 Warrant 7. Crash Experience Support: The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. sect. 4C.06 to 4C.08 December 2000 Standard: Page 4C-13 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met: A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12 -month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Section 4C.09 Warrant 8. Roadway Network Support: Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria: A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5 -year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a nonnormal business day (Saturday or Sunday). Sect. 4C.08 to 4C.09 Page 4C-14 December 2000 A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the following characteristics: A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow; or B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a city; or C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. Sect. 4C.09 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ' M 1 ' :1 . MI Ida' 1 �. . ' L4a,, 1 ...• 1 LEGEND 1UIIW L.. I., 0 FOUND IRON PIN • GET IR6J PA' EXISTING LIOIT POKE EXISTING PD WER POLE PROPOSED POWER POLE 0 EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL • PROPOSED TELEPHONE PEDESTAL pd EXISTING WATER VALVE PROPOSED WATER VALVE KryK.. EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY _'11r PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY 0 EXISTING WATER METER • PROPOSED WATER METER O G o } �rm DEX p EXISTING MANHOLE O PROPOSED µµHOLE 8 .my CLOD COVER SHEET A EXXSIING GAS METER Pm^°`" 3 `1y wn w, PROPDBED GAS METER SITE LOCATION C1.01 SURVEY PLAN t EXISTING GRATED INLET �A�� e n C1.02 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED GRATED INLET ®. C1.03 MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUSTING DROP INLET PROPOSED DROP AILLT > 4 Pry �I M5:1"�` Smell -III " i. =========== EXISTING CURB PROPOSED CURB - - SE - - EXISTING SANITARY 5_'NEN LINE LSPECDY ShE & TYPE) ED PROPOSED SANITARY SE BI LDJE -G- EXISTING GAS LINE PROPOSED GAS LINE - \1- DUSTING WATER LINE (SPECIFY SIZE & TYPE( W PROPOSED WATER LINE - UOT- - DUSTING UNDERGROUND TU HONE UGT PROPOSED UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE -UGE OUSTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UGE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC -UGT TIBER)- EXISTING FIBER OPTIC -UGT IFBERT- PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC - - OHF- EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC ONE-- PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC - -UGT- - BUSTING UNDERGROUND TEUENSION USTV PROPOSED UNDERGROUND TELEYS:ON OHN- - EXISTING OVERHEAD T1ElOSION OHN PROPOSED OVERHEAD TELEVISION - _ . _ EUSTIC WOOD FENCE /7 PROPOSED W000 FENCE ' -- - ---- DUNG BACKE) WIRE FENCE PROPOSED BARBED WIRE FENCE • ---'-- ---- DUSTING CHAIN LINK OR WIRE FENCE 0 PROPOSED CHAIN LINK OR WORE FENCE -- PROPERTY LINE BUILDING SET BACK EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED EASEMENT EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED NIGHT Of WAY C EDWIN GUY EXISTING RERNFORCED CONCRETE PIPE OR CORRUGATED µEFAL PIPE II NEW REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE OR CORRUGATED METAL PIPE • EXISTING MEE ^ ( TREE TO BE REMOVED ENGINEER'S NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CDNSIRUCnUA PRACTICE, TIE CONTRACTOR Wlu BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDnoNs OF THE ADS SURF. INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFOIwµCE OF THE WORK, THIS REOUIBEMENT W61 APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NBC BE LOFTED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS THE DUN OF TICE MONGER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTM$ PBffORNµCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF TICE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETY MEASURES. IN, OR NEAR TIE CONSTRUCTION SITE OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS THIS DOCUM 4T, AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGNS INCDRPORAK1 HERBY, AS AN INSRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL S RVCEi Is THE PROPWN OF CNSTON' TUu ASSOCIATES INC.. ASSOCIATINC. AND Is NOT N BE USED, IN WHOLE OR PART, FOR ANY MOD PROJECT WITHOUT THE NRTIEN YIT C1 IZAT]CN OF CRAFT, FULL & ASSOCIATES, INC VICINITY PLAN 0 SCALE: Y'=1500' GENERAL PROVISIONS AUTHORITY THIS P20 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 15 AUTHORIZED BY SECTIONS 161 AND 156 PLANNED ZONING OSTRICTS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILE UNIFIED DEVTIDPMENT CODE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PRO MASTER IEVELDPMENT PLAN SHALL RUN WILE THE LAND, THE LANDOWNERS, THEIR SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, OR ASSIGNS SHALL BE BOUND BY THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED AND APPROVE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION THE ADOPTION Of THIS Pip MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL EVIDENCE THE FINDINGS AND DECSIDNS OF THE rAYETTENUF CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT FOR (ENKS AT FAYETITVI:LE) IS IN EENERAL CONFORMITY WITH THE FAYETEVLLE GENERAL PLAN 2020; 15 AUTHORIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 161 AND 156 OF THE CITY OP FAYETTENLLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PZD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL PREVAIL AND GOVERN THE DCALOPMENT OF (LINKS AT FAYETTEVILE). PROVIDE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE THE PRONSINS OF THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN DD NOT ADDRESS A PARRCJLAR SUBJECT, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEWLLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED. OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE RESOLUTIONS OR REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF FAYERT6l9LTE, SHALL BE APPUCABIE ENFORCEMENT TO FURTHER THE MUTUAL INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS, OCCUPANTS, AND OWNERS T4 THE Pip MASTER DEVELOPMENT RAN AND OF THE PUBLIC IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLAN, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PLAN RELATING TO THE USE OF LAND, STATEMENT OF COIMMITMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHIIECTRAL STANDARDS. AND THE LOCATION OF COMMON OPEN SPACE SHALL RUN IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF FAYETRVIUE AND SHALE BE ENFORCEABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY BY THE CITY WITHOUT JMITATON ON ANY POWEN OR REGULATION OTHERWISE GRANTED BY LAW. CONCERT WHERE THERE IS MORE IRAN ONE PROVISION WTHIN THE PZD MASTER DEVROPMEN" PLAN THAT COVERS THE SAME SUBECT MATTER, THE PRQVS0N WHICH 15 MOST RESTRICTIVE OR IMPOSES HIGHEST STANDARDS OR REOUIRD1ENTS SHALL GOVERN UNLESS DETERMINED OTHERWISE BY THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ADMIWSTRATOR. MAXIMUM LBLl OF DEVELOPMENT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS OR THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, OR INDUSTRIAL INTENSITY APPROVE FOR DEVELOPMENT WTHIN THE PLANNING AREAS IS THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT REOUESIE FOR PLATTING OR CONSTRUCTION. THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF OWEWNGS DR LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, OR INDUSRIAL PROPERTIES MAY BE LESS DUE TO SUBDMSION OR 9TE IMPROVEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS DR OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT TRACKING Al THE TIME Or SUBD11951ON FINAL PLAT OR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A SJIMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, TO DATE. TO THE PLANNING DIVISION, IN ORDER TO ASSURE MAYJM'JM DEVELOPMENT UNITS ARE NOT EXCEEDED, BOUNDARY DESRCPTION TRACT 3, FINAL PLAT OF W'.H.M. LAND INVESMENTS INC. AN ADDITION TO FAYETTEVILIE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING FILED FOR RECORD 12-19-05 AS PLAT 17-102 BASIS OF BEARINGS ARKANSAS STAFF PLAN COORDINATES, NORTH ZONE BASE ON CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE MONUMENT 01-07, N 545315]430, E 657255 440D, [REV 1253.03 FLOOD CERTIFCATION A PORTION OF IRIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN ROOD ZONE 'A' OR AE" AS DETERMINE BY THE NATIONAL ROOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ROOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS (FIRM PANEL R05143COD91 0 . JULY 21, 1999) OWNER THE LINKS 0 FAYETIEVIIE. A LLMITED PARTNERSHIP 1165 JOYCE BOULEVARD FAYETTEVIILLE, AR 72703 1479) 521-6656 PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE CRAFIDN, TULL SPARKS & ASSOCIATES 10825 FINANCIAL CENTER PARKWAY, SUITE 700 LITRE ROCK, AR 72211 1501)-664-3245 SURVEY DESCRIPTION: A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTOR 6, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANCE 30 WEST, AND A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTON 1, TCWNSHIP 15 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, AND A PART OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND A PART OF THE EAST )HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTON 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST, ALL IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BENG MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 587'42'050 617.60' AND ND3'03'DB"E 10259' FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 AND RUNNING THENCE S87 -0327-E 9341' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE N0240'05"E 1716.05 TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE NO2'40'DO"E 2143.06' TO A FOUND IRON PIN. THENCE N6746'42"W 71535' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER Or THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTOR 7, THENCE NOz27s6"E 46.74' 10 A FOUND IRON PIN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 1, THENCE N865B'50"W 75169' TO THE CENTERLINE OF RUPPLE ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 52020.50-W 4446', 5141034W 65.18', S0916'42`W 44.03', 50640'25"W 54.50', 50516'51W 54.60', SD4'5479"W 5472'. SO4'57'12"W 59.85', 50717'28"W 55.76', 513381DW 5231', S2324'21"W 49,39', 5321804"W 47.75', S3538'ID"W 37.75', S4031'21 W 59.19', S4451'l6"W 60.06', 546'48'24 W 67.32', 5443919W 56,83', S39'09'37W 5503'. 530'55'13-W 56.99', 5245502W 57.82', S229B'I2"W 58.87', SZZ'23'40'W 54,610, S222330 W 58.25', 52321'55W 55.44'. 5272736W 5117', 53139'13"W 5&361 S31 -28'21"W 5748', 52121'38W 54.39', SD92327'W 60.29', S02'47'11W 51.61'. S0155'43 -W 51.38', SO2D8'9.'W 57.15., 50226'03'W 49.97', 502'30'26W 5).03', S02'49'3VW 51,91', S0257'OIW 54.52', SOZ'54'57"W 5246', S0250'56"W 55,16', 502'43'15W 48.89', 502'33'25W 5435', 59231.07-W 51.57', S0225'23W 56.41', 5021943W 50.93', 50227'09W 3871, S0234'15 -W 4403, 5031255W 5216, 502'57'10W 49]8'. SD2'33'54'W51,59', S02'57'20W 63.38', 50310.04-W 52,97', S02- 59.07'W 5235', 50231'09'W 51,19', GROTE I9"W 54.91', 50213'1SW 33.15', SD214'57°W 4948, 502'4249W 4161', 50237'18`W 50,94', S02'4226 -W 49.47', S0218'12'W' 48501 50245'16-W 5285', 50238'45W 5294', 50754'55 W 41.80', 5025455W 350.64', THENCE HEAVING SAID CENTRUNE 58730'27E 629,81' TD A CORNER POST, THENCE 503U9'4`W 7.60' TO A ST IRON PIN, THENCE SB65013E 1088.84'. THENCE S03- 03'06W 434.54', THENCE ALONG END RIGHT-OF-WAY SB7U259"E 209.22' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 15223 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT 10 EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF RECORD. ©2C07 Tull & Associates, Inc. X11 200 100 0 200 NUMBER BEARING DISTANCE LI 521°4654 W 4486' L2 5 14°10'34' W 65.18' _3 S 09°1642' W 4.03' L4 S 06°4025 W 5450' L5 S 05°1851' W 54.60 18 S W°54'39' w 54.72' 17 S 04°57'17 W 59.85' Ili S 071728' V 55.76' I9 S 139810' W 5231' LID S 23'2421' W 49.39' L11 S 3218'04 W 47.75' L12 S 36.361O" W 37.75' L13 S 409121" W 59.19' L14 5 44°5116' W 60.06' 115 S 46°4824' W 67.32' L16 S 44°3919" W 56.83' L17 S 39°0937' W 55.03' 118 S 30°5513' W 66.99' L19 S 245632 W 57.82' 110 S 22'3812' W 5657 121 S 22°2340" W 54.61' 122 S 22'233D W 50.25 1.23 S 23°21'56' W 55.44' L24 S 27'2736" W 5817' 125 5 319913' W 5836' 126 S 31°2821' W 57.48' !2] S 21°2138' W 54.39' L28 S 09°2327' W 60.29' L29 5 02°47'11' W 51.61' 130 5 01°55'43' W 51.38' L31 S 02°0R'41' W 5215' L32 S 02'2603' W 49,97' LB S 02°3026' W 51.03' L34 S 02°493C W 51.91' 1.35 S OZ°57'05' W 5452' 136 S 02°54'57 W 5246' 1.37 S 02°5056' W 5516' 138 S 02°4315' W 48,89' 139 S 02°3325' W 54.35' L40 S 02°3187 W 51.57 L41 S 02°252)' W 56,41' L42 S 021943" W 5093' L43 5 02°27'09' W 3877 144 5 02°3415 w 44.03' L45 S D3°1255' W 5216' L48 S 02°5]'10° W 49.78' L47 S 02°3354' W 51.59' L48 S 02°5720' W 63.38 1.49 S 03°1004' W ,5297 L50 S 02°5967 W 5235' 151 5 D2°3YW' W 51.19' 152 S 02°12'19 W 54.91' 153 S 0213'15' W 33.16' 159 S 0294'9' W 49.48' 155 S D2°4749" W 4&61 155 5 02°3718' W 50.94' i9 5 D2'42'28' W 49,47 1.58 5 02°18'12' W 48.56' 159 S 02°4516' W 5285' L50 S 02°3645' W 5294' 161 502°5455' W 41.80' L62 5 02°5455° W 360.64' I eawv vwv tl M1 /7 "� - SI LOCATION Dp ,uWMP �+\Qyti _ o mmPm in uC. VICINITY PLAN D®� FOB POINT OF BEGINNING Na WATER VALVE o FOUND IRON PIN ' POWER POLE 0 FOUND IRON PIPE 0 ELECTRIC JUNCTION BOX • FOUND SIFT FENCE POST IL TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX o FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT -b- FIRE HYDRANT S FOUND RR SPIRE O WATER METEit o FOUND STONE YF LIGHT POLE A FOUND IRON PIN/FOUND STEEL GUARD POST OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC A FOUND IRON PIPE/FOUND ET. GUARD POST G GAS LINE A SET 1/2' IRDN PIN/SET STEEL GUARD POT 1 1 1 1 RAILROAD TRACK BM BENCHMARK DRAINAGE SWAIE (R) RECORD BEARING AND/DR DISTANCE BASE FLOOD EIEVATSXJ, RY GRAPHIC IMI MEASURED BEARING AND/OR DISTANCE PLOTTING ONLY AS 41ON DN LIMA MAPS, POD POINT OF COMMENCEMENT - UTTItt EASEMENT • SET 1/2' IRON PIN EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS SET MOSTtNUMENT 55- SANITARY SEWER SET COTTON PICKER SPINDLE SURVEY DESCRIPRON A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTIR OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, AND A PART OF THE SOUTHOFOFEAST H LFI OF THE SOUTHEAST SE ➢IONSECIION, 1, TOWNSHIPNDAQUARTEROF 16 NORTH, RANGE1W ST WEST, AND A PART OF OU EAST KALE S, BEEN MORE PA TI QUARTER OF SECTON AS TOWNSHIP 1O Ni RANGE 31 WASP, AU. IN W}IICH WASHINGTON 5COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BONG MORE 2,59 F1 M'T DESCRIBED T FOLLOWS, TO -T: SIA POINT NE NORTHWEST S QU 617.60 SAD SECTIONB7E 1D2R9' FROM ENHE SE S8TO3'2 E 93,4 OF TAE SOUTHWEST ,QUARTERThENCOF N0240'05t ,08' To FOUND UNID RONTPN 7 AND RUNNING THEN 2E 307113 'O A OUND IR A SN, THEN EIN. THENCE 70735' TO 1F UND' ELT A I,LO IRON PIN, THENCE NORTHWEST CORNS 2143-06 TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE N87442'W CHART' TO A SAID S IRON PIN, LOCATE➢ AT THEE 4&74' COROUN OF THE IN. LOCATE OATRTHE OF :HE STUCOHE SOUTERTHEAST OF 5410 QUARTER Z ESOEJCt NO2'2T OUA IEE TO A FOUND IRON PINGS NBEB 'AT5 'HE NOR9' T0Si COMMRNat OF CHE ERLTEEOFi UFFLE R OF THE NCE ANG SAID EA EF SAID ITCTON 1, 'THENCE I1410'34'"W 55869' TO THE 50NRO'LINE 5 50', SiENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 521')2 W 59 44.86', 5142034'5 65,18', 50916'42"531,03, 506'40'25'5 49.30, 5052051W 4475', 5S353II'M5 37.7, SD453112W 59,19, S91826W 60.76' 51338'2 5231, S44'39'2l"W 56.39', 53228b4"W 5573, 5369413'W 56.99, 524562Y'W 59.182, 5S22316"5 65887 54640245 654.61 S22'23'19'W 58.85, 539V9'5TW 55.03', 52735'13'5 sail. S31 39375 57.87. 52234225 5862, 52213'40"W 54.61', S09 -23'27'W 60.29, 50247'11 bW 5544', 0155436"5 5817, 02139'ItW 54.5. 5312'03'5 9.48'. S2121'25W 51,,03', S02 -4914'W 51,,29., 0257'11'W 5462' SO1'5AC57W 51.348 5022150'55' 5555. 550243'15W 49.97, 54,3', 502'3107'W 51,57, S02725'23 W 56.41'', 5025457"5 5243, 022 WIN'VI 55.16, 50243'155 4&03', Si503'1255"5 2,16. 502571L W 478, 50233'54'W 51,59', S02S0257'205 53.3, 50310i04'W 5277, 502 5907 ' 42.3'' 50322555 5219, 50312 19"W 49,78', 02133'54 W 3,5', C214''2'IY 6338, 5032004"5 52.07', 052759STW 0.94', O242'269W 9,47,,, 5021829"W 45.51', S02 45I6P%3)5W 33.15'' S 0238'45' 452,94 5S042'455 e41.80 5502371555 53.946 ', T42CE"' 49.47, SAENT'' LINE1, S7374516W 981' A CORNER P29,, THENCE 5035 '47'5, .605T'O 36 0,64', PIN, HENCE NCE\6NG SAID 86' CENTERLINE 84', HENCE 629.81' 1' A CORN POSE ALONGE ARHTTO A SET IRO2PIN TTTHE13t SAID TO PONT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 15223 ACRES MORE OR 1E55. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS /JJp RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF RECORp, R000 CERRFCATION' A PORTION OF This PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN FLOOD ZONE "A" OR "AE" AS DETERMINED BY THE NATIONAL ROOD INSURANCE PROGRAM R000 INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS (FIRM PANEL 0005143COD91 D . JULY 21, 1999] _I III ll I - I � I RUPPLE ROAD III � , , na_. / A - 1 tea\ A H; '2 J .°� / r b. / / Ai , / V A r L J _i A��TTJn !. 9��. l s y i _/--_ / -V / - _.. / \ ., - c i m � �- ,f 15..13 CRE5� , /: J II - - --__ / m / c" i ry - _- - .- -_ ' iiii \ � �/\ � \\` 1 / „-' \-- � Vii'' '�� \ '� ♦` -'/ ''�'� a 1 '� III I 1 �I li Ili i 1 I I i I li 1._ 1 I I 2007 S Crafon, Tull & Associates, Inc. PLANNING AREA I - MARKET DISTRICT THE MARKET AREA 15 DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE THE NNCTONAL GROUPING OF THESE COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL m m ® ® _ ® ■ / ` 0 ® U 0 ® i 0 ® I® ENTERPRISES CATERING TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA BANKS AND RESTAURANTS WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN EASY WAU(ING DISTANCE OF THE RESIDENTS NOT ONLY OF ME UNKS 0 FAYETTENUS. BUT ALSO VATHIN WAITING OR SHORT COMMUTE DISTANCE FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA THIS AREA IS STRATEQCAUY POSTPONED ALONG ME ARTERIAL CORRIDOR OF WEDDINGTON ROAD AND RUPPLE ROAD, SO THIS IT MAY PROVIDE WSIBILITY AND ACCESSIBNTY TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. ADDITIONALLY. THERE MLL BE UNITED ACCESS TO WEDDINGTON ROAD AND RUPPLE ROAD. (A) PERMITTED USES UNIT 1 CITY RED USE UNIT 5 GOVERNMENT FACIURES UNIT 12 OFFICES STUDIOS AND RELATED SERVICES UNIT 13 EATING PLANES UNIT 15 NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING GOODS UNIT 16 SHOPPING GOODS UNIT 19 COMMERCIAL RECREATION, SMALL SITES UNIT 25 PROFESSIONAL OFFEES (B) CONDITIONAL USES UNIT 2 CITY WADE USES BY CONDITIONAL JOE PERMIT UNIT 14 HOTEL MOTEL AND AMUSEMENT FACTURES UNIT 17 TRADES AND SERVICES UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATION UNIT 34 UDUDR STORE UNIT 35 OUTDOOR MUSIC E5TABUSHMENT (C) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND NON-RESIDENTUL INTRJSTY PLANNING AREA ACREAGE 7.82 ACRES NUMBER OF DWELLED UNITS NONE NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET: 78,200 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: NA NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY (SQUARE FEET/ACRE): 10,000 BULK AND AREA REGULAT.DNS (D) MIN LOT MDR NONE (E) MW LOT AREA NONE Cr) LAND AREA PER DItJJNG UNIT: NA (G) MIN FRONT SETBA ( 20 FEET MAIN SIDE SETBACK 10 FEET MIN REAR SETBACK 20 FEET (H) ME MAX,'MUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE 50 FEET. (I) ON ANY LOT, THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 6O% OF ME TOTAL AREA OF SUCH LOT. SHE PLANNING (J) LANDSCAPING - II ACCORDANCE TO ME EAYEFTEMLLE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (N) PARKING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (L) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WM ME ATTACHED BUILDING ELEVATIONS THAT FOLLOW THIS PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION. THEY SHALL ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH ME DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS AS IDENTWED ON PAGE 6 OF THE PAR BOOKLET. ALL BUILDINGS ARE TO BE 70% BRICK/MASONRY. (M) SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE PLANNING AREA II - CLUBHOUSE THE CLUBHOUSE IS PLANNED TO BE A MULTIPURPOSE AREA WHOSE PERMITTED USES INCLUDE CULTURAL AND RECREADONAL FACIUTES, OFECES, GOLF PRO SHOP, TANNING BEDS, BUSINESS CENTER, HOT NB AND MANAGEMENT UMNG QUARTERS. THE CLUBHOUSE IS FOR ME USE OF THE PROJECTS TENANTS AND PAY FOR PLAY" GOLF, PLANNED OCCUPANTS INCLUDE ME OFFICE DE ME UNKS M FAYETTEVILLL OFFICES AS APPROPRIATE FOR A CLUBHOUSE, AND STORAGE FOR RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT. (A) PERMITTED USES UNIT 1 CITY WOE USES UNIT 4 CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY UNIT 5 GOVERNMENT FACILITIES UNIT 12 OFFICES, STUDIOS AND RELATED SRVCES UNIT 13 EATING PLACES UNIT 15 NEIGHBDRHDOD ShOPPING GOODS UNIT 19 COMMERCIAL RECREATION, SMALL SUES UNIT 20 COMMERCIAL RECREATION, ARM SITES UNIT 26 MULTI -FAMILY DWELNGS (B) CONDITIONAL USES UNIT 2 CITY-WDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL INTQNeTY PLANNING AREA ACREAGE 5.17 ACRES NUMBER OF DWCLNG UNITS 1 NON-RESIDNIAL SQUARE FELT: 16386 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. 619 UNITS/ACRE NON-RESIDENTA. INTENSITY (SQUARE FEEL/ACRE): 3170 DUPE AND AREA REGULATIONS (D) MIN LOT WIDTH NONE (E) WAIN LOT AREA NONE (F) LAND AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: 195.000 SO FT (G) WAIN FRONT SETBACK NONE WAIN SIDE SETBACK NONE MIN REAR SETBACK NONE (H) THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEGHT SHALL BE 40 FEET (I) ON ANY LOT, ME AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE TOTAL AREA OF SUCH LOT. SITE PANNING (J) LANDSCAPING - IN ACCORDANCE TO THE FAYE:TEl911E LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (K) PARKING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (L) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WEN THE ATTACHED BUILDING EZVATIONS THAT FOLLOW THIS PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION. THEY SHALL ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS AS IDEPEED ON PAGE 6 OF ME PZD BOOKLET, ALL BUILDINGS ARE TO BE 60% BRICK/MASONRY. (M) SIGNAGE SWML BE IN ACCORDANCE WM ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE PLANNING AREA III - MULTI-FAMILY/GOLF COURSE AREA PLANNING AREA IV 15 ME LARGEST OF ME PLANNING AREAS BECAUSE IT INCLUDES THE GOLF COURSE ME RESIDENTIAL AREA IS DESIGNED FOR MODERATE DENSITY DEVELOPMENT MAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA THERE ME SEVERAL STYLES OF BUILDINGS AVAILABLE INCLUDING THE MIXED USE BUILDING LOCATED IN ME 'TOWN CENTER (3 STORY), ME CLASSIC (2 STORY), THE CUSTOM (2 -STORY), AND THE CHURCHILL THERE WILL ALSO BE RECREATIONAL AC➢WIY AREAS LOCATED THROUGHOUT, ME RECREATIONAL AREA IS TO INCLUDE ME GOLF COURSE, PLAY GROUNDS, LAKES, SIDEWALKS, AND TREE PRESRVATUI AREAS. ME FRONF FASADE OF EACH BUILDING THAT FRONTS A PUBLIC STREET SHALL BE BUILT WHIN A BUILD -TO ZONE THAT IS LOCATED BETWEEN A UNE 10 FEET AND 25 FEET ROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE THAT LEADS TO ME TOWN CENTER APPRDXIMATELY 2 ADDITIONAL CLUBHOUSES W,M OFFICE FACILITIES TO SERVE ME RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WI!. BE POSITIONED NEAR THE CENTER OF ME SITE AND NEAR ME NORM END OF ME SIZE THESE ADDITIONAL CLUBHOUSES WILL BE LOCATED WiEIN ONE OF ME STRUCTURES PROPOSED ON ME SITE PLAN OR AN ADDITIONAL CLUBHOUSE BUILDING ADDED. (A) PERMITTED USES UNIT 1 CITY WADE USES BY RIGHT UNIT 12 SEEMS STUDIOS AND RELATED SERVICES (CLUBHOUSE ONLY) UNIT 19 COMMERCIAL RECREATION. SMALL SITES UNIT 20 COMMERCIAL RECREATION, LARGE SITS UNIT 26 MULTI -FAMILY DWEWNGS (B) CDNDITIONA USES UNIT 2 CITY-WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATONS UNIT 25 PROFESSIONAL OFFICES (C) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY RAINING AREA ACREAGE: 76.66 ACRES NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: I DDO NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET: NA RESDEN➢AL DENSITY: 13 UNITS/ACRE NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY (SQUARE FEET/ACRE): NA BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS (D) MIN LOT WIDTH • MULTI -FAMILY DWELLNG 607 (E) MIN LOT AREA • MULTI -FAMILY 4500 SQ R (F) LAND AREA PER DWBLNG UNIT: 200D SO 7 BUILDINGS THAT PACE A PUBLIC STREET SHALL HAVE A BUILD -TO -ZONE THAT 15 10-25' FORM THE RIGHT -BF -WAY. ALL REMAINING BUILDINGS WILL BE AS FOLLOWS (G) IAN FRONT SETBACK 10 FEET MIN SIDE SNACK NONE MIN REAR SETBACK NONE (H) ME MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE 40 FEET (I) ON ANY LOT, THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 60% OF THE TOTAL AREA OF SUCH LOT, SITE PLANNING (J) LANDSCAPING - IN ACCORDANCE TO ME FAYETTEVIUF LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (K) PARKING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (L) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED BUILDING ELEVATIONS PAT FOLLOW THIS PLANNING AREA DESCRIP➢DNA THEY SHALL ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS AS IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 6 OF ME PZD BOOKLET. ALL BUILDINGS ARE TO BE 50% BRICI(/MASONRY. (M) SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WM ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE PLANNING AREA IV - TOWN CENTER/MIRE➢ USE THE TOM CENTER IS POSITIONED IN THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT, SO THAT IT BECOMES A DESTINATION SPOT FOR THE COMMUNITY AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS THE AREA CAN HOST A MYRIAD OF OCCUPANTS AND OFFERS A SUGHTLY MORE URBAN FEEL. WITH THE OPTION OF 1 AND 2 BEDROOM SPACES OVER SMALL RETAIL LOCAL SERVICE AND CULTURAL BUSINESSES. ME PROFESSIONAL UMNG AREA WILL HAVE PERMITTED USES THAT INCLUDE CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES GOVERNMENT FACIUTIES, SINGLE FAMILY, TWO FAMILY, THREE FAMILY, MULTI -FANCY DWELLINGS OFFICE STUDIOS AND RELATED SERVICES, HOME OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, IT 15 ME INTENTION OF TIE DESIGN OF THIS AREA TO OFFER UNIQUE HIGH OUAUTY CULTURAL GOODS AND SERVICES WHILE PROVIDING ATTACHED RESIDENCES THIS AREA REQUIRES A REDUCED SMACK TO CREATE THE URBAN STYLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN INTENDED FOR THE SIZE (A) PERMITTED USSR UNIT 1 CCTV WOE USES UNIT 4 CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL FACULTY UNIT 5 GOVERNMENT FACIUTES UNIT 12 OFFICES, STUDIOS AND RELATED SERVICES UNIT 13 EATING PLACES UNIT 15 NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING GOODS UNIT 16 SHOPPING GOODS UNIT 19 COMMERCIAL RECREATION, SMALL SITES UNIT 25 PROFESSIONAL OFFICES UNIT 26 MULT-FAMILY DWEIDNGS (B) CONDITIONAL USES UNIT 2 CITY WADE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNIT 14 HOTEL, MOTEL, AND AMUSEMENT FACURES UNIT 17 TRADES AND SERVICES UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATION UNIT 34 UQUOR STORE UNIT 35 OUTDOOR MUSIC ESTABU59MENT (C) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY PLANING AREA ACREAGE 3.04 ACRES NUMBER OF DWEILNG UNITS: LOS NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET: 26300 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: 36 UNITS/ACRE NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY (SQUARE FEET/ACRE) 8551 BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS (D) MIN LOT WIDTH NONE (E) MIN LOT AREA NONE (F) LAUD AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: 1700 50 FT (G) MIN FRONT SETBACK NONE MIN SIDE SETBACK NONE MIN REAR SETBACK NONE (H) BUILDINGS ARE TO BE 3 STORIES WITH A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 50 FEET, AUXILIARY BUILDINGS SUCH AS GAZEBOS WILL BE PERMITTED. (I) ON ANY LOT, THE AREA OCCUPIED BY ALL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED 60% OF ME TOTAL AREA OF SUCH LOT. SITE PLANNING (J) LANDSCAPING - IN ACCORDANCE TO ME FAYETTEVLLE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (K) PARKING TILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (L) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS SHAM BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED BUILDING ELEVATIONS MAT FOLLOW THIS PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION. THEY SHALL ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS AS IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 5 OF THE PZD BOOKLET ALL BUILDINGS ARE TO BE 70% BRICK/MASONRY (M) SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE Will ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE PLANNING AREA V - PUBLIC PARK PE PURPOSE OF ME PARKLAND DEDICATION AREA AND ME TREE PRESERVATION AREAS IS TO ENCOURAGE A SENSE OF COMMUNITY THROUGH USE OF NATURAL AREAS ALLOWING SPAT FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION. OPEN SPACES, PRESERVES TREE SPACE AND WALKING MAIL COMBINE TO FORM A PLEASANT. NATURAL SETTING INTERMINGLED WITH THE MORE URBAN SPACES IN THE UNKS AN FAYEITEVILLE, THESE AREAS WILL ALSO SERVE AS A WIDE BUFFER AREA BETWEEN THE UNKS FAYETEVILLE AND NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENTS TO ME EAST AND NORTH. (A) PERMITTED USES UNIT I CTY WOE USES (B) CONDITIONAL USES UNT 4 CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL FACIUDES (C) RESCENTAL DENSITY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY PLANKING AREA ACREAGE 17.32 ACRES NUMBER OF OWELUNG UNITS: NA NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET: NA RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: NA NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY (SQUARE FEET/ACRE). NA BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES PROPOSED FOR THIS PLANNING AREA SITE PLANNING (J) LANDSCAPING -IN ACCORDANCE TD ME FAYETTEMLEE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (I) PARKING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (L) NO BUILDINGS PROPOSED (M) SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT COD PLANNING AREA V PARKWAY TOWN HOMES ME PARI(W'AY TOWN HOMES WILL PROMDE AN ELEMENT Of PROPERTY OWNERSHIP TO ME OVERALL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT. ME PARKWAY TOWN HOMES ARE STRATEGICALLY POSITIONED BETWEEN ME PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY USES AND THE SINGLE FAMILY USES TO ME WEST. ME TOWN HOMES ARE PLANNED TO INCLUDE TWO-STORY TRADITIONAL TOWN HOME DWELLINGS WITH BED -ROOMS UPSTAIRS AND LONG AREAS DOWN STAIRS THE PARKWAY TOWN HOMES ARE BUILT ADJOINING EACH DER BUT ARE SOLD SEPARATELY. (A) PERMITTED USES UNIT 1 CITY WIDE USES UNIT 9 TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS UNIT 10 THREE FAMILY DWELLNGS UNIT 25 MULTI FAMILY DWEWNGS (B) C09DITDNAL USES UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATION (C) RESIDENTIAL DENOTE AND NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY PLANNING AREA ACREAGE 5 28 ACRES NUMBER OF DWE'WNG UNITS: 75 NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET: N/A RESIDENTIAL DENSi1Y: 15 UNITS/ACRE NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY (SQUARE FEET/ACRE): NA BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS (D) MIN LOT WIDM 16 (F) WAIN LOT AREA 500 50 FT (F) LAND AREA PER DWEWNG UNIT: 2000 SO FT (G) FACING ON TO RUPPLE ROAD MIN FRONT SETBACK 10 FT MIN SIDE SETBACK NONE WAIN REAR SETBACK NONE (H) BUILDINGS ARE TO BE 2 STORIES WE A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 (I) ME PROPOSED TOWN HOMES WILL EITHER BE SOLD HAS A HORIZONTAL PROPERTY REGIME OR LOTS WILL BE CREATED OVER THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, IN WHICH CASE 100% OF THE LOT WILL BE OCCUPIED BY THE BUILDING. SITE PLANNING (U) LMIDSCNTING - IN ACCORDANCE TO THE FAYETTVLE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (K) PARKING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WIN ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (L) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED BUILDING ELEVATIONS THAT FOLLOW THIS PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION, HEY SHALL ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS AS IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 6 OF ME PID BOOKLET. ALL BUILDINGS ARE TO BE 70% BRICK/MASONRY (M) SIGNAL{ SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WM ME UNI9ED DEVELOPMENT CODE PLANNING AREA NI SINGLE FAMILY/GOLF COURSE THE SNGLE FAMILY HOMES WILL PROVDE A LOWER DENSITY AS YOU CONTINUE TO TP,ANSTON FROM THE CORE TOWN CENTER OUT TO THE EDGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT THE SINCE FAMILY HOMES WILL PROVIDE AN AFFORDABLE DETACHED HOUSING COMPONENT TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT (A) PERMITTED U55 UNIT T CITY WIDE USES UNIT B SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (B) CONDITIONAL USES UNIT 9 TWO FAMILY DWN311NGS UNIT 24 HOME OCCUPATION (C) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY PLANNING AREA ACREAGE 34.94 ACRES NUMBER OF CIRCLES UNITS 74 NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET: N/A RESDENTIAL DENSITY 3 UNITS/ACRE NON-RESIDENTIAL INTENSITY (SQUARE FEET/ACRE): NA BULK AND AREA REGULATIONS (D) [ON LOT WIDTH 35 (E) MIN LOT AREA 2500 SO 7 (F) LAND AREA PER DWEWNG UNIT: 2500 SO FT (G) MIN FRONT SETBACK 10 FT MIN SIDE SETBACK NONE MIN REAR SETBACK NONE (H) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 (I) BUILDING AREA - SHALL NOT EXCEED 90% SITE PLANNING (J) LANDSCAPING - IN ACCORDANCE TO ME FAYETTENLLE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (K) PARKING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WM ME UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (L) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE VIM THE ATTACHED BJILDING ELEVATORS THAT FOLLOW MIS PLANNING AREA DESORPTION, THEY SHALL ALSO BE CONSISTENT WTI THE DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS AS IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 6 OF THE PID BOOKLET. ALL BUILDINGS ARE TO BE 60% BRICK/MASONRY (M) SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ME UIFED DEVELOPMENT CODE PLANNING AREA IV - TOWN CENTER I MIXED USE PLANNING AREA VI PARKWAY TOWNHOMES PLANNING AREA I MARKET DISTRICT SURVEY DESCRIPTION: A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTET OF ME SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 16 NORM, RANGE 3D WEST. AND A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF ME SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 31 WEST. AND A PART OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 16 NORM, RANGE 3C WEST, AND A PART OF ME EAST HALF OF ME NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 16 NORM, RANGE 3T WEST, ALL IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 587'42'05E 617.60' AND NO3D3DB"E 102.59' FROM ME SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ME SOUTHWEST D'JARTER OF ME NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 AND RUNNING THENCE SB7'03'2YE 83.41' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE NO2'4O'05'E 1716.06' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE NO2'40'OD'E 2143.06' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE 11874542W 715.35' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, LOCATED AT ME NORTHWEST CORNER OF ME SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF ME SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, THENCE N0227'56E 46.74' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, LOCATED AT ME NORTHEAST CORNER OF ME SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF ME SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 1, HENCE N8656'50W 751 69' TO THE CENTERLINE OF RUPPLE ROAD, PENCE ALONG SAID CENTERUNE 5202050'00 44.45', S14'N'34'W 65.18', 50916'42W 44.03', 506'40'25"W 5450'. S0518'51W 54.60', 504'54'39W 5472, 50457'1700 59.85', 507172800 55.76', 51338'10W 5231', 52724'21'W 49.39', S3218 DIFW 47.75', 53638'10W 37,75', S4031'21W 59,19', 5445116W 60,06'. 546'48'24W 67.32', 5443919W 56,83', S39'09'37°W 55.03'. 53055'13W 65.99', 524'56'32W 57.82, 522'36'12W 5B.87', 5222340W 54.61'. S222330W 5825', 52321'56W 55.44', S2T273GW 5817, 53139'13W 58361 5312821W 57.48', S2121'38'W 54.39', SO923'2YVl 60.29'. 502'47'11'W 51.61', W1'55'43'W 51.38', 5020841W 57,15', 5022603W 49.97', S02'3D'26W 51,03', 50249'34'00 51.91', 5029'05W 54,52', 50254'5TW 52.45', 5025056W 55.16', 502'43'15W 4889', 50233'25'W 54.35', S0231'07W 51,57', 502'25'23W 55.41', SD219'43'W 50,93', 502'2700W 36.77', 50234'I5W 4,.03', 50312'5500 5216', SO257'10'W 49.7B', S0233'54W 51,59', 502'5720W 63.38', 50310'04W 5297', 5025901W 52.35', SOZ'31'09"W 51,19', SD31219W 54,91', 5021315W 33.15', 50214'57W 49.48', S0242''L9"W 48,61', 502'37'1800 5094'. 502'42'26W 49,47', 5O2'B'12"W 48.56', S02'45'1 VW 5285, SG238'45'W 5294', 502'54'55`00 41.80', 502'5455"W 360.64'. THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE 58730'27E 629.81' TO A CORNER POST, THENCE 503D9'47W 7.60' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE Si 108884', FENCE 5O3103'O8"W 434.54', PENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY SB7'02'59"E 209.22' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 15223 ACRES GORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF RECORD. ___rt—__ .wc.om .•w"o., v'uw wem LP1TrPEOTIER PLL➢MISVC WtI IEET 'W10 PA(RALL L PAI"tl3IHQ PLANNING AREA VII SINGLE FAMILY I GOLF COURSE INTERIOR IMUMILIC 27REET VW/ 'AIRALLIBL PARLilWfiQNB LRUPPLE GRAD IGAPIRIDYCPiAlUR19T'� 2007 ® Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. PLANNING AREA V PUBLIC PARK PLANNING AREA II CLUBHOUSE I I'. I I I 1 I II I I I I I I - Ii I I I I I I ,I I I I I I II of 01 I C cI 01 zl DI I �I I of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I L))] III ' I I ml ;I ul I N 4 ,y1 PLANNING AREA I —t I Ij MARKETDISTRICT I I I I ss rr I I I, o o I �h I Ifq ) I 1 N 45 4] 49 50 51 �ey31ED � � � � VAA ouaau'.c=nl - cus F W smerz uaejr,L t � � �1 4sroer esmoxln - � - �_ - - : ,j, a It≤ cLscaus,won V A 1 _ '. i � r � M a v LIISSILnE.A£ti ti � IM%%FFUJSE f � i \ W 1111111 IJ ' 11 �� Ai' r JI lE Ilfl fl N, 111, II II I pIANNING AREAIV INLII 111 411' "I';II DU 4 sywrnldcwu � b n s onvmRlRcxw ';; I•. 'flflT I 111 1 I - WN o cJssl W`; LVsslcoEoxE .yusslsss. i vx � TOWN classmn .u(E ...,w. 1 11, 1A CENTER 4 H 1 ,r PUBIC SREET w"�' AA cosronosRJ%Elu cuslonmaukEnl fs) Iy,SSIcO`1 1 M.KEp JEE F.15i0MOv,11 tit L16S91 pg/aE EUSSIGO6 uA3: \ -rass I - . J Poauc sue? 4 ET�f I I I III III I i'I L�ThTT1T o < y7am'vncRd° V A I I 1 1 P e � '— cusouoanvsru acxlu. cu�se`-I'xm &v g O r¢Jlvms^c uavoauetvsrn c Aaq- 1 I,II�I Iilll 1 ' ll g �,0 Td 4am 71EEERESER'JKiON 4 SIJro" �J5idA e¢1 .111 S Ai Z4 ,v EPEE PREiERYAIDN snA90L Lt,NO USE RE_IDENTI l' Av DENSI UNIS / ACRE RE61J:N9Al NON-RESIDENTIAL ULI15 ;6T_NBItt 150. FT /ACRE) IiDN-gE5:DENlAL SQUARE FEE ACRES 9. Or S L N GC / J T X '3 t ^" JL LL / Jc. ODIr CDLPSE ' lv/t e HOE 9J.r D R4 7556 51 6]T. Sr/GL SING,£ FAAIIL/ 3 .., 74 I•/A 9 Dlf 003 3454 22 949. COURSE op JE.,I,.ATED PARKS D 0 C 7,32 11 CH CUB HOUSE D,9 ,, 3, C a 53_ 6 T 3 40Z IV J- MIXED USE 3E 'D6 B,55 25.300 304 2 D04. C COIIMi RCAL N/A I•/A ,0,090 ]6,20," 7,82 T.H TOWN HOMES 5 75 I 4/A N/A 526 34]2 -07AL B,26 256 J ]94 120.555 522} 100.00 gPli LFf $r.t •e - a .4- R4 ,- R'Tf RSFJ R !� Y i= z „= , ; ^ SITE .LOCATION /, m :v ao Y � INZD l>dum• � gym.] ��� S, 31� t4 INZe nT �'• ^ L 5 I y .r_ r�-mft syIeer]iil 4I L / F r� Lam' ve � r — Pa' 1 on L ar nT_. nw /' JJ � y I 7 i --r l amn TIN {vyu Sl Ell l' f[ ZONING MAP SCALE'. 1-=1500' «i 1749 17J - PLANNING AREA V PUBLIC PARK L4) -� %" SITE LOCATION. fiT �I wn� "6 rn EAA` a au>me j4 k .w LJ �� Its•. a �/��yc� nz C`�, 1 7i� 1 /F b s1 V! LJ mn I P 3 � I � p vv J $ J F �T l R [.y i ll 0 P / t a c e I 1 " iIr en r J.. ;._41'' 5__EI I' .4_ RJ Ili : PLAT PAGE MAP SCAI£. 1"=1500' 1295 PROPOSET5 TRAIL .no„ 1 o t�.. f. • j: 1 a SITE LOCATION _ 9 C I,,Y a 44N4 t C ,w L� aI s _ JLJ 4y [iIPP YLJ. w. I 6 l S Y T �j2}yj9 .9v -• ' '"yI III`\. " MASTER STREET PLAN D 66 \LANNJNG AREA VII SINGLE FAMILY TREE PRESERVATION AREA 14 13 12 ER E J ,, PP.ESAREA'IDN • AREA T ��7jJ% TREE PRESERVATION r '0D 50 0 100 2007 W Grafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. THE LINKS ® FAYETTEVILLE FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN A 5'TE Op ARKANSAS Crafton, Tull Sparks r" & Associates, Inc. s♦ 10825 F* AR Aenle' Pa:In+Jy SL e 300 REGISTERED 501 R4c445 runD'66 )RO�CCIOTIAI o sot 64 3245 rAx.5J'oo4ur04 ,.nn�cononluri. u,m Ci ONAL Engineers & Surveyors .9407 DRAWN: DATE: SHEET NO. MAC R JlTN0, C 1 03 16 (0 "7 CHECKED: OROJFCT NO.: D, ^68O"5- u '