Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout113-85 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION ND. 113-85 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CIFRK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH CRAFPON, TULL, SPANN & YOE, INC., FOR PRELIMINARY ROUTE SELECTION FOR A STREET TO CONNECT ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 265 BETWEEN ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 45 AND ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 16 TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF FAYETTEVILLE. • BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BDARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYET EVIL E, ARKANSAS: That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement for engineering services with Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe, Inc., for preliminary route selection for a street to connect Arkansas Highway 265 between Arkansas Highway 45 and Arkansas Highway 16 to the downtown area of Fayetteville. A copy of the agreement authorized for execution hereby is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this 15th day of October , 1985. • • AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 'STREET IMPROVEMENTS THI AGREEMENT, made and entered into this Y yAL day of 1985,by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereinafter referred to as the "Owner", and Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe, Inc., Consulting Engineers of Rogers, Arkansas, hereinafter referred to as the "Engineer", WITNESSETH THAT: WHEREAS, the Owner is in need of a preliminary route selection for a street to connect Highway 265 - between Highway 45 and Highway 16 - to the downtown area of Fayetteville; and WHEREAS, the Engineer has sufficient experienced personnel and equipment to perform the work described in this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Owner and the Engineer, the parties hereto, stipu- late and agree that the Owner does hereby employ the Engineer to perform the required engineering services as hereinafter set out; and the Engineer agrees to provide said services. Section 1. Description of Project The work contained in this contract shall include the selection of a preliminary route or routes, associated soil testing and surveying required to allow recommendations regarding widths of necessary rights-of- way and pavement, types of materials, required drainage structures, easements and projected grades of the roadway surfaces. Section 2. Engineering Services A. Surveys Survey work by the Engineer will consist of establishing ground control for a photogrametric flying service in order to produce an accurate photographic map to be used for public meetings with Committees, Boards and Commissions. Additional field surveys will be necessary to properly locate soils investigation areas and major utility locations. In some critical areas, surveys may be necessary to locate property corners and boundaries. B. Soils Testing Sufficient soil samples will be obtained at locations along each alternate route in order to properly classify the representative soils. Laboratory tests will be run to determine soil types and plastic index. Depths to solid rock will be recorded and used in analyzing cbnstruction cost estimates. C. Planning and Design Based upon the existing contour map of the City of Fayetteville, drawn at a scale of one inch equals two hundred .feet, with five foot contour intervals, and based upon current photographic maps to be produced for this project and other information as is necessary, the Engineer shall determine the feasibility of building a street in this area. Should such construction be determined to be feasible, at least two alternate routes will be examined and preliminary plans prepared by the Engineer. The preliminary plans will include grades, dations, and alignment of each route, type drainage calculations and structure sizes, ments, major utility locations, property estimates. D. Public Meetings street width recommen- of improvements, storm right-of-way require - ownerships, and cost The Engineer shall be prepared to present the preliminary route selection plans to a number of public bodies and Committees, including but not limited to, the Fayetteville Planning Commis- sion, the Fayetteville -Springdale Transportation Advisory Commit- tee, the Board Street Committee and the City Board of Directors. The Engineer's presentation shall include sufficient visual aids or graphics to adequately portray the selected routes and shall include the technical advantages and disadvantages of each route, as well as an assessment of the impact that the connection of each route to existing streets will have on the surrounding neighbor- hood. Following the selection by the City Board of the final route, the Engineer shall stake the centerline and prepare a legal descrip- tion of the right-of-way. Section 3. Schedule Because of the need for photogrammetry work to obtain up-to-date topographical information, parts of the engineering work cannot be completed until after the leaves fall, about the middle of November. 2 Y The Engineer agrees to complete all work necessary for public review before Boards and Commissions by January 15, 1986. Section 4. Compensation Compensation for the services to be provided under this Contract shall be made as follows: The Owner agrees to pay the Engineer a fixed fee of $13,950.00 for work performed under this Contract. o This fee shall be full compensation for all surveys, photogrametry, soils investigations, planning and design, abstract work, presenta- tions, materials, travel, supplies and incidentals. The Owner shall make partial payments to the Engineer on a monthly basis for work performed by the Engineer at the standard hourly rates of the Engineer. Ten percent of the payment shall be retained by the Owner until the Engineer has completed the work contained in this agreement. Section 5. General Considerations A. Termination of Contract for Cause If, through any cause, the Engineer shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner his obligations under this contract, or if the Engineer shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the Owner shall thereupon have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice to the Engineer of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least five days before the effective date of such • termination. In such event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, and reports prepared by the Engineer under this contract shall, at the option of the Owner become its property, and the Engineer shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation under this contract for any satisfactory work completed on such documents. Notwithstanding the above, the Engineer, shall not be relieved of liability to the Owner for damages sustained by the Owner by virtue of any breach ofthe contract by the Engineer, and the Owner may withhold any payments to the Engineer for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the Owner from the Engineer is determined. B. Termination for Convenience of Owner The Owner may terminate this contract any time by a notice in writing from the Owner to the Engineer. If the contract is 3 ] r • terminated by the Owner as provided herein, the Engineer will receive just and equitable compensation under this contract. C. Changes The Owner may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of the services of the Engineer to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the Engineer's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the Owner and the Engineer, shall be incorporated in further written amendments to this contract. D . Personnel 1. The Engineer represents that he has, or will secure at his own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. Such personnel shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with the Owner. 2. All the services required hereunder will be performed by the Engineer or under his supervision and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such services. 3. No person who is serving sentence in a penal or correctional institution shall be employed on work under this contract. E . Compliance with Local Laws The Engineer shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, and codes of the state and local governments and shall commit no trespass on any public or private property in performing any of the work embraced by this contract. Assignability The Engineer shall not assign any interest in this contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation) without the prior written approval of the Owner; provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due the Engineer from the Owner under this contract may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution, or to a trustee in bankruptcy, without such approval. Notice of any such assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the Owner. G . Access to Records The Owner, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Comptroller General, of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers and records of the Engineer doing work under this contract which are directly pertinent to a specific grant 4 me program for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. H . Estimates Since Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials or equipment, or over the methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, the estimates of costs provided are to be made on the basis of Engineer's experience and qualifications and represent his best judgment, being familiar with the industry, but Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that established costs will not vary from estimates prepared. I. Insurance Engineer shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect him from claims under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death or property damage which may arise from the performance of his services under this contract. J . Successors and Assigns Each party of this contract binds himself and his partners, successors, executors, administrators and assigns to the other party of this contract in respect to all covenants of this contract. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this contract without the written consent of the other. Section 6. Equal Opportunity Provisions During the performance of this contract, the Engineer agrees as follows. A. The Engineer will not discriminate against any employee of applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Engineer will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion; sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demo- tion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Engineer agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Contract- ing Officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. B . The Engineer will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Engineer state that all 5 r • • qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Section 7. Conflict of Interest A. Interest of Owner No officer, employee, or agent of the Owner who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval or in connection with the carrying out of the project to which this contract pertains shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this contract. B . Interest of Certain Federal Officials No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States, and no Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or to any benefit to arise herefrom. C. Interest of Engineer The Engineer covenants that he presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the above described project area or any parcels therein or any other interest which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of his services hereunder. The Engineer further covenants that in the performance of this contract, no person having any such interest shall be employed. Section 8. Other Provisions In connection with the project, the Owner shall: Give thorough consideration to all documents presented by the Engineer and inform the Engineer of all decisions within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Engineer. B . Make provisions for the employees of the Engineer to enter public and private lands as required for the Engineer to perform neces- sary preliminary surveys and investigations. C. Furnish the Engineer such plans and records of construction and operationof existing facilities, or copies of same, bearing on the proposed work as may be in the possession of the Owner. Such documents or data will be returned to the Owner upon completion of the work or upon the request of the Owner. D . Pay all costs of advertising in connection with the project. • •e All plans and specifications prepared by the Engineer under this contract shall become the property of the City and may be used by the City for construction purposes upon payment of the consideration due the Engineer hereunder for preparation of said plans and specifications. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their partners, heirs, successors, administrators and assigns; and neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this agreement without the prior written consent of the other party hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner has caused these presents to be executed in its behalf by its duly authorized representatives, and the said Engineer by its duly authorized representatives, and the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date heretofore set out. Attest: Attest: / V , Lemuel H. Tull, Sec./Treasurer CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS rJ Paul R. Nola"d, Mayor ---at' Bob H. Crafton, Presid 1: 1 L L L L oute Selection And Preliminary Design CA°'et2 C py L k+ Highway 265 (Crossover Road) To Downtown • Presented To BOARD OF CITY DIRECTORS FAYETTEVILLE,. ARKANSAS Ah Grafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe, Inc. Architects & Engineers Rogers, Ark. January 15, 1986 Revised- February 13, 1986 J E Principals Eve"vett L. Balk, P.E. BbS, H. Crdetton, P.E. Thames E' Hopper, P.E. SR.E. Reece, P.E. David F. Russell Don Spann, A.I.A. David Swearingen, A.I.A. Lemuel H. Tull, P.E. Clay B. Yoe, P.E. - 1942-1985 Crafton, Tull; Spann & Yoe, Inc. Architects & Engineers Board of City Directors City of Fayetteville Fayetteville, AR Dear Directors: Associates Michael "Mike" Becker D. E. "Chapple" Chapman, P.E. Jim Kooistra James P. Swearingen, A.I.A. J. R. "Bob" Tinsley Mark C. Young LS., P.E. February 13, 1986 We are transmitting herewith our Route Selection and Preliminary Design Report for a proposed collector street between downtown Fayetteville and Highway 265 on the east side of the city. This report contains three alternate routes along with preliminary grade lines and cost estimates. The estimated project costs range from $1.9 to 52.7 million dollars based on 1986 prices. During preparation of this report we have received input from members of your staff, area utility companies and numerous other persons. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of each of them. It has been a particular pleasure for us to conduct this study and we thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If there are any questions regarding the report either by your office or others, please do not hesitate to call us. Very truly yours, CRAFTON, TULL, SPANN & YO , INC. Bob H. Crafton, Dan Brown, P.E. DB/prs P. O. Drawer 549 / 2800 North 2nd Street / Rogers, Arkansas 72757-0549 / (501) 636-4838 / (501) 636.7261 • r. ti 1 al TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PURPOSE OF STUDY 1-2 III. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR COLLECTOR ROADWAYS 2 IV. BASIS FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN 3-4 V. TYPICAL SECTION 4 VI. PROPOSED ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS 5-8 VII. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS 9-13 VIII. PRELIMINARY SOILS AND GEOLOGY INVESTIGATION 13-14 IX. ADDITIONAL ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED 14-16 X. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES 16 XI. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS 17-20 citYv INTRODUCTION. The location of roads and streets in the City of Fayette- ville has historically been controlled to a certain degree by the physiological configuration of the area. This has been especially true in the area of Mount Sequoyah, where the attraction for development is strong because of the scenic views, but yet access is difficult because of steep grades. Consequently, no through route over Mount Sequoyah has been constructed. As development has surrounded the mountain and the corridor along State Highway 265, interest has grown in the possibility of a direct route to the downtown area which would reduce travel time and distance. In September, 1985, the City Board of Directors took steps to authorize the preparation of this report to investigate the feasibility of such a route. II. PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of constructing a collector street to connect the downtown area of Fayetteville, Arkansas to State Highway 265 at a location some- where between State Highways 45 and 16. (See Figure 1, in the Appendix) The determination of such feasibility will be based on preliminary designs prepared for three alternate routes, 1 e r r consideration of the construction cost and the technical advan- tages and disadvantages of each route, as well as a general assessment of the impact that the connection of each route to e xisting streets will have on the surrounding neighborhoods. III. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR COLLECTOR STREETS Collector streets perform an important function in the over- all street system by serving internaltraffic movements within an area of a city, such as a residential area, and connecting this area with the maior arterial system. It does not handle long through trips, and performs the same property access function as the local residential street. Design speeds for collector streets generally range from 30 to 40 mph. The number of lanes may vary, depending on anticipated traffic growth and access demands from abutting properties. Medians are not a typical feature of collec- t or streets. The shoulder area between the curb and right-of-way line provides space for sidewalks, storm drainage, traffic signs, and utilities. The width of the shoulder area is normally 10 to 15 feet. Specific design criteria used for this study, along w ith the proposed typical roadway sections, are shown in Figures 4 and 5, in the Appendix. i IV. BASIS FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGNS The plans prepared in connection with this study were compiled from contour maps furnished by the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas and aerial photographs taken in December of 1985 by M.J. Harden Associates of Kansas City, Missouri. The accuracy of these maps complies with generally accepted photogrammetric stan- dards and is considered adequate for the purposes of this study. The roadway alignments developed herein are based in large measure on the location of existing streets, houses and other physical features. It is assumed that in final project design ad- justments of the center line may be necessary to minimize the num- ber of small remnants or unusable pieces of land based on proper- ty ownerships in effect at that time. Property ownerships and parcels (shown on Exhibit 'A' and in the Appendix) were furnished by a local abstractor and reflect current records at the time, this study was prepared. Exhibit 'A' is a large folded print in a pocket at the back of this report. Preliminary field studies were made of soils and geological formations in the area and those results are presented elsewhere in this report. Traffic counts furnished by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department are shown in Figure 2. Prediction of future traffic volumes is dependent upon proposed land uses and as such is beyond the scope of this report, however we believe the magnitude 3 2 F of the existing traffic counts suggests that a four lane facility is desirable for the project corridor. Existing road right-of- way widths shown in Figure 3 reflect the contents of 'Atlas Maps' for Fayetteville as published by the City Engineers office. Utility locations shown on Exhibit 'A' were taken from records furnished by the utility owners. V. PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION The proposed 49 feet wide typical section (see Figure 4, in the Appendix) complies with proposed City requirements for new streets, and includes four driving lanes, each 11 feet wide, con- structed of an estimated 7 inches of Portland cement concrete pavement or 8' of Asphalt Pavement. Exact determination of the required pavement thickness must be done during the final design phase based on extensive soil testing of the project corridor. Curb and gutter will be constructed along the outside edges of the roadway to carry storm drainage from the roadway and to provide delineation of the driving lanes. A 10 foot wide shoulder area on both sides provides room for storm sewers, utili- ties and sidewalks. The proposed minimum right-of-way width is 80 feet (40 feet either side of the roadway centerline). Areas with significant cuts or fills will require additional right of way for roadway construction. 4 re r• VI. PROPOSED ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS Three alternate alignments have been selected for further consideration in connection with evaluating the feasibility of constructing this road. Please refer to Figure 7 and Exhibit 'A' for delineation of these alternate routes. No major conflicts with utilities are apparentwith any of the proposed alternate alignments. Adjustments of existing utilities are likely under all of the proposed routes. Alternate 'B' begins at the intersection of Mission Blvd. and Rockwood Trail then proceeds eastward along existing Rockwood Trail to its present terminus just east of Pembroke Road. The alignment then continues easterly for approximately one quarter of a mile before deflecting slightly southeasterly and connecting to State Highway 265 at a point approximately 300 feet south of the entrance to the Hyland Park subdivision. Because of the exis- tence of numerous homes located relatively close to the existing 40 foot right-of-way on Rockwood Trail, we believe the only feasi- ble way to utilize this alignment would be to construct a two- lane, 31 foot wide street section (See Figure 5, in the Appendix) in this area on essentially the same grade line as the existing roadway in order to maintain driveway access for residents whose homes front onto Rockwood Trail and also to avoid construction of 5 1,4 the 49 wide street section in close proximity to those existing homes. Please refer to the following section of this report for additional discussion of the impact of the roadway on residents o f Rockwood Trail. Proposed grades on the existing portion of, Rockwood Trail range from a minimum of approximately 4% to a maxi- mum in excess of 20%. It is not anticipated that any significant changes in the existing grade will be allowable due to close proximity of numerous structures along the existing route. Beyond the existing end of Rockwood Trail grades range from a minimum of 1% up to a maximum of 15%. Proposed Alternate "B" crosses four stream beds which will require either new drainage structures or upgrading of the existing structures. Alternate 'C' has in common with Alternate "B" that existing portion of Rockwood Trail from Mission Blvd. east to a point east- e rly of Pembroke Road. From that point Alternate "C" deviates from Alternate "B" by turning northerly for a distance of approxi- ; mately 800 feet then bending back easterly and connecting with the existing west end of Manor Drive, then proceeding along Manor Drive to its intersection with Highway 265. Alternate "C", of course, shares the same limitations as Alternate "B" as far as problems associated with existing development along Rockwood Trail. However, development along Manor Drive is generally located farther back from the road along with a wider existing ✓ ight-of-way which slightly reduces the impact of location of the collector road The centerline avoid the four along this route as compared to Rockwood Trail. of Manor Drive may need to be shifted south to homes located on the north side of Manor Drive, adjacent to Highway 265. Grades on the newly constructed portion o f Alternate "C' range from approximately 2% to approximately 15%. Existing grades on Manor Drive range from 2% to approximately 10%. Alternate "C' contains four stream beds which w ill require either new or upgraded drainage structures. Alternate 'D' begins at the intersection of Lafayette Street • and Mission Blvd. Both of these streets are currently designated as State Highway 45. From this intersection Alternate "D' pro- ceeds eastward along existing Lafayette Street for approximately 700 feet at which point existing pavement ends. The proposed alignment then proceeds southeasterly intersecting Dogwood Lane, Assembly Road and Williams Drive. Assembly Road is also known as State Highway 180. In order to maintain traffic flow on existing roads in this area (See Figure 6, in the Appendix) it is proposed to connect Assembly Road and Sequoyah Drive on the north side of the proposed roadway, with the combined traffic then traveling e asterly on Rex Drive to Williams Drive, which would intersect w ith the proposed route. On the south side of the proposed route, Dogwood Lane and Missouri Way would be connected, eliminat- ing that portion of Dogwood Lane east of the intersection. Assem- bly Road would be abandoned from Sequoyah Drive south to a point on Skyline Drive. Access to the Methodist Assembly grounds would be by way of the intersection of the proposed project with Williams Drive then proceeding southerly to either North Skyline Drive or East Skyline Drive using existing access points onto the assembly grounds. This plan would require improvements to Rex Drive, Williams Drive, Sequoyah Drive and the intersection of Dog- wood Lane and Missouri Way. Additional access points to Metho- dist Assembly grounds exist at the south westerly corner of the grounds by way of Texas Way and Center Street to Fletcher Way. From Williams Drive the proposed centerline for Alternate 'D' swings northeasterly passing parallel and approximately 200 feet south of Anson Drive and continues northeasterly for approximate- ly 1500 feet before swinging to a southeasterly direction and connecting with Highway 265 at a point approximately 300 feet south of the entrance to the Hyland Park subdivision. Grades on the proposed alignment range from 1% to a maximum of 15%. All curves have a design speed of 35 mph except the curve on the crest of Mount Sequoyah (Williams Street intersection) which has a 25 mph design speed. 8 i1 MEM VII. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS The following discussion of Alternates "B', 'C" and 'D' is presented for the purpose of pointing out the relative merits of e ach alignment from a technical and a neighborhood impact stand- point. Alternate "B" primarily has the advantage of being approx- imately 1,000 feet shorter than any of the other routes. In addi- tion, side street improvements required under Alternate "B" are limited to the area of the intersections. Rockwood Trail is al- ready designated as a collector route on the City's Master Street Plan. Disadvantages of Alternate "B" are primarily connected w ith that portion of the route which passes through the existing neighborhoods. The existing Rockwood Trail right-of-way is e xtremely narrow (40 feet wide). In addition, existing houses are constructed quite close to the street right-of-way. This situation prevents reconstruction of Rockwood Trail to the 49 foot width proposed elsewhere on the project. Construction of the 49 foot wide section would require acquisition of homes along one side or another of Rockwood Trail to provide room for con- struction of the street. The negative impact of the 49' street • on the existing neighborhood would be very severe, causing relocation of numerous family units and extensive disruption of neighborhoods. In addition, construction noise and dust along • E <'F y with increased noise level and traffic after construction are expected. As an alternate we would suggest construction of a • improvements to a two-lane section through the area as indicated on Figure 5. Construction of a two-lane facility through the Ii. existing neighborhood is likely to require a substantial number of retaining walls and may result in steep driveways for access to properties adjacent to Rockwood Trail. The negative impact of constructing the two-lane roadway through the existing neighbor- hood is substantially less because no relocation of families is anticipated. However construction activities and increased traffic along Rockwood Trail will impact the neighborhoods in • either case. In addition, excessively steep grades on Rockwood Ii Trail are such that they may be considered unacceptable for a collector type facility. a It The advantages of Alternate Cinclude a less severe grade ti line for newly constructed areas of the project. Again side street improvements are limited to the intersection curb returns only. Alternate C' provides the best sight distance on the eastern terminal connecting with Highway 265. Alternate C' could be opened with the lowest construction cost by leaving the exist- ing sections at each end in place and improving the Manor Drive and Rockwood Trail sections at such future date as the traffic would demand. The disadvantages of Alternate C" include all of 10 - those disadvantages listed for Alternate B". In addition Alter- nate "C" goes through an additional existing neighborhood located along Manor Drive. Again a narrow existing right-of-way exists which would require acquisition of some additional right-of-way in order to construct the proposed improvements. Manor Drive is presently not designated as a collector route on the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan. Alternate "D" provides the least amount of disruption of existing neighborhoods. In addition it provides the most direct connection to down town Fayetteville via Lafayette Street (State Highway 45) and opens up a substantial area for future develop- ment on the east side of Mount Sequoyah. Alternate "D" provides improved access to Mount Sequoyah Methodist Assembly Grounds. In addition, Lafayette Street is currently designated as a collector and also serves as State Highway 45. Disadvantages of Alternate "D" are that substantial side street improvements will be requir- ed on Sequoyah and Williams Drives to maintain all existing traffic movements in that area. This involves slight re-routing of Assembly Drive (State Highway 180) and would require approval by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Another disadvantage of Alternate "D" is that it does have a considerable length of 15% grade which will increase the difficulty traversing the route in inclement weather. The negative impact on existing Y 11 . F . i ' neighborhoods is quite varied along this proposed route. For the fifteen (15) existing homes on Lafayette Street, east of Mission Boulevard, the project will require a significant portion of their front yards for room to construct the project thereby resulting in decreased use of their property and possible reduced property values for residential uses. In addition to construc- tion noise and dust, their area will be subject to additional noise and traffic through the neighborhood after completion of construction. For the neighborhood located from the end of Lafayette Street to Williams Drive, the negative impact may be considered somewhat less in intensity since the proposed project would be located across the rear of the residential tracts. Front yards in this area are expected to remain intact. The major impacts would consist of construction noise and dust, and conversion of woodlands to public roadway uses. Because of wooded areas remain- ing between the proposed roadway and residential structures, the J1 noise and traffic impacts after construction are not expected to be severe. Revision of existing traffic patterns in this area may be considered a temporary inconvenience. The area from Williams Drive to Highway 265 is essentially undeveloped. Therefore the negative impact in this area is . I 12 expected to consist of construction noise and dust, and conver- sion of woodlands to public road use. The positive impacts for neighborhoods along the entire route consists of improved access in an East-West direction. t This access will result in faster response times for emergency vehicles such as police, fire, and emergency medical services, as well as reduced travel time and expense. The construction of the proposed project will also provide access to previously unavail- able areas which may result in additional development within the City. This will benefit the City at large because of the increas- ed tax base and creation of Jobs in the construction segment of the economy. Of course, the City at large also reaps the benefit of reduced travel time and cost associated with the proposed route. VIII.PRELIMINARY SOILS AND GEOLOGY INVESTIGATION ------------------------------------------- The preliminary soils report is attached hereto as Appendix 2. Soils in the area consist primarily of the Enders and Hector soil associations. These soils have certain problems associated with their use in highway construction. When cuts are made in the hill side for roadway construction the soils are known to have problems with slippage and sliding under certain conditions. 13 S Y y' YI 3 _ 4� '_ This problem is common throughout the Fayetteville area and • F. simply requires that either flatter side slopes than normal or slope stabilization measures must be incorporated as part of the construction. The average depth of bedrock in the area is appears to be on the order of 4 to 8 feet and most of the soils z. are also known to be subject to erosion. Pavement design will be affected by the highly plastic clays in the area. Their presence 1' will require stabilization measures, such as lime treatment, to v produce a suitable subgrade for the pavement. Construction cost estimates in this report have been prepared with general 1' knowledge of these potential soil problems. See Figure 7 for boring locations. s. U IX. ADDITIONAL_ ALIGNMENTS_ CONSIDERED e Additional alignments considered are noted on the Route Loca- tion Map (Exhibit "A') with a dashed line. Alternate "Afollows Alternate "D' from its beginning at the intersection of Mission Blvd. and Lafayette Street to its intersection with Williams Drive. Williams Drive is located on the crest of Mount Sequoyah. Easterly from this point, Alternate "A" runs in a straight line due east to a connection with Highway 265. This alternate was considered unacceptable because of the extremely long length of grade in excess of 15% along the east side of Mount Sequoyah. In 14 i1 addition, the eastern terminus is not near any significant traf- fic generator on Highway 265. Alternate Ealso begins at the intersection of Mission Blvd. and Lafayette Street and continues on the same alignment with Alternate D' to a point approximately 1300 feet easterly of Williams Drive. At that point Alternate "E' curves off to the right and heads in a southeasterly direc- tion crossing Alternate "A', swinging to the south of Alternate 'A", at the maximum of 250 feet southerly, before swinging back to the northeast and connecting to Highway 265 at the same point as Alternate A".• The idea behind Alternate E' was to eliminate the severe grade problems experienced with Alternate A. How- ever, Alternate E" did little to improve the grade situation. Other disadvantages of Alternate 'A' also apply to Alternate E" Alternate "F' was an attempt to terminate Alternates B' and 'D' at point lining up with the entrance to the Hyland Park sub- division. However, this alternate had two major problems with it; First of all it would require relocation of the existing fire station at a cost estimated to be approximately $150,000. In addition one residence -. lies directly in the path and a signifi- cant cost is anticipated to relocate this residence. In addition the elevation of the terminal connection with Highway 265 was approximately 15 feet higher in grade which results in a less 15 is I desirable grade situation than ultimately arrived at with Alter- nates 'Band D. Alternate G" was a third attempt to find a more satisfac- tory terminal point in the vicinity of the mid -point between High- way 45 and Highway 16. However, this situation resulted in the roadway being close to other existing residences in the area. In addition the elevation of the termination with Highway 265 was approximately 30 feet higher than that experienced with Alternate 'B' and therefore Alternate G' was dismissed because of unsatis- factory grade. I. H. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES The construction cost estimates contained herein are prelimi- nary in nature. As such the reader needs to be aware that these costs represent the best preliminary estimate available at this time based on current' unit prices and our judgement of the pro- ject difficulty. Use of these dollar amounts for years beyond 1986 should be only after adjustment for inflation to the desired year. The attached estimates (in the Appendix). indicate costs of the three alternates, as follows: 1 16 �l l C { . Y Alternate B: $1,956,000 Alternate C: $1,860,500 Alternate D: $2,713,000 I XI. SUMMARY_ AND RECOMMENDATIONS s This report has presented three alternate alignments for a route to connect downtown Fayetteville, Arkansas with Crossover Road (Highway 265) on the easterly side of the city. The purpose of the report is to determine whether construction of such a route is feasible. The study has shown that while construction of the route is technically feasible there are certain other fac- tors which need to be considered by the Board of City Directors before making their decision to build one of the proposed align- ments. Alternate Bwith an estimated total project cost of $1,956,000 has a severe disadvantage of being located primarily through an existing neighborhood. This creates an extensive amount of disruption during construction in addition to noise caused by additional traffic upon completion of the project. In addition, it is necessary to construct a substantial portion of the project as a two-lane facility rather than the four -lane i 17 I I r • I _ width proposed elsewhere. This may be expected to result in a lower factor of safety for persons living on the street as they enter and exit their driveways. The existing features in the neighborhood also limit any significant adjustments to the grade 9 line of Rockwood Trail. This will result in substandard site distance and excessively steep grades in some portions of the project. Removal of a number of trees along Rockwood Trail is anticipated to accommodate the project. Alternate Bdoes have • the advantage of Rockwood Trail already designated as a collector street. In addition Alternate B' is the shortest of the three alternates. e. s I Alternate C' has an estimated total project cost of $1,860,500. Alternate *CO has all the disadvantages of Alternate 'B' since both alternates share the existing Rockwood Trail as part of the alignment. In addition Alternate C' passes through a second existing neighborhood along Manor Drive at the easterly end of the alternate route. The disadvantages listed for Alter- nate B' in connection with Rockwood Trail also apply to Manor T Drive. although to a somewhat lessor extent. An advantage to Alternate C" is. that it requires the shortest length of new construction and provides the best connection at the eastern end to Crossover Road (State Highway 265). Alternate C' also has the lowest total estimated project cost of the three alternates. 1 • i • 18 L 1 S } Alternate Dwith an estimated total project cost of $2,713,000 is the longest of the three alternate routes a presented. It is also the most expensive. Alternate D' requires side street improvements to maintain access to existing development in the area and involves a slight re-routing of Assem- bly Drive (State Highway 180). Another disadvantage of Alternate 'D' is that it does have a considerable length of 15% grade which may increase the difficulty of traveling the roadway in inclement weather. The negative impact on the existing neighborhood is varied along the proposed route. For about the first 700 feet of the project, impacts similar to those described under the pre - t vious alternates exists for approximately 15 homes along Lafay- ette Street east of Mission Blvd. Easterly from that point the impact is minimized as the proposed route runs along the rear of homes in the area up to Williams Drive. East of Williams Drive the area is primarily open. Therefore, little negative impact is associated with that section of proposed Alternate D. The advantages associated with Alternate D' include the most direct connection to downtown Fayetteville by way of Lafayette Street. In addition, Alternate D' opens up a substantial area for possi- ble future development on the east side of Mount Sequoyah. Improved access to the Mount Sequoyah Methodist Assembly Grounds results from this alignment. While the other alternates have cer- t 1 f 19 . Jl tain traffic carrying disadvantages to them because of existing development, Alternate "D" may be constructed to the full fourii - lane width for the entire length of the project. The additional traffic carrying capacity of the four -lane section may become an important consideration in future years as development continues on the eastern side of the city. Traffic capacity limitations may show up in Alternates "B" and "C" because of the two-lane portions which must be constructed under those alternates. If the desire of the Board of City Commissioners is provide a means of moving traffic from the downtown area of Fayetteville to Highway 265 and back while maintaining access for adjacent property owners then our recommendation would be to consider Alternate "D" as the most desirable alternate. If some limita- tion In the traffic carrying capacity is acceptable and a lower construction cost is desired then consideration should be given to Alternates "B" or "C". In any case, construction costs in excess of fifty percent (50%) over more "normal" project conditions are associated with the proposed locations. So, although construction of the route is feasible, the difficult, unanswered question is whether the benefits justify the cost. 19 20 C TY Qf F YETT VILLE EI.NOF� J t 0 ' < LAFAYETTe ST Z J I O_0fl C I jL r;'r i \�\ HUNTSVILLE G W o z z E. 15th ST 0 � L11 18 W' 0 0) 0 0 WYMAN RD LJ 1 VICINITY MAP NTS . FIGURE 1 `y { 9500 P E»T 4650ci » a 1 [ MIr. f>1MA< .ST WlT _ g py 14 Yut._ V� ' x06 CC WC r• O[R . 0�y=M \• a—tt11IY xus•X I .y M»t L». �I EM[II CYx u IT r Y YJ PWT Pr. 6300 "'.fl I COVU U o Y x f & Y a • •° r oe•Ia dt am . K • ' 3ra°uP P •• x Y•u,FPRT OR • i xL Vii °IANN UFSIMON 'i • (,rrrr trrrr s yy Q a.,r, a r IP F B IG IL P - a ASW - f PlAl i x [x». _ t x 7400 wR}�E ° + i Y Ir NT r t t t r I T• vl[w u °•YCt Lv[t p XWYOMe •8 ___________ • r S r___I;jp_._...._ t.' -S. I. L+� 4 '� C, - c' LAW R •eYPIrdt J 4 x" B C '.t wvnn _ y_ CBy r • Y P 8000 9800 Y �� MP ¢ rl = 1 rQ. ` TER' }°2y ` xN alDt( .®®• T —J ILWF51 OR OgL00x L•. x•arER L• x R , . aMOa O ..qO}}I�� .•v 1.1 FB J•[R50N E � i j u x(•N ° I1Ii(T1VT CL1A, z /I1I n `' Y F Y • i 1{ of Y J ; p e g Cur. R a, [ T r v x i ... •xo .. 10!O � R [ TRAIL i g to — j. P[9C C•+a of �[BECC• . RLCP P xd a ll� u. 04 III r a i R C� , 4� J'�4 f wDE j i r23,300 M1. I Xy a rRv55 p j 4 •°°• x 24.0 P POI j Cs1CI ,xLF`ii I '' 1�t1 •. [ .P .� .1 ILJI•aT Tr 1 [ P L•r•. TT 1 106VH11CCKF a ( t Y a a u J i I'C'D w; PIO L'l IPE P a p ` F A YE T T E VI x Ifra1--�1 I18,7001a ,_ >c Y(: ❑R�3400 ; rJ a r CFxr(R OR1611 r(J 1 va Sqb� o it �❑��IDI •�_�II . -0 • �([1_Y��__QJlIXI• l ® tRY [y/KYI . X .N RM LACE V Y 4 1° r , ix� • � i 1: x e , NEIIX o° -S.SWTx • L•CR � .wx r 3C __ PCMx.\Oily .. • lfy • [ i\01 o ruwr rX �Q ,# 5100 Y 1 Y �Q_ . rxa SIX 4400 F. trt r • nx a nN Xv"rxmL\[ ROAD _ Y y } _ •z E r x t F IM . . r•NL( 12,400 0 As Y_ __ II ' S 1 r a -1985 AADT FROM AHTD FIGURE 2 IN e • EXISTING_ STREET RIGHTS -OF -WAY EXISTING STREET_ NAME RIGHT_OF-WAY WIDTH Andrew Avenue 50' I s Assembly Road (State Hwy 180) 50' Crossover Road (State Hwy 265) 60'-80' Dogwood Lane 40' Lafayette Street 60' Lorraine Drive 30' Manor Drive 50' Missouri Way 40' Rex Drive 30' Rockwood Trail 40' Sequoyah Drive 40' Skyline Drive 40' Williams Drive 30' * Note: Lafayette Street Right -of -Way is 44 feet from College Avenue to Washington Avenue. i L i i FIGURE 3 b • 15.5' So' R/W (MINIMUM) 49' SACK TO BACK to' 2.4 22.5' Is z 5:0.0208'/FT. zI 31 1 CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAVEMENT I 5.5' 22.5' 20' 10' u ! 5 z 5: 0.0208/FT. ;I al �: PROFILE GRADE II SUBGRADE STABILIZATION TYPICAL SECTION 49' Back to Back PROPOSED STREET GEOMETRICS MIN. RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 80 FT. MIN. FORESLOPE/BACKSLOPE 3:1 (2:1 FILLS OVER 10') PAVEMENT SECTION C & G MIN. PAVEMENT WIDTH 49' B/B SIDEWALK BOTH SIDES SIDEWALK WIDTH/DEPTH 5 FT/6 IN DESIGN SPEED 35 MPH MAX. GRADE 15% MIN. CURB RADIUS 50 FT. MAX. DRIVEWAY WIDTHS - RESIDENTIAL DRIVES 24 FT. FIGURE 4 ■ z F N TEMP ESMT. AS 5O'.R/W (MINIMUM) -(EXIST R/W!40') • TEMP. ESMT. A_W REO D. FOR CONSTA. REO D. FOR CONSTR. ? 31' BACK TO BACK _ 9.5 t0' 13.5, I 13.5' 2.d 9.5 , z m _ � W Lu z S J ] S J im W S: 0.0208r/FT. 3: 0.0208/FT. w / 1 PROFILE GRADE PAVEMENT CONCRETE - SUBGRADE SIDEWALK STABILIZATION TYPICAL SECTION 31' Back to Back (EXISTING PORTION OF ROCKWOOD TRAIL) PROPOSED STREET GECMETRICS MIN. RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH MIN. FORESLOPE/BACKSLOPE PAVEMENT SECTION MIN. PAVEMENT WIDTH SIDEWALK SIDEWALK WIDTH/DEPTH DESIGN SPEED MAX. GRADE MIN. CURB RADIUS MAX. DRIVEWAY WIDTHS - RESIDENTIAL DRIVES 50 FT. 3:1 (2:1, FILLS OVER 10') C & G 31' B/B BOTH SIDES 5 FT/6 IN •1• 15% 50 FT. 24 FT. NOTE •1•: DICTATED BY EXISTING GRADE LINE. I c FIGURE 5 c. _ 1 1 I i 1! /r 3 3 P� 6 )NIs ` .4 c ¢° ! J C HYL D - O . _ W as .° • 0 266 < LAFAYETT� 5 w I w _ L , 180 � c s •i \WYMAN RD IIi HUNTSVILLE RD . w •� >%...t_.. C7 I E. 16th ST 4 16 -- ALTERNATE ROUTE LOCATIONS • NTS o' $011, 00RING t.x anON5 FIGURE 7 Ii sC ? R APPENDIX 1 PROPERTY OWNERS ROCKWOOD—TRAIL ___NORTH —SIDE s MISSION BLVD. Mary C. Kirk 'I Gregory W. Fess k'; WOODLAWN DRIVE Alice H. Gerard S.D. Harder & Maxine C. Harder Philip S. Bashor & Lorraine B. Bashor T. James F. & Margaret S. Rogers JACKSON DRIVE Mildred Davis g' Virginia Tidball M.W. Harral C.R. Magness & Kay B. Magness CREST DRIVE Stanley L. & Anne J. Wenger B.G. Collier 3 Joel S. Freund Young Enterprises, Inc. 5 APPLEBURY DRIVE Thomas C. Young Ramond A. Young, III & Julia E. Young Jens Mark Jenkins Johnny Dee Stansberry Denton PEMBROKE ROAD Floyd W. & Mildred E. Summers Joseph M. & Maxine B. Clark ROCKWOOD TRAIL___SOUTH SIDE MISSION BLVD • Clarence E. Stamps & Hester Irene Stamps FALLIN AVE Mark B. Hanna & Janice G. Fuller James E., Jr. & Lorna J. Beard Virginia Mae Parker • Hammid & Saeed Moghaddam Larry G. & Corrinna G. Perry VINSON AVENUE George S., Jr. & Louise Rogers Helen R. Brashears • S.J. & Virginia May James E. & Margie E. Pomfret Charles E. Sc Patricia A. Hoffman First Nat'l. Bank, Trustee of the Grace Johnson Polk Trust a SEBUOYAH DRIVE Julia E. Crocker Trust J.C. Nickell, Jr. & Joe Fred Starr Donald Roller Wilson & Kathleen Kay Wilson Frances E. McDonald & Evelyn McDonald CREST DRIVE Urban D. Holland • Fred Hawn Ishmael C. Benton & Alice E. Benton David L. Monts & Dana R. Monts Holland House, Inc. • Paul A. Gayer & Ruby G. Gayer Arkansas Western Gas RUTH AVENUE Frank R. Prassell M. David Howell & Kay C. Howell S.T. Furman William G. Underwood & LeAnn Marie Underwood END OF ROCKWOOD TRAIL MANORDRIVE(NORTHSIDE) _ _ _ WEST END OF MANOR DRIVE Robert E. & Grace E. Babcock Paul R. & Eunice C. Noland Woodson W. Bassett, Jr. & Marynm S. Bassett David L. & Bernice Harper f b' RIDGLEY DRIVE Gerald H. & Ann L. Frost William H. & Mary Lee Wilmore a Elmer W. & Madeline D. Tribble Dennis O.J. Baker CROSSOVER ROAD (State Highway 265) MANORDRIVE(SOUTH_ SIDE) _ _ WEST END OF MANOR DRIVE Carl M. Collier B.E. & Olga House Ronald W. Skeith Loyd K. & Marie O. Wilson A.T. & Mary H. Ackerman RIDGELY DRIVE James H. & Margaret A. Stewart Fayne C. & Betty L. Gibson Leonard & Katherine C. White CROSSOVER ROAD (State Highway 265) a ALTERNATE __D____SOUTH_SIDE } MISSION BOULEVARD Pearl C. Young & Mari'e M. Young William J. McGowan & Kelly P. Carithers Michael Sessions & Susan C. Sessions. William N. Harrison & Merlee P. Harrison { Joseph F. Brennan & Helen E. Brennan Fred Derwin & Linda Derwin I DOGWOOD LANE (AT LAFAYETTE STREET) Betty Jo Easterling Holland House, Inc. Jerry D. Sweetser & Sharon J. Sweetser DOGWOOD LANE (AT MISSOURI WAY) Helen Palmer ASSEMBLY ROAD David Randle & Jeane Randle SEQUOYAH DRIVE Robert John Hart Fred D.Hunt & Maxine Hunt WILLIAMS DRIVE • ALTERNATE__ D" NORTH _ MISSION BOULEVARD Glendon R. Johnson Sc Mary V. Johnson Carl G. Clark & Jo Dean Clark Steve E. Winkler Charles W. Stewart & Mettie A. Stewart Stephen A. Melody & Paula Bondurant Melody Robin Kern & Laura Leto Patrick F. Callahan & Karen T. Callahan J.B. Hays Trust • Ronnie G. Freeman & Connie J. Freeman r^ t F � TANGLEWOOD AVENUE Holland House, Inc. Jerry D. Sweetser & Sharon J. Sweetser I Fred Derwin and Linda Derwin Thomas McNair & Donnealia McNair & William P. Kennedy & Mary L. Kennedy r - ASSEMBLY ROAD Fred D. Hunt & Maxine Hunt WILLIAMS DRIVE 1 I I Ye - e { I 1 jt i • i g 3 , ' TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (1986 DOLLARS) F ITEM ALT__ _B_ ALT.-- .-C- ALT.-- - Construction $1,471,250 $1,381,400 $2,035,700 • a Design & Construction Engineering 176,550 165,800 244,300 n � Legal & Administrative Costs 42,500 42,500 42,500 Right -of -Way 70,300 78,000 129,800 Utility Adjustments 10,000 15,000 5,000 Signing & Striping 7,500 8,600 9,300 • Contingencies _-_177y900 1 200 a. 40_0 ___169_ ___246 TOTAL $1,956,000 $1,860,500 $2,713,000 F 't. Y I F 1. 3 ' i 4. APPENDIX 2 Y PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT 3 I S. C I s• i T e I I i i } :d I gYIJj ...'4rkanlad etaloralorie.1 inc. '`' GEOTECHNICA L. MATERIALS 8 CONSULTING ENGINEERS F 3 f ebruary 6, 1986 Crafton, Tull, Spann & Yoe, Inc. P. 0. Drawer 549 Rogers, Arkansas 72756 Attn: Mr. Dan Brown Re: Fayetteville Preliminary Street Study GE 86-6 Fayetteville, Arkansas Gentlemen: f 226 TOWSON AVENUE FORT SMITH. ARKANSAS 72901 AREA CODE 501 )92-0331 Enclosed are two reproducible copies of the boring logs and Summary of lest Results for this project: This is in accordance with our proposal letter of November 20, 1985. Soils are classified in accordance with ASTM Standard D2487, latest revision, T unless otherwise noted. This Standard utilizes the Unified Classification System. originally developed by Arthur Casagrande and later refined by the Waterways Experiment Station as described in Technical Memorandum No. 3-357. Visual classifications of soil are based upon ASTM Standard D24B8, latest revision. I The stratification lines shown on the Boring Logs represent the approximate boundary between soil or rock types, and the actual transition from one material to another may be gradual. Water level readings were made at the drill holes at times and under conditions stated on the Boring Logs. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of ground water are apt to occur regularly due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors which are subject to change from the time the measurements were made. L : Y C • X \ Mr. Dan Brown Page - 2 February 6, 1986 The conditions of the materials encountered within the test holes are reported as 4 they existed at the time of driling and at the specific location of the test holes. Deviations or changes in soil and rock formations at other portions of the site are possible. Any conclusions made as to the soil and subsurface conditons at points other than the test holes themselves are speculative and cannot be guaranteed. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until construction is in progress. ° Arkansas Laboratories, Inc., retains the rights to the Boring Logs and other data developed by this study and reserves the right to reference and incorporate said g information in future investigations. Soil samples taken from the site and not used in the testing program will be retained for 10 days only, unless a written request is received to hold them for a longer period of time. Samples used in the testing program will be disposed of $- upon completion of the testing procedure. We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance on this preliminary study. Please do not hestitate to contact us if you have any questions. Also, please contact us for additional requirements as this project progresses. Sincerely yours, / �J Edg C. Ne in, Jr. P.E. ECN/gy Enclosures i L /] Dale Drilled Boring No. 21 _.d rian3a3 otahoratoriei inc. Jan. 20, 1986 I 1 e R GE0TEC?INICAI. MATERIALS & CONSULTIN.i ENGINEERS Logged By Drilled By FORT SMITH. ARKANSAS Schlaq I Roberts Project FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY GROUND WATER LEV CF 86-6 Depth Dale Remarks FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS None 1-28 Upon Completion Boring Location Surface Elevation Termination Elevation As Shown on Plan 1430 + 1415 _+ Water Penal. Record Drill Drilling Notes Depth Method p Description of Material Content No. of Pocket a Blows Penet. and Remarks e TOPSOIL, Dark Brown Sandy Clay Very Moist and Firm 13.8 2.5 • SAND, Yellowish Red and Clayey With Sandstone Pebbles Moist and Medium RB Sc 6.9 SANDSTONE, Reddish Brown and Weathered Very Moist and Medium Soft 7.7 SHALE, Light Brown and Weathered With Some Gray Clay and Sandstone Pebbles Dry and Medium Soft 10.8 SANDSTONE, Reddish Brown With Some Weathered Layers Moist and Medium Hard 17.2 22.0 9.7 12.0 15.0 Terminated @ 15.0 Ft. Abbrevlellona: CA Core Air DB Crag SIt AO Auger Only SS Sandstone Penetration record is recorded as No. Of blows wl with CW Core Waler SP Spill Spoon HA Hollow Auger $h Shale reomred in 6 inch increments and Packet wro without RB Rock Bil ST Shelby Tube LS Limestone WI' Weathered Penetrometer is in Ions Dec so. ft. ram 2 C ee Date Drilled Boring No. 1 ..,�J rkanea3 aboratorie3 9ncR Jan. 27, 1986 2 It G-EOTECHNICAL. MATERIALS 6 CONSULTINj ENGINEERS Logged By Drilled By R , FORT SMITH ARKANSAS Schlag Roberts Project GROUND WATER LEVEL FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY Depth Date Remarks CF 66-6 Upon Completion FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS None 1-27 $ Boring Location Surface Elevation Termination Elevation As Shown on Plan 1431 ± 1418.4 ± Water Penet. Record rDrill Depth Description of Material Content No. of Pocket Drilling Notes Method and Remarks Blows Penet. Y CLAY, Reddish Brown and Silty - 1.0 - • TOPSOIL, Dark Brown Silty Clay 16.2 Very Moist and Firm . F 2.4 — - SAND, Brown and Clayey With - Sandstone Pebbles. ' - Moist and Medium - 4.0 8.7 - SANDSTONE, Reddish Brown and Weathered DB With Trace of Clay 5.3 Moist and Medium Soft SAND, Brown and Clayey With - Sandstone Pebbles - Moist and Medium - 13.1 7.4 r_ SHALE, Gray -Black Dry and Medium Soft - l i - 7.9 - T, Drag Bit Refusal 11.6 @ 11.6 Ft. - RB LIMESTONE, Dark Gray - Dry and Hard 5.7 - 12.6 - Terminated Aa 12.6 Ft. - 6 - - C.- 4. • _ Abbreviations: CA Core Air DB Drag Bit AO Auger Only 55 Sandstone Penetration record is recorded as No. of blows wl with CW Core Wsler SP Split Spoon HA Hollow Auger Sh Shale reovired in 6 inch increment. and Pocket wl0 without RB Rock Oil ST Shelby Tube LS Limestone Wh Weathered Porolromelr is in tons per so- ft s Form 2 1 I . :.. a .., rlanja9 c aboraforiei inc. GEOTECHNICAL, MATERIALS I CONSULTINv ENGINEERS c. FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS s Project FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY GE 86-6 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Boring Location As Shown on Plan Drill Method Depth Description of Material 0,2 ASPHALT I BASE COURSE, Chert Gravels With Clay RB 3.6 CLAY, Yellowish Red With Sandstone Pebbles Moist and Stiff CH ` - 6.8 SHALE, Dark Gray. With Weathered Seams on Top (<0.2 Ft.) Becoming Bluer With Depth 9 S Slightly Moist and Medium c _ Soft to Medium Hard . P. 15.0 Terminated @ 15.0 Ft. Awts: CA Core OB Soo Sp AD Auger uy SS Shal etone w/ with CW RoWater ST Spill heSpoon LS Liollowmesl Auger nan Shale w/o without RB Rock Bit ST Shelby Tube LS Limestone Wn Weathered Form 2 Date DnlI I Boring No. Jan. 27, 19861 3 Logs By Drilled By Schlag Roberts GROUND WATER r LEVEL Depth Date Remarks Upon Completion None 1-27 Surface Elevation Termination Elevation 1595 ± 1580.± Water Penet. Record Drilling Notes Content No. of Pocket. and Remarks ° Blows Penet. 19.3 12.8 28.4 18.4 13.5 13.3 Penetration record is recorded as No. of Won required in 6 inch increments and Poore! FbrMhomete/ H in tons per so. ;t. Ic qq // /n� Date Drilled Boring No. .., rkanja:f oCatoratortee Jnnc. Jan. 28, 1986 4 6EOTECHNICAL. MATERIALS i CONSVLTIN4 ENGINEERS Logged By Drilled By FORT SMITN. ARKANSAS Schlag I Roberts Protect FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY GROUND WATER LEVEL CF 86-6 Depth Date Remarks FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Upon Completion None 1-28 § Boring Location Surface Elevation Termination Elevation As Shown on Plan 1500 ± 1493 ± DrillWater Penet. Record Drilling Method Depth - Description of Material Content No. of Pocket Remarks Notes % Blows Penet. and ASPHALT 0.6 BASE COURSE, Chert Standstone and 14 Limestone Gravels . - 10.9 CLAY, Reddish Yellow - Moist and Stiff 2.4 -RB CLAY, Yellowish Red Becoming Reddish Yellow With Depth Moist and Stiff 22.8 • 5.1 CH _ LIMESTONE, Dark Gray a Dry and Hard 7.0 Terminated C 7.0 Ft. i - s r - - E f _ - 1 - y . i I - • A0brevlellona: CA Core Greg all AO Auger Only SS Sendslone PenetralionO record 6 recorded es No. ol b1 Water SP p.e wt wilt, CW Core Water SP Split Spoon NA hollow Auger Sh Shale required m 6 inch increments and Pocket wb without RB Rock Oil ST Shelby Tube LS Limestone Wh Weathered Penetrometer ie in Ions per so it Fermi -)I �,,. / �Qj /l //�1 // O Dale Drilled Boring No. ..s rkaneaj CCaboraforie9 9nc. Jan. 27, 1986 5 GEOTECHNICAL, MATERIALS 6 CONSULTINW ENGINEERS Logged By Drilled By s - FORT SMITH.' ARKANSAS Schlag I Roberts Project EL FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY GROUND WATER LEVEL Depth Dale Remarks CF 86-6 Upon Completion FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS None 1-27 Boring Location Surface Elevation Termination Elevation = As Shown on Plan 1532 * 1517± Water Panel. Record ti_. Drill Drilling Notes Depth Description of Material Content No. of Pocket Method and Remarks % Blows Panel. TOPSOIL, With Sandstone Pebbles - 0.7 CLAY, Reddish Yellow 14.8 Moist and Stiff 1.6 — CLAY, Yellowish Red With Sandstone - ; Pebbles - ,r Dry and Very Stiff - a - - RB 26.0 - CH - 6.5 SHALE, Light Brown and Weathered - With Some Siltstone and Sandstone Lenses 25.7 3 - Black Coal CN 6.6 Ft. - 7.0 Ft. Gray Shale © 7.0 Ft. - 7.4 Ft. - - Dry and Soft - 3 5.2 - 'T i - 7.1 - F a 6.0 15.0 Terminated ® 15.0 Ft. 4 Abbrevlatlons: CA Core Air OB Drag Bit AO Auger Only SS Sandstone FerMpabon record is recorded as No. of blows wl wllh CW Core Waler SP Spill SDOon HA Hollow Auger Sh Shale required in 6 inch increments and Pocket wlo without RB Rock Oil ST Shelby Tube LS Limestone Wh Weathered Penetrometer Is in tons per sq. II. ( Form 2 I_ f / /�]] Date Drilled Boring No. 41/ 1 jrkaniao oCaboraforie3 SIC. Jan. 27, 1986 I 6 .x '•• LoRRed By Drilled By GEOTECHNICAL. MATERIALS A CONSULTIN.i ENGINEERS FORT SMITH. ARKANSAS Schlag I Robea#s Proles FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY GROUND WATER LEVEL _ CF 86-6 Depth Date Remarks Upon Completion FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS None 1-27 Boring Location Surface Elevation Termination Elevation As Shown on Plan 1550± 1535± Water Penet. Record Drill Depth Description of Material Content No. of Pocket Drilling Notes Method and Remarks % Blows Penet. ASPHALT - s 0.6 - CLAY, Reddish Yellow 15.8 - Moist and Stiff - a - CH . 3.2 t I - CLAY, Light Brown s 14.5 Very Dry and Very Stiff a - s RB I - 6,8 10.4 SHALE, Gray Dry and Medium Soft - - 10.8 - s _ 12.0 SHALE, Black Dry and Medium Hard 3.1 — S 15.0 Terminated © 15.0 Ft. Abbreviations' CA Core Alf DB Drag Bit AO Auger Only 55 Sandstone Penetration record is recorded es No. of blows wl with CW Core Water SP Split Spoon HA Hollow Auger Sh Shale reouired In 6 inch incremenis and Pocket win without RB Rock Bit ST Shelby Tube LS Limestone Wh Weathered Ponevorreter is in tons per so. b. Form 2 T s I /1 Date Drilled Boring No. e 11!i •..,�] rZanJaJ a atoraioriee inc. Jan. 28, 1986 I7 SMITH. Logged By Drilled By FOOT AL. MATERIALS 8 CONSULTING ENGINEERS FORT SMITH. ARKANSAS Schlag I Roberts Protect GROUND WATER LEITEL FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY Depth Date RemarkA CF 86-6 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS None 1-28 Upon Completion e Boring Location - Surface Elevation Termination Elevation As Shown on Plan 1682± 1667± Water Panet. Record Drill Depth Description of Material Content No. of Pocket Drilling Notes Method and Remarks % Blows Penet. BASE COURSE, Chert Gravels I 1.5 7.2 — CLAY, Dark Brown and Sandy a Moist and Stiff 2.9 CLAY, Yellowish Red With Trace _ s - of Sandstone Pebbles Dry and Very Stiff CH 21.3 RB 4.8 _ CLAY, Light Brown With Some Gray Clay Moist and Stiff 6.8 - CLAY, Reddish Yellow and Sandy Black Coal r C 7.6 Ft. - 7.9 Ft. 12.0 • 7.9 Moist and Stiff _ SHALE, Grayish Brown and Weathered _ 9i _ Dry and Soft 9.1 - SHALE, Black With Weathered Seams on Top Dry and Medium Hard 15.5 s 6.6 15.0 Terminated C® 15.0 Ft. Abbrevlallons: CA Core Al' DB Drag Bit AO Auger Only $5 Sandsione Penetration record a recorded as No. of bbwe wt with CW Core water SP Spill Spoon HA Hollow Auger Sh Shale raouired in 6 thot increments and PoCaet wlo without RB Rock Eli ST Shelby Tube LS Limestone . Wh Weathered Pennon ter is in tons per so. ft. } Form 2 9 a'_ `-' '• n // // n Date Drilled Boring No. 71,1 �rkan3a3 ofnp aboraloriee nc. Jan. 28, 1986 I 8 'i G1EOTECHNICAL. MATERIALS 8 CONSULTINJ ENGINEERS Lefged By Drilled By FORT SMITH. ARKANSAS - Schiag IRoberts r Project FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY - GROUND WATER LEVEL GE 86-6 Depth Date Remarks FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Upon Completion None 1-28 Boring Location - Surface Elevation Termination Elevation As Shown on Plan 1507 ± 1492 ± Water Penet. Record Drill Drilling Notes Method Depth Description of Material Content No. of Pocket and Remarks % Blows Penet: BASE COURSE, Gravels With Clay 1.0 12.8 - - CLAY, Brown With Sandstone Pebbles - ?I r - 2.1 SAND, Reddish Yellow With Sandstone Pebbles and Sandstone Seams -- N. Moist and Medium - 10.2 V' -RB Sc - x. 5.4 SHALE, Light Brown and Weathered - s With Sandstone Lenses - Dry and Medium Soft - - 6.2 - 7.9 SHALE, Black. 3i Weathered Layer ® 10.3 Ft. - 10.8 Ft. 2.2 - Dry and Medium Hard - 3' 8.0 - i • It 15.0 Terminated ® 15.0 Ft. • Abbrevlallons; CA Core Air OB Drag Bit AO Auger Only SS Sandstone Penetralan read is recorded as No. of blows wi with CW Core Water SP Spill Spoon HA Hollow Auger Sb Shale required in 8 inrd increment. and Pockl1 wto without RB Rock Bil ST Shelby Tube L$ Limestone . Wh Weelhered Penetrometer is in tons per ad. It Form 2 - 1 it - u` r o m FL) W W I — N (1) c m Y $ F- 4 U) E -I Q W m'N Q i Q N I1 . N V W W C N L U 0 U U U UU ) J J N N io LA 1/1 N W \0 W u + + + F 1 L N W CO W iE N o .� W C7 UL N M M ✓1 N N 2. J 4 M N m M h ✓1 h N M M M N - J In m N O h m H H N N N M ^I N N a_ O7 O N Vl IC N J •-i N M V1 Jl 'C ✓1 In yy 3' • €010 W N W 2 _pp Y O O m n ¢ m W •d c9 .. Z y N CO I b co N s t.Q J C 7 —4-1 .-I N N O 1� N O W O 0 1 0 O 0 0 p O • • • • • • • • c7 N to d M .7 In h tl N 9 O; I I I I I 1 I Q « ( w 00000900 • • •W M M . 4 I r a. I �1i\yi � 1 < C. Co 1 I I I I I I N M .. Vl 'ON (D IV Z - a =� U y - O¢ c 0 - N M -7 W% 'O h fD W O o LL m i } UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM - Soils are visually classified by the Unified Soil Classification system on the boring logs presented in this report. Grain -size analysis and Atterberg Limits Tests are often performed on selected samples to aid in classification. The classification system is briefly outlined on this chart. For a more detailed description of the system, see US Army Technical Memorandum No. 3-357 or ASTM Designation: D2487. r MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES GW Well graded gravels, gravel -sand mix - 0 CLEAN GRAVELS tires. 9 m a (Less than 5% passes No. 200 sieve) __ GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel -sand mix - mJ OZ � tures. ^ m 4 0 0 Limits plot below too r7 c n GRAVELS WITH A line & hatched zone GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures. ov on plasticity chart Oc sec FINES • H d a, ° (More than 12% Limits plot above - 8 Z ,. passes No. 200 sieve) A' line & hatched zone GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mix - Z m `- on plasticity chart tures. = a c, en w > SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands. N m y CLEAN SANDS x 3 a a c 8 a (Less than 5% passes No. 200 sieve) Oco SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands. mod Z g C o m Limits plot below '`• .c n SANDS WITH "A" line & hatched zone SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures. FINES on plasticity chart m o o (More than 12% passes Limits plot above 10 'A" No. 200 sieve) line & hatched zone SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures. on plasticity chart o o g SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY ML Inorganic silts, clayey silts with slight 5 m ,� m°za pp�wo (Liquid Limit Less Than 50) plasticity. J w O H fOZNF -'n W m a m SILTS OF HIGH PLASTICITY SILTS Inorganic silts. micaceous or diatoms m 8 g (Liquid Limit More Than 50) MH ceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts. Q c o ,. w z Inorganic clays of low to medium plas- 1 O o < CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY CL ticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty t7 (Liquid Limit LThan 50) clays. lean clays. Z O 4O�O� v' LL V CLAYS CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat a (Liquid Limit More Than 50) clays. - x NOTE: Coarse grained soils with between 5% & 12% passing the No. 200 sieve and fine grained soils with limits plotting in the hatched zone of the plasticity chart to have dual symbol. PLASTICITY CHART DEFINITIONS OF SOIL FRACTIONS 60 x 50 w Z 40 30 U 20 'C J a-10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SOIL COMPONENT I PARTICLE SIZE RANGE Cobbles Gravel Coarse gravel Fine gravel Sand Coarse Medium Fine Fines (silt or clay) Above 3 in. 3 in. to No. d sieve 3 in. to ii in. �4 in. to No- 4 sieve No. 4 to No. 200 No. 4 to No. 10 No. 10 to No. 40 No. 40 to No. 200 Below No. 200 sieve LIQUID LIMIT PLATE A .-r DESCRIPTIVE TERMS CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS Descriptive Field Identification Term Very soft Core (height twice diameter) sags under own weight. Easily penetrated by fist and offers no resistance to blunt end of pencil -size object.' • Soft Can be pinched in two between thumb and forefinger. • Blunt end of pencil -size object makes deep penetration easily. Firm Can be imprinted easily with fingers. Blunt end of pencil - size object makes 1/t inch penetration with moderate ef- fort. Stiff Can be imprinted with considerable pressure from fingers. Blunt end of pencil -size object can make moderate pene- tration (about' inch). Very stiff Barely can be imprinted by pressure from fingers but fin- gernail easily penetrates. Blunt end of pencil -size object makes slight indentation. Hard Cannot be imprinted by fingers or blunt end of pencil -size object. Fingernail barely penetrates. RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS Description Blows Per Foot (N) Relative Density (Dr) VeryLoose <4 0 to 0.15 Loose 5-10 0.15 to 0.35 Medium 11-30 0.35 to 0.65 Dense 31-50 0.65 to 0.85 Very Dense >50 0.85 to 1.00 SLOPE CLASSES FOR TOPOGRAPHY DESCRIPTIONS Description n %of Slope Level .............................................. 0 to 1 Nearly Level ........................................ 1 to 3 Gently Sloping ...................................... 3 to 8 Moderately Sloping ................................ 8 10 12 Moderately Steep •...• ........................... 12 to 20 Steep............................................ 20 to 40 Penetration Test Blows/Ft. N 0-1 2-4 5-8 9-15 16-30 > 30 II Unconfined Compressive Strength Toni/Sq. Ft. < 0.25 0.25 to 0.50 0.50 to 1.00 1.00 to 2.00 2.00 to 4.00 > 4.00 DEGREE OF PLASTICITY OF COHESIVE SOILS Degree of Plasticity Plasticity Index None to slight..................................0-4 Slight.......................................... 5-7 Medium........................................8-22 High to VeryHigh .......................... over 22 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS Descriptive Term , Percent Trace.......................................... 1-10 Little..........................................11-20 Some........................................21-35 And .......................................... 36-50 1, Fayetteville, Arkansas June 4, 1973 Roy Clinton „Chairman Fayetteville Planning Commission c/o Bobby Jones, Planning Administrator Drawer F Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Copies to: Donald Grimes3 City Manager Colonel Robert Utley, Chairman Fayetteville - Drawer F Springdale Transportation Policy Commission Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 933 Pembroke Road Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission Arkansas Highway Department Box 745 Attention: Mr. Joe Foster Springdale Arkansas 72784 Box 2261 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Board of Directors, Drawer F Deer Mr. Clinton Fayetteville, Arknnaao 72701 At the hearing held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission May 14, 1973, the deadline for letters to that organization in regard to street planning was set for June 12, the date of the next meeting. Therefore this petition is presented by owners of property along Rockwood Trail who did not have the opportunity of signing the pet itibh' sent to the various commissions in March. We, as did the signers of the previous petition, ask that Rockwood Trail be removed from the overall street plan as a collector route, and that there be no further consideration of extending the street eastward to Hwy 265. The reasons for this request are; 1. The present pavement width is approximately 25 feet with a 40 foot right of way. The classification "collector street" subjects the right of way to a possible widening to 60 feet. This widening would be disasterous to most of our lswhd 8Al plantiuge Find bring the edge of the right of way almost against a few of the dwellings. A relatively peaceful existence for most of us, would be ended. Such a classification implemented with the proposed extension to Hwy 255 may increase traffic to where the classification could be raised to that bf "minor arterial" which would call for an additional widening to I. - .' It page 2 - petition of owners :of property along.Rookwood Trail 8o feet-- and on and on through succeeding classifications until our properties would be completely erased. None of us will voluntarily deed any of our land • to provide for an increased right of way. 2. The street has become, for all practical purposes, a collector route for residents of adjacent additions. The opening of Pembroke Read allows accoso by residents of the north and of Mt ie Scquoyah. Rockwood Trail is not at pr000nt overloaded with traffic as there are other avenues of egress. However, Rockwood Trail is not the quiet street it once was. Noise is bad, especially from care with blooie pipes, and from motor bikes. With the prevailing southerly winds, houses along the north side of the road suffer from motor fumes and dust, especially in the summer when it should be pleasant to open doors and windows. Any increased traffic could become unbearable because of the noise, dust, and 3. The topography is not suitable for an increase in traffic, especially during periods of snow and ice as there are several grades of near 20%. The sharp rises and dips in the street are especially dangerous at these times. Any extension of Rockwood Trail to Hwy 265 involves steep slopes. The east end of the pavement beyond the intersection with Pembroke has a grade of 20%. According to the Fayetteville Topographic Quadrangle of the U. S. Geological Survey, there is a drop of 220 foot between the intersection of Pembroke eastward 1703 feet to an intermittent stream where the slope is broken, a rate of 171 feet'in a quarter of a mile. This compares to a rate of 158 feet per quarter of a mile down the westward slope of Rockwood Trail from Sequoyah Drive to Mission. (These figures are only approximate because of the scale of the map, but are close.) This latter stretch has to be avoided oftentimes in winter. %xtending the road to the east would only compound the difficulties. It would'be better for those who might use an extended Rockwood Trail. to continue to travel Hwy 45 which provides a more nearly level route into Fayetteville. Route Selection And Preliminary Design 1 Highway 265 (Crossover Road) v To Downtown I ' ' v n44..� • Pre*ented To jj r , BOARD OF CITY;sDiRECTORs I i FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS w. ." 4J �rvK*• 'x\l i -;- - S i. ' A' !p \` :•d . - 1. �.9s.65 A .Vf 4'{' .. %-'.y.. .i.1 ,- ., 9 } ,. xgyp •- - r < tt-Grafton; Tull, Spann '& Yoe; Irtc. Architects &-Engineers ° Rogers, 'Ark C : TM Y j K �'/[ ;,Sh �i. 1.tT.' ♦ v w i �,d }��1VY �� k �' x kv\.p'£'� n ':.+� i. . • C ji"a a i '.minX Kn x'`T l •Re vt ny'"✓: v) a atpRG✓ h .y. '.c 4, . . Mme, .. January 16, 1988. Revised- ,Febr.ua•ry 13,1986: x . t.9wMt L mar. ►.9. sot$ H. CNlui. ►.J. Tiwelee 9. twe►er, ►.9. ml. Rasa, ►.9. Droop Rw I I Don a wn. A.I.A. 1 OMd Swee ia,s,i A.I.A. LawN H. TWI. P.9. I. cloy t Ya. P E . 1942.1005 H. Assoctnes WOW"MM" SIS' • 0.£ "Chops' ChWnaoo P.E. Jim Maeiars Junse ►. ewerwgen, A.I.A. J. R. •Sic" TMiW; Mok c. Yeurq Le., P.e. Crofton, Tull, Sponn & Yoe, Inc. 4rchasds A Engineers February 13, 1986 Board of City Directors City of Fayetteville' Fayetteville, AR :' '/ Dear Directors:' . We are transmitting herewith. our Route Selection and Preliminary Design Report fora proposed collector' `treet between downtown Fayetteville and Highway 266 on the east side o.f the city. This report contains three alternatearoutes``along.with .- preliminary grade lines and cost .estiNatrs.'r..The estimated project costs, range from 01.9.to,s2:.7-kil'iion doll -era based on 1986 prices v - ;1-:-: ( µ ?.. ie i er.. 2}r,i Mae f •During preparation of thisreport.;we`,`have received •input from • members of your staff, area' utility, co m' -p, &'n i el a ai�na,& �Ku me rc us other persons. We gratefully, acknowled eithe contributions of eachof.' 9 Y 9 t them. F It has been a particular-pleasure,for ustomconduct'.this • study and we,thank you for the opportunlcyto-., of.servlce. .If'.. there are any,'qu.-stions regarding thet,iieport "_it %o by your-i office or others, please do:,not hea,lta_te to;=•,cal1 _uai :` .- ~. Very truly. youn6 ••' CRAFT0N, T LL,-§PANN a `Y E,`'�,INC.� rj. , ;, I . " .. 1 :1'l� ` • 2•...,� ' tY+'it�. „fS qi.. �i 932 fl'i / � r • • Bob H. Crofton'.E. . y.' , :d •iI • Dan Brown, C. n , • DB/pre. ri _ a 3 Y V v iI tsl S 1' t[: Y t 1 5 i P. O. Drawer 549 / 2800, North 2nd street/Ropers: Arkansas 721757.0549 /(501)036.4838 /'(501) 636.7261 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PURPQBE OF.STUDY 1-2 III. DESIGN CRITERIA PR COLLECTOR ROADWAYS 2 IV. BASIS FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN - 3-4 V. TYPICAL SECTION 4' it VI. PROPOSED ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS ,. 6-e. VII. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATE ALIGNMENTS,•r 9-13 VIII. PRELIMINARY SOILS AND GEOLOGY::INVESTIGATION.13-14 IX. ADDITIONAL ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED. „'° 14-16 X. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES 16 XI. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION9L 17-20.... t' . i l �e 1 - NSF - . ¢ - MCE •Illj +L 4.• n iY TPI • .A; 1�� 2� : . 5Lv -r t -z r : s 'iv boy F' + 1 may- x s va SCE /.l vy Y na $ . p' .t (ty'�f \ G yY a \ .F \F �J 'n .. • 9 1 CfY 1�, fv. ZY•.-.Yx%Gv�4'i _ •' - s• E S q Y )f �f .6 - 4Y..T(, Y*uip a 9• �xs r �ry�Y? �Y` IVa�. .. tr 'ice A Rid i" • .. a -1 J i�' .. r Y 4i� �. Ifi- , teti/.. r 1 r • :, 1 n • � _S✓ r x• +p �• It.• . v ♦' r .. ] �1 , • The location of roads and streets in the'City of.Payette- rule has historically been controlled to a certain degree by the physiological configuration of the area. This has been especially true In the area of Mount Sequoyah, where the attraction for development is strong because of the sdenic'v.iews, but yet access is difficult because of steep gradesr,?Consequently, no through route over Mount Sequoyah has been constructed. -.As, development • r N A-: has ourrounded the mountain and the'corridor.kalongState Highway 265, interest has grown in the possibility of adtrect route to the downtown area which would reduce 'travel time'and distance.- - •r In September, 1985, the City Board Of: Directors took steps to authorize the preparation of this report. to investigate the feasibility'of such a route.` � fON':' _ .A1 l A} ry �8✓ pt ^slyA. • ll. eUeaLQe_TUPX '_ , .. - The purpose: of this gsy4" 'tudis,. to determ)ne th'e' feasibility, of 9 cons.tructing,a'collector street to connect the downtown. area of Fayetteville,.Arkansas to.State.'HJghway'265ata`locatton come i•::.. � ry '�. 'i' a '- 5r .. •• = � !"'•- d.( ' where between State'"Hlghwa,s 45 end„l6 (See F'lgure'I, in the.._ Appe.ndtx) The de,termination'of'.such ',fea=,ibldlty' ;wi11 be based on n.i 5. .:✓>:. [�.. • i ,• ..� � � Sd�AL RUA iF, ) -. •A d _ r_ pre l'4minary designs prepared, for three al`ternate'.routea, . a,.m • t 4 i C . ., P • t x�s -a'q: w ) of Hsi � +� ..�J • l�'.`> ifi - ¢ � • is V .. ..a v' n3frll� '- a .. v > C{ <x N - v ', 4r • •r 4• ` ..k•. � \a �;y \ loll., l.r r• 1 Ir r • '\ rlraver Yi�\I J1r• r v4b . r r�yr 1 (, .6 •_ p r' ''.L' --.dA r -._e n ! `yapdn l..i:� go. �•�\ J S rnL :✓ ..r r'- r V'. f �. •L'R.r • "'P` .!11� C1.a,ii't•Z (./ _ P M1:\" r 'r .' ti a! e qL/ , V consideration of the construction cost and the technical advan- tages and disadvantages of each route, as well as a general assessment of the impact that the connection of each route to ealating streets will have on the surrounding niiohborhoods. III. QESIQN_GBIiEBIA_!Q@_GQLLECTQ6-9T@EET&' • • Collector streets perform an imp or,`tant"•tuna tion.,in.the over- all street system.by.serving internal trefftc movements within an it 'f 'r eNF1G, Tst > - n L ;-R t - area of a city, such as a resident►al'area,.and.connecting this J,ri 4Y' , A loot F' .V area with the major arterial, system. It does riot handle long through trips, and performs the same property access function as the local residential street. Design s,peeds for coleetor streets generally range from 30 to 40 mph. The, number5of lanes may vary, depending on anticipated traffic growth 'and4access;demands from abutting properties. Medians are not a typi`ca4feature of collet-, . for streets, the shoulder area between?l`.the curb and".rfyht-of-ray .- - - 1 # .fir. dir �i' 'F, . N' !Fri line provides space: for aIdewaIks,jestorm"dradnage, traffic•signs,;, and utilities. ,The width of the shoulder area is"normally-10 to , - 15 feet. Specific,desIgn criteria .usedfor this study, along .'' with the proposed typical roadway sections, are shown in Figures 43 .. _.. YYti n .k?' r . rr Kit xi 'ia'.-Y 4 and 5, in the. Append): .;' �Y... Y .1 I v T. • T JS # Y'. e '1 - ` t Al g •L'r e. + • ' sop: i d": ; "•5 i ./ 14 . , •.� ri e+i Ifk i T i r' , l c� • -� l 1 .'. . ..¢¢ry''3�� ' v€ f 52 rlt . iii \ 4I__;%'_-,__' f w e c 5" •l �<i r$ r3 5� • r '• f.' rh! r 1 �•Yrl f. n � ' lf � V • � � rh SAT .i• � -F/ii . T J ` nom.. I —�nrr •. l _ nP •:ri - if 5 4 „ k : 1••/.��'y:��•� "�••�"�' •���'r'i..'2. �.i'.Y p'.rWwl..y.�iBiM •wi.V•'• o. lye 019I8_[QB_C86LItlIdABY_QB$IGd@ The plans prepared in connection with this study were compiled from contour maps furnished by the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas and anal photographs taken in December of 1985 by M•J• Harden Associates of Kansas City, Missouri. The accuracy of these maps complies with generally accepted photogramsetric stan- dards and is considered, adequate for.the purposes of this study. The roadway alignments developed hereinare=a. based in large r l fi In ,". - " measure on the location of. exIsting streets houses and other physical features. It is assumed that -In fial-pro$ect design ad - 6 R s rsa . L 7ustments of the center linemay be. necessary to minimize the num- w .ber of small remnants or unusable.pleces of Iand'based on proper- ty ownerships in effect at that time; :'Property,.ownerships and parcels (shorn on Exhibit -A" and incthe Appendix) were furnished by a local abstractor and reflect current records at the time > this study was prepared:', Exhibit „-SA" ts' a; Iar.geII'fol.ded. print. 'In a pocket at the back of:.this 'reports; Prel.lainary field studies f r V ,gn were made ofsoils and geolo4I_cal format'ionsrinrthe`area and -, those results are presented elsewhere in this report. -Traff.ic counts furnished by7the- Arkansas•Hlghway and,Transportation' Departmentare shorn •In Figure?'2i' ,Prediction of future traffic volumes is dependent upon proposed :and uses and as Asuch ls_, � r beyond •thet'scope of ttilsreport, .however' w.wbeic,!i`evyjeathe�magntude ` � t Pa a. • .. • . . +-4F�0 r Y,i: i f d. • P, I. ' Y '. x s'e. . . i xi is ;' . . z 3 kry � ' t lil 'f e f of the existing traffic counts suggests that a four lane facility Is desirable for the protect corridor.. Existing road right-of- way widths shown In Figure 3 reflect the contents of 'Atlas Maps' for Fayetteville as published by the City Cnglneers office. Utility locations shown on Exhibit. •A were taken from records furnished by the utility owners. V. eeQeQn_izeicaL_sauad :,- The proposed 49 feet wide typical:sectlon (see Figure 4, In the Appendix) complies -with proposed,Clty requireuents for new. r.F v.. fi. 5 ,. > streets, and includes four driving lanes, each 4.1 feet wide,. con- structed of an eat lasted .7 inches 6U Portland cenent'concrete - .. .. . ' � 9'- pavement or Be of Asphalt Pavement'.. Exact determination of the "' r .«rSn na♦ s- !: Y i' int+ Y, a " ' •, required pavement thickness must.bedone.ducingthe,final deaign phase based on. extensive soii testing of the pr.oieei corr[dor..: ' is F V d,! a is e i ♦ YU. - ." �'` :}� h Curb and gutter. -will be..constructed along the outside.edgea of -1 ra aa•," jAis ! cv the roadway to carry storm drainage trom'the roadway and to ro3` it' yrf ^A is %l A provide delineation of the drlving,lanes'.' A l0"foot vide E` _a,''$ K`. at%f 'k" ' " ., v; 4iA Yr ,` fl shoulder area on both sides pro,y,idea roo'm'�for'storrsewers, 4tlIIL _ vt tiesand,sidevalks:` The•proposed minimum r`Ight-of-way.wldth Lst Ar yf .�: • 80 :feet (40feet either .tide of.the roadway centerline):. Areas, yt' to y w J , .:r with significant •cutsror fi'l1Ps 'Will require, additional rt right of yJr♦ ) I n Y •Frj t. e n> xwf yi ♦+*„ :1''3'Z,P•,•.vRL ♦T.}'Y t �. p♦! i : P y [ �. • r = toil Le. q ✓!-. ray, for roadway conatruct,!'on, • !q _ ♦'4a �a /M. • C f �. 1S$'T l a1''L. 4 A S • v�*j'. v :. :. ;t ..♦ .j rP Px�p•.. `,.. f Fh '.c - £ <, i i' P ntY Y .v r, ai � a• C 5 ll $4Yhh <. akp i { kw `♦ 4 a ]' * • x Y tia4rva fir. s _ v •° y tip, �, _, �. :' a Y .aa• • el[s♦-r 9 fr Itj �Sn .v '^ ! dv 1K.e �v1e 4 fl_'". J. "flivfi f w+..,vipy3> LS _ _ r -_ t. !y • k+ �m VI. EBQEQXQ_ILIBBBbXE_aL1QdbEBI9 Three alternate alignments have been selected for further consideration In connection with evaluating the feasibility of constructing this road. Please refer to Figure 7 and Exhibit A' for delineation of these alternate routes.: No major conflicts with utilities are apparent with any of the proposed alternate alignments: Adjustments of existing'utilities are likely under all of the proposed routes. Alternate 'Bbegins at the Intersection of,M1ssion Blvd. and Rockwood Trail then proceeds eas.'twardalong exIstingRockwood Trail to its present terminus just east -of Pembroke R�ad. The alignment then continues easterly for approxImeteIy one quarter. C3 °'. r .tea of a mile before deflecting sllght,ly,southeasterly,and connecting to State Highway 265 at a'po[nt approxlmately 300 feet south of F fckt x Xe! 'm.� the entrance to the Hyland Park subdivision.. Because of♦the exts- - JGs - y tence of numerous homes located relatively close :to,the existing - r -`.- - - w 40 foot right-of-way on Rockwood,fTrall-, we believe the only~feasi ♦n w' -r' .. f0. �� r!� F .., Jr ble way:, to utilize this alignment would be to construct a two-, + 4 r W f} 4fiL`! .Yh'. . f ZS F i.l .lu if. lane, 31 foot wide streetfsectIon fSee ,Ffgure;5, ii theiAppendtx> a aV ;. U. YtiL �R♦ rS f x4vY Z'4# . ! c r • j Try , [ In this,`area on essentially the same: grade llne;as;'the existing' •"e Z. ry_ •r'n' 5£ p�• .. • ' '3.•♦ a M i ♦ f l V T 1 r. roadway; in- arderfto ma-intain driveway.acc'ess :for residentswhose :, t V J ifs♦.. Yvay+jc Y+Y. k't .. .�i Pf .r f rv=''� F$4y yTrY J+ homes front onto Rockwood Treti and a:so`'tc avc:d constructionlof --¼L..-. L ur - fY' - .. Y V [ rt Y .13 up f.' the 49' wide street section In close proximity to those existing hoses. Please refer to the following section of this report for additional discussion of the Impact of the roadway on residents of Rockwood trill. Proposed grades on the existing portion of Rockwood Trail range from a minimum of approximately 4% to a saxt- ams In •V.ess of 20%. It is not anticipated that any significant changes In the existing grade will be allowable due to close proximity of numerous structures along:,.the existing route. Beyond the existing end of Rockwood Trall;.gcades range from a alnisus of 1% up to a maximum of 16%.f'.Proposed Alternate B'. crosses four strea■ beds.which will require either new drainage structures or upgrading of the existing structures. Alternate 'C'_has in common with Alternate 'Be that existing 1. Y portion of Rockwood Trail from ,MlssSon Blvd,;east to:a„ point east- - .re« erly of Pembroke Road, From that point Alternate 'C'.'dewtatea: frog:Alternate 'B'.by turning norther:y force distance of approxi- motely g ,. erl'y and connecting`wfth B00 feet then bending back east il. YF1,s" • �" ar a. .. . s. the existing, west end of Mano-'Drive,then proceeedingcalong Manor ., „ s, . nv eP Drive tolts intersectfc; w;t• Highway 265. Alternate 'C', of .¼- I V-t Y,. course; shares the .aame lfinitatf.ons as .Al ternate.,,B' as far as . . h: v. _=-at..=V4yA. l'i! rl T problems associated with existing development along -Rockwood Trail. However, developmentValcr.g :.or llriveI egenerally. _ eF loea'ted farther back, frdM'the, as a....g 'with a wider existing !A` . wSS • -i > r Yf idF S ! " i l f,. > § n '— - r 'ry e s;.. .'° bx ate. . -r s -< r t M :_4'•'> 4 r ry l - 4V -P , �: ,•a.'. vy 3 - - i lY ,rvII f a[ �.?♦.nS Y right-of-way which slightly reduces the impact. of location of the collector road along this route as. compared to Rockwood Trail. The centerline of Manor Drive say need to be shifted south to avoid the four homes located. on the north side of Manor Drive, adjacent to Highway 265. Grades on the'.nowly constructed portion of Alternate .C range from approximately 2% to approximately 15%• Existing grades on•Manor Drive range from 2% to approximately 10%. Alternate 7Ca:cohtains four -stream beds which. will require either new or upgraded drainage structures. Y4 ♦' .f > I Alternate aD'.begins at the intersee>tion of Lafayette Street . sr and MissionBlvd• Both of these streets'aare currently designated ZA' 1 1 F:. Ll - .i. t .Vii. I a'-' lay' l•n Y. ' as State Highway 45•• From this intersection AIternate,'Djpro -t x Y. _4 -_--__t..-_.- _} - ,... coeds eastward along o u sting Lafayette.Street for'approximately: p ♦jar%. - ♦! t C. 700 feet at which point existing pavement;ends The proposed " d.YYP.c.. Wry alignment then proceeds southeas%erly.fnteirsecting .Dogwood Lane; 6i 4 F��ly+^R Assembly Road. and Williams Dr1ve 1Assembly,Road is also known as•; _ } , . fi' i 4 T .lT• l V - }Z .i t4- - ._ r. n f S�// ,.. r se 1`* . i v- • State Highway 180. In order to taH"•rAffa:c f:':w cn existing. roads in this area (See Figure 6;. ::: t•:e Apper.c:x) is proposed. �.: ire 1 n _eK. a:.- - ,�' ISIS i i e ( .✓ - r to connect Assembly Road and:Seggo�an. ;;r.ve c:: tree north aide of's" ;Y e ` the proposed roadway,, with the cor . re i :raff.c :r' traveling . F M1 ' 1M1 eastet4 on Rex',Driv to Williams "r. r • w- :ca wr ' y. r e ( „. ,1 • •,:d ,c.erseet 9Y F ry k 4Ti I, r yy.vh t � ♦ i Y.: Y �"' f: v '. r � • with the proposed route �; Dn the a<:,r: r r: de m.f'ml r.e ^teedaR'+• p ( d.1 1 •' _ •- tys route,' Dogwood Lane and Mlssour;C Wiy •;:j:d be ..nr.r,ecoed, e:lminat- • .> Ya� !et{// La .3• ... n t b s 4 ry rM1 rM y ,s w a f ♦ a M1 I t e♦ a �t 4 . + A <A kk F r J Y. '[. •. . T 1 / f y�+Sa'J "} h 4M1� n l '.I "[� `. } M1 ., a / .• / } , a!♦ 4 j r !-i 5�h[M1 M1'R t t M1a- 1 7 ✓I e: - . -d}'ao rHfy M ♦ M1p 1' e6 Ing that portion of Dogwood Lane east of the Intersection. Asses- bly Road would be abandoned from Sequoyah Drive south to a point on Skyline Drive. Access to the Methodist Assembly grounds would be by way of the intersection of the proposed project with Williams Drive then proceeding southerly to.either North Skyline Drive or East Skyline Drive using existing access points onto the assembly grounds. This p);n would require' improvements to Rex Drive, Williams Drive, Sequoyah Drive and the intersection of Dog- wood wood Lane and Missouri Way 'Additional access:polnts to Metho- dist Assembly grounds exist atathe south westerly corner of the grounds by way of Texas Way and Center Street to.Fle:tcherWay. 44 l M1 AI. From Williams Drive the proposed center! ine::for:-Alternate 'D' swings northeasterly passing. parallel and approximately. 200 feet south of Anson Drive and continues northeasterly for approximate- ly 1500 feet before swinging to a.southeasterly.'directlon and connecting with Highway 265 at'a.point approximately300 feet" south of the entrance to the Myland1Park:subdivision. Grades on i rv`{ j','�wi [ v n•.fi I�yx Y 1+`R rj* . the proposed alignment range;trod:l+tPto a ea:isum of;15t. All, b..:,. rv• , a .. 5 .♦�.. F I Ym o • curves have a design speed of 35 mph exceptrthecurve on the nv R\ <'9✓.qy� �� T.'�tpYJ�a tt_ �� l•. � -.�<�y a "`YS rv.:' crest of Mount Sequoyah (Williams 5treet;intersectlon) which has • r [ C eke .if'.u. 's¢ l �0 iY`Y +�-�`_ ; a °25 mph design speed:, k,' Y '., 7: *'*�gi6�, • s lY "y i•' ff.': T S. -Y gg.L a It l rti Sy[.. .I eJ F � r!� . +p r r P 'A 5 .eY ' al p ♦ r W: Y it 5 L .5iY ` r C VYi r i A' r- `fin / - VI!. S56asdtuLgLbLs6Bdeffi_BLlcdugufl The following discussion of Alternates B'; 'C' and Dis presenter 'or the purpose of pointing out the relative merits of each alignment from a technical and a neighborhood Impact stand- point. Alternate 8' primarily has,thd advantage of being approx- Itately 1,000 feet shorter than any;of:the other.routes. In a.ddi- a. tion, side street improvements required- under A1°ternate:'13'.are limited to the area of the intersections.. Rockwood: Trail:' Is al - s ready designated as a collector route on the City's' Master Street Plan. Disadvantages of Alternate -'-B' lire prImarlIy connected_ with that portion of the. route which passes thr,:ough'the existing . ", :: neighborhoods. The existing Rockwood Trail• right -of way:4s extremely narrow (-40 feet wide). In addition, exIIsting�hauses are constructed quite close to the -street right-of-way ;This 3 • 9i ., 51 ]� �] vMF' t' Y " - situation prevents reconstruction of Rockwood Trallwto thev49 . .. .. 'Y lT.. i , ^� t foot width proposed` elsewhere on4`the protec.t,iConstruct`ion of f.,.J I 51 11 I d •.,q the 49. foot wide section,woul'd require acqusftiap of, homes along '..: .}I;µ hIL:dl • •. .e .Za .} q 31.9. it• one side or another of Rockwoodira`i.l to..provide 'room forcon= _ , struction of the street.The,negative° •i-r.pact 6fIIthe 49' street -.-: ,.i on the exlsti4 . neighborhood wou"ld,be very vere,.causeAsing 9) relocation of numerous family units and extensive disruption of neighborhoods. In add'Itlon, construction noise and I-: dust along' r .. - L i {1 1 •5✓ ti ... n 'lf Y; *6 M1 ♦ [. a n•� tl f` des n'(YL-. _ .yFl" F } -et-• p ,5'_4 • Y ' -.fir: lr . .'.b. with Increased noise level and traffic after construction ate expected. Al an alternate we would suggest construction of Improvements to a two-lane section through the area Si indicated on Figure 5. Construction of a two-lane facility, through the existing neighborhood is likely to require a substantial number of retaining walls and may result in steep driveways for access to properties adlacent.to Rockwood Trail. The negative Impact of constructing the two-lane roadway through the existing neighbor- hood is substantially less because no relocation of ,families is anticipated. However construction activities and Increased traffic along Rockwood Trail will impact the neighborhoods in either case. In addition, excessively steep grades on -Rockwood. Trail are such that they may be considered unacceptable`for 'a <. _ collector type facility. 2 r. . . UZ e • C p S.l's The advantages of A?lternate 'C' ` 4^1 include a?less severe- grad? line for newly constructed areas o -f the pro:lect,. Again side. street Improvements -are limited. to. the intersectlon curb returrs only. Alternate 'C' provides the best sight distance on the : Y� - � -r • eastern to zinal connectinglwith Highway265•'Alternate C*:could a {- [-.? _ _. be opened with the lowest constructioon`cost by leaving the exl.t- '• Ing sections at eachend'ln,place.c=and improving: the Manor Drive• ' )kr".. s : 'Y7" l E .uiw a2 r c' S•�i "iFb; �- �� y>a. nor a and Rockwood Trail sections at such future date:-&."si'the trafftc' p ......o ^r✓ [ l -Y a 1 y is . j 4 * 7W n YJ • would demand; The dlsadvantaaes.'of Alternate. include'al1 cf . Y3. • - - .. n y4 S•$ a6 i. �x -. ih^ l Y ♦ S[NJ as , _ [ . 4. iJ l 'V4 fi. m r, those disadvantages listed for"Alternate 1.. In addition Alter' sets *CO goes. through an additional existing neighborhood located along ManorDrlve. Again a narrow existing right-of-way *sifts which would esquire acquisition of -some additional right-of-way In order to construct the proposed improvements. Manor Drive is presently not designated as a collector route on; the city of,. Fayetteville Master Street Plan.' Alternate Dprovides the least amount of disruption of . existing neighborhoods. In addition it providesthe, most direct connection to down town''Fayettevllle via Lafayette Street (State Highway 45) and -opens up a substantial area for:._future develop: u sent on the east side of Mount Sequoyah." Alternate 'D'•provides H. x. . Improved access to Mount.Sequoyah MethodIattAs'sesbly,Graunds. 'In a •addition, Lafayette Street lr currently destgnate,d as a collector and also serves as State Highway 45: Disadvantages of Alternate. 'D' are that substantial. aide "street='ieproveaents vill.:be requlr-i c:_ f t ed on Sequoyah and Williams Drtves$to,maIntain-:a.11existing i. traffic movements in that area. Ra Thisinvolvessllght=re-routing `r • `P -'.•S K.y t if.« S ,may �sy, .... 1 �'�¢ /a i s • E: p of,.Assembly'Drive (State Highway 1'80)11and„'would require;approval yM.. by the Arkansas Hlghi+ay and Tranap'or tat ion 'Department. 'Another. disadvantage'of Alternate' D' is that it dces have a,•considerabfile length of 15% grade'' which _.:will3increase the difficulty traversing the route in inclement weather: Thenegative impact on_existing . a - fe .. •i 1 v a 1 V •4 _ .f+0.k axe Yin , } V ':. •! i u � 't4_r ._i= ". FkP a JI`r ♦ 9 • ti v �P ' 3 yy..•, ry x n i' P ti. •k'M..' . .! F i k� did IiT 'K y yy i ^11 t� . -' . J µ ! v 1 a y 1 l G b i 1 .. 7 apt Z _ _ • ' 'ri nelghborhoodarls quite varied along this proposed route. For the fifteen (IS) existing boats on Lafayette Street, east of Mission Boulevard, the project will require a sfgnlflcsnt portion of their front yards for room to cor,steuct the project thereby • resulting in decreased use of their property'and.possible reduced property values for residential uses. In addition .to.construc- tion noise and dust,. their area viii he subject to 'additional noise and traffic through the neighborhood after coapletion of construction. For the neighborhood locatedfrom the end of Lafayette Street to Williams Drive, the negative Impact may, be considered somewhat less in intensity since the proposed project would bet4 located across the rear of the residential tracts.I.- Front '.yards '. In this area are expected to remain' Intact. The aaj:or d.mpacts, would consist of construct lor..'.noise and dust; and cornversion of woodlands to public roadway uses. Be of wooded areps remaln-H t asr • Y '"-. Ing between the proposed`ruadypyrand re'sldentlal structures, the inoise and traffic Impacts after construction are not'expected to 4 F2 ' .� 4 p p, ry `Si i s n ' .. ( x n C f : i/Y W, {. be severe. Revision et existl'ngrtraffic,patterns .in,this area ' say be `considered a temporary.:' inconvenience. -' r nR )ryryk,7 A. f •'1'4� 4 �v% iy a X S� I' . S 5 - F r-qy 'w r v -C : . '�, The area fromWil,llams'Drlve to Highway, 265 •1s essentially. 4• ' � le A �'. F Sf NIF . .�f '• e vd 1� � <n 3.. ; '.g r '.: e�. undeveloped. Therefore the negattve,impact:in; this`area is P •y I • f .S•.\. l r } t. y f !w: espeeted to consist of construction notes and dust, and eonver- aims of woodlands to public rood use. The positive impacts for neighborhoods along the entire root* consists of Improved access in an East-West direction. This access will result in faster response times for emergency vehicles much ae oolice, fire, and emergency medical services, as well as reduced travel time and expense. The construction of the proposed protect will also provide access to previously unavail- able areas which may result in additional development. within the City. This will benefit the City at large because of the Increas- ed tax base and creation of Jobs in the construction segment of. the economy. Of course„ the City at large also reaps -.the benefit of reduced travel time and cost associated with the proposed -- route ". .:. Y < ry4y 2 VIII "" F . eBELltlttl@SY_$QIL9BIiQsi�QLQfiYIdY6STIfi8TI4� J %}y✓ Y.�i r' -- p F -k I i rr aeSFY :e ry > • :. � a j, 4_ [ . The preliminary soils.report^,Is a.tta`ched hereto„as Appendix 2. Soils in the area consist primarily of the Enders and Hector soil associations. These soils have certain problems associated a.:., Y F n f. A: - �. '4 .v .. ✓ $ .. TvC 1� k�N r +"` F<+.__.. { ♦ :. .T+r$i Y'{r with their use 1n highway'constructl`on&.. .When cuts made: fn" .ere .'. the hill sidefor roadway construction the soils, are; known. to ;:• L have prublems with:allppage and sliding under certain conditions. 3 nua .. a .. - .. S---4 rG a r. R, Y 4L JT'it_} u. kA This problem Is common throughout the Fayetteville area and simply requires that either flatter side slopes thin normal or slope stabilization measures must be Incorporated as part of the construction. The average depth of bedrock in the area is appears to be on the order of 4 to 8 feet and most of the soils are also known to be subject to erosion. Pavement design will be J affected by the highly plastic clays in the area. Their presence will require stabilization measures, such as lime treatment, to• produce a suitable subgrade for the.pavement.- .Construction cost estimates In this report have been prepared with general knowledge of these potential soil problems. See Figure 7 for boring locations. Id - .. IX. BQQIiIQtlBL_BLISitltlEtli _Q4tlSIQEHEQ Additional al,14nments cons ideria,�- are notedjon the Route Loca= ak k :-< tion Map (Exhibit 'A') I. : with dashed.l a dashe"line. TAlternate A follows Alternate 'D' from. its beginning at.the Intersection of.Miaslon- z 'F •`• r; 3y ar.., .A ?-- r{ tom'. r. .'F . ek°' vx .i--. Blvd. and Lafayette Street to its`-intersectton with -Williams ';'- YR• A VY F� 1 4 � f Drive. Williams Drive is: located'or."the`crest:of Mount`Sequoyah. Y a -. ♦ VI M. .. roV : :.. -it- Easterly lq . from this pofnt,rAlterc:ate 'A':runs;lnfa straight llne f r .] 4C' el 5f _ due . east to a connect Ion, w I thit Highway 265 This- al-ternete was = -s.- ...^ �✓� Y K w i S f, .�•n fF J r a i „. G V R. considered unacceptable because£of; t�h{�e� e a remelylong "length of grade in excess of 15% along the eaast s.Idefof MountSe.quoyah. In .. e, f bt cR ,: 14 „1 addition, the eastern terminus is not near'iny significant tat - fit generator on Highway 265. Alternate Ealso begins at the intersection of Mission Blvd. and Lafayette Street and continues on the same alignment with Alternate D' to a point approximately 1300 feet easterly of Williams Drive.. At that point Alternate 'E' curves off to the right and heads in a southeasterly direr tion crossing Alternate 'A', swinging.-ao,the south of..Alternate 'A', at the maximum of 250 feet southerly, before swinging back to the northeast and connecting to Highway 265 at the same point as Alternate A. The idea behind Alternate E' was to eliminate the severe grade problems experlenced:.with Alternate 'A'. How- ever, Alternate 'E' did little to improve the grade:situation. Other disadvantages of Alternate 'A' also apply to Alternate E'. Alternate P' was an.attempt'to;terminate:Alternates`'B' and I i Y l Dat point lining up with the entra'nce'to the'Hyland:Park sub- . n. division. .However., this alternate had two major problems with; It; First .of .all It could require `eel°ocatfon of she a:aattng ff're . i f n' l.4 : • station at a cost estimated to be�approx'tmately.>$I50„OOO. In jt4 a. •t%.4,? 'V4Te r ✓ t - Yn ♦zo Cpl, 1: z'4y'1 addition one residence -ties directly".in theyspatli and,a..signlfi,. L ♦ Y: . jN f': YSA YSet*''' >\'t cant cost la! antfaipated io r{elocate 'this- eslde�).nce: In eddlt-1 on 'f v • 1 .. --- , •. ••M1RM Z. l the elevation of the ;,termfnal; conr.6ct lon"wlth' H":ghway .2.65 was, •, . approximately 15.fe.et higher in, grade which, results,ln'a`less '"• 1. t♦ r Y l Y Y 1 } 3 S : ;; it a .. n ha,"a.f ;. • . - g _ o < \ 15 1 - . desirable trade situation than ultimately arrived at with Altar dates -e' and 'D'. Alternate •G' was a third attempt to find a more satisfae tory teralnal point In the vicinity of the sid-point-between High- way 45 and Highway 16. However, this situation resulted in the roadway being close to other esisting residences in the area. In x: - addition the elevation of the termination with Highway 265 was approximately 30 feet higher than that experienced with Alternate 'f!- and therefore Alternate 'G' was dismissed because of unsatis- factory grade. X. gQHSISQQIIQH_&Q9T_EnTIHaTrA k ;< 3f yf The construction cost'estlmates contained hi nary in nature. As such,. the reader needs to be i _ 52T. L f r costs represent the beat preliminary estimate ays .2:.• time based on current unit prices and,our.Judgepn . - .... Ject difficulty: Use . of these dolflar;ambunte fo: 1966 should be only after adjustment =for.injflati • r � .. �%T♦ r N 4' year. v,. . .. -' % 3M VF I YS ilT,-_y'.G !µm fn -I .r y JJ.✓ ,. iti The`attachedestimates fit,the, Appendix), In: the three alternates, as follows: as -- me %: n¢ I + N I �tl'� Yx fl Y e a 4 b bx $ `li J. 1� J 16 .:.• is rein Lare, prei ia'i-. ware that these 1lable at this"', nto'f the pro years beyond n to the )desired P% ? x Y a .ql, ii %_r w 1 :v. Ac e-. fog "`' •` -9 T X h. Alternate It Alternate C: Alternate D: 11,956,000 11,860,500 12,713,000 XI. 8!ltltl16Y_atlQ_BEGQd RQ6nQN This report has presented three alternate alignments for a route to connect downtown Fayetteville, Arkansas with Crossover Road (Highway 265) on the easterly side .f .theF,city• The purpose of the report is to determine whether construction,of such a� route Is feasible. The study has shown.;that while construction of the route Is technically feasible there are certain other :fac- r. tors which need -to be considered by the Board`a! City Directors before making their decision tobuild one of i6e, proposed align,, Rental Alternate -Bwith an:estimate d total.:proJeet cost. of 11,956,000 has a severe disadvantageofpbeln'g.}loeated[prImarity' through an existing ,neighborhood. '.ThIs creates an extensive amount of dlsr.uptIon'duringconstruct'I,on.In addltionto noise caused by adaitionar traffic uponJcoap1et.Ion•of the protect. In St ,y'iF. 'r..c,4 .#� e, t!' 'fit t«'Y� _.,� e .fit. "-it' .-t' 7. 4 .i s .1:1:' . x•.:: _. addition, It Is necessary to cot s;tr,ucta substantial portion ol•t4'• at u. ..A -. the proJect-as a two. -lane facility rather than the four-lane; _lt: : .1 W `„ .. y a ;__i. 1.7." v .. width proposed elsewhere. This say be expected to result in $ lower factor of safety for persons living on the street as they ester and exit their driveways. the existing features in the nelabborhood•also limit any significant adjustments to the grade line of Rockwood Trail. This -will result in substandard site distance and excessively steep grade& in some portlons.of the project. Removal of a number of trees along Rockwood Tra)1 is anticipated to accommodate the project. :-Alternate 'Bdoes have the advantage of Rockwood -Trail already designated as a collector street. In addition Alternate 'J' is the shortest of.the .three alternates. Alternate *CO has an oattested,total:;project cost of $1,866,500. Alternate 'L' has all the'dlaadvantagts -of Alternate`. cr T L 'B' since both alternates share the twIstang Rockwood.Trallwas -_... 4 i i iyij✓F. '•ii9.'F N • (' part of the alignment.' In addition Alternate a Co.pa&sea through a second existing neighborhood along Manor Drive at"the easterly_ and of the alternate route. ' The 4iaadvantages 1l,ated for Alter-- ��{{� - y• q.. �. .+F. r •,at. d1Tj i note B' In connection -with -Rockwood Tre'1l also apply toManor, Drive although to a sooevhatri Lessor,xtent:, An advantage;to i - ,h a x p Alternate .,Co..is that -It requlrea the shortest;iilength of ''new `` k cif •`�.�� • EA x' ' } }'_� + ?�...•+ -y l= - fVi construction and provides the beet co.nectlon atr,t.he eastern send ; -° to Crossover Road CState•Hlghway 265). Alternate C' also'..has` the lowest total •stisated proIect`.eost of the ¢ttcr.ee alternates. Pa.: a y _ [ 5 �r • a . < ,w � _ Y na *iY ~� xda - Y T�� a • ^ f. t�S '_ 5H i,jnw . '`t ; ♦ `+. i .Y aa': [ .�F�.!R�iC�4y:�Yi. Alternate Dwith an estimated total project cost of L$2,713,000 Is the longest of the three alternate routes presented. It is also the moat expensive. Alternate D' requires side street improvements to maintain access to existing development in the area and involves a slight re-routing of Asses- bly Drive (State Highway 180). Another disadvantage of Alternate '0' is that It does have a considerable length of 1i+i•grade which may increase the difficulty of traveling the roadway In Inclement weather. The negative impact on the. existing neighborhood is varied along the proposed route. For about`'the first 700 feet of the project, impacts similar to, those described ;under the. pre- vious alternates exists for approximately I5 homes along Lafay= ette Street east of Mission Blvd. Easterly, from that point the Imps::t is minimized as ..the proposed, eoute runs along: the rear of homes in the area up to Williams Drlve.:East of .Will tans Drive e the area -Is ,primarily open. ,Therefore„Iit;tle negative impactls i A • '- ''rNnl 4 . associated with that section of proposed:Alternate 'D'. The advantages-associatedtwith A,lterrn'e D' '_include the most direct < 1 ii.{N A { o- S 3^#`" F ACT Aar .d 1 .- ^. .. fu1... connection, to downtownlayettevll:° y wdy of Lafaye'tte.Streett In. addition. Alternate '.D'.opens �,• + sobstantia.l area .for possi , P i rt X. - q . ri. T9.i y�n .a g e ble future developmentn ,-on the eas: side ofMountSequoyah i 4 fJ.4! improved. access to the MounC8e:qWoyah Methodist Assembly Grounds results from this alignment. While the'other alternates have cer- 19 • taro traffic carrying disadvantages to theIa because of existing development, Alternate •0' may be constructed to the full four- lane width for the entire length of the project. The additional traffic carrying capacity of the four -lane section may become an important consideration to future years is development continues on the eastern aide of the city. Traffic capacity limitations may show up in Alternates 'Band 'C' because of the,two-lane portions which must be constructed under those alternates. If the desire of the Board of City Commissioners is provide , 4 a means of moving traffic from the downtown area of Fayetteville to Highway 265 and back while maintaining access for adjacent property owners then our recommendation'would be to consider Alternate Das the most destrable alternate. I'f,some limita- tion In the traffic carrying capacity, Is acceptable:'and a lower construction cost Is desired^then consideration should.be''given to Alternates B' or "C'. In any case, coristruction:costs "In .;- excess of fifty percent(50k) over more 'normapr.oiect-; . l' : ' - - r w z .t - a_ - •condit Ions .are• associated with-the`,proposed locations. $o; - r_f j9 S� f £ fah .. .. R . n te. ". 1*.{ a although. construction of.'the"rovteris.feas)ble, the difficult,„ 1u. '.. i f 'f y, MC$ ...' unanswered i question Is whetherthe<�bene'f its justify the• cost. c;'w fl4`. � °i r � CAa vim. ♦ \ �t o ♦ 41 A Tv ' y .y 20 - 9 . r a W. o o WYMAN RD HUNTSVILLE f'*Rp xLt k'_a . y Yv it v. a Ox.{' I 1 p r . � 4 '• x 4f° I r. fSl .^ of N Y1 Z •.• 4t e,2 f a .:: ay .' e i. .... 'M y' _Q3+ -' 14 i 2 v, i,v ' ^? — j n I i.. �.5 5 .,). 1 � `1.11 rv: T r J o fin. I -�S E. 15th ST 18 i wa µVICINITY MAP , £ s; ty, ;FIGURE;1 N.r.•: :a!: r,yi P ... a.T' rMe .t rvY,yr ;fl Ii +`X V .Y'.`v s. mu 14 �Y-• '��4?...ar.:.i. 1600 VfflQ f %4 q / 1 P r / A w +r j • 6300 • _ +' ' �� � • gel, I r , ...!r.. 1 ■yr 1 It. r....rll . B I D • fii A 1 • YY 7400 °"••� r. 9 'IV. Y s . _..., n /yam • I • •� \� �A V SOO JI n• � 1 ,I • ,I 000 ' maw' A .. n w 41l . fN; ' • 1 i rls 'Iw}RP• , 6i �f6 1 ,� �I �4hr1 � M S •w• • r � �. ♦ i 111 •M III 'V •. ��•(��l,•�'/���f 1 t . , 'sue'¢ r_z % �•r •` �•, U'r'1�wYttrp 4/i lir l� r. I j i • t/l al ' 1 � • � � •'•�� yc'" 23 300 • # 4N i ,ra 1 r .r / Ae ��f 'yqI • pI K' r P• •,Y! , Y 4' Y e la7oo t_ t,I�a I.,F A, Y ETT E a V . pa; 3400 :,E: ;_T�u 5<; -*—;42*:; i • •/I •L III s �. r. i� s l iC¢v� 1 . l A•EI 4.. r. rx 1 .a t o x' r Y 4 j.'=v soar"• /•.r•r.r `h WY •:. • r, II v nv t rF x }3 Y'i Q>... ti - qfl tbeano� 1 •Y�i� rr,ru• c a S • N 1 I! , '•7 . �i l iw r< ;ll�. �.s `It p •I , tic 11• u♦ rl rV Sal �Wr 1•Aj/ (r 9 y • } .2P♦yam -- r• e x pyy—. .1 /..... .�. e�-. •r"r�.lid it ?/"I �/•f._,Y .`'il9 I ..... ` ♦ 4 II ^ 'r. 'y ...I �'1 •I Y: • • \ 'rte+ : �'': IH'"I• ' .'/ :.pr 5100) 4400 ;, ..l: r rr• i • • �r n Y�11: ♦ i{i+'' t = Y r 1 S • , it .l V' fry„1 IP a .as.. •. ,1 a-rl �� J • tNl n u,a. J a y r bbh ua a n4 T. v V'I • l :.J p q • I• .n I' \ tl. i/S I 4 / A .� D v FIGURE 2 1985 AADT FROM .AHTD uW p. H a. rrro. -•e• : uV Iri - 4 i>119TItl4_flIBB6I_BIGtlIS:QF_IdaY nESTINC MdnV Avenue 50' Assembly Road (State Hwy 190) 50' Crossover Road (State Hvy 265) 60'-90' Dogwood Lane 40'' Lafayette Street 60' Lorraine Drive 30' Manor Drive 50' Missouri Way 40' Re: Drive . :30' Rockwood Trail 40' Sequoyah Drive 40' Skyline Drive, 40,. Williams Drive 30':} * Note: Lafayette Street Right -of -Way is 44 feet from College - Avenue to Washington Avenue. ! � + LP's _ YLS ,{ , tom" "n Y . -i i {. _t C xLn: T tit b. i .. . .. 5� y Q (..- `ref �. ce, i _ ., X .p i' C ✓ 4a.2 f. .. !� 4 FIGURES 1. (� %J+YF. In' ft' Mil To 06w 4 _ rn _t.4 Us ' ii.Y Jd tr... t s: totallY •o oeos'i,t !AO/ILI GRt01 tMlfflLa MYINtrT tT4lILIZEI w . TYPICAL SECTION 411' Back to Back r . PROPOSED STREET GEObIETRICS MIN. RIGHT-OF—WAY WIDTH $0 FT. MIN.. FORESLOPEIBACKSLOPE 3f1 (2:1 FILLS,OVER 10') PAVEMENT SECTIONC &G MIN. PAVEMENT WIDTH .±t:. ,? 49B/9 •"`'.„ m] °. , SIDEWALK: a BOTH SIDES "'.. .. SIDEWALK .WIDTH/DEPTH = S FST16 IN • w' _ DESIGN SPEED _ 3S<MPH :: r., ; +S MAX: GRADE.. ,x. , c: „,£''.,',,'.1 $6 _,;aa" MIN.. CURB RADIUS ° SOFT;' : t W r.. l.L. -24k - nY MAX. :DRIVEWAY WIDTHS RESIDENTIAL DRIVES -,, .` 24. FT: - v y ' Arr i33. , . M FIGURE 4 • i•.r t {f ?(N� (IN? A/ - W' A/t.(MIYINYMI•((N If1. A/Wi 1011 �MP flu? AfAL 01D PON COMA*. - - •yy 1 Of00. FOR COME TA, ff' R0- III I - ill, at' W i sI J / NA NT ON A T( f10CINALA . r r IWi i r S I OOfOf'/!T Ir/ fi1((AADf ITAIILI2ATION 4 • • TYPICAL SECTION 31' -Back to Back (EXISTING PORTION OF, ROCKWOOD TRAIL) PROPOSED STkEET GE(1dETRIC5 MIN.' RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH'. ..• - SG'fT,. • MIN. F0RESLOPE!BACKSLOPE _ } -4T -3:1:•- , •- ' (2i,- FILLS O/ R`10')'. r ' a. i; r Z i. c. €.. PAVEMENT SECT ION- t ✓ - r, i R * n d C &: G `r` r .. ' . MIN. PAVEMENT WIDTH "- c� r SIDEWALK zv `5. _i ° •s BOTH SIDES SIDEWALK WIDTH/DEPTH '"1s .__S_ FT/6'-IN >'c' V :,f :^3`• -- i I pd- ' . ' - %_ o -L x o -DESIGN SPEED 1'.` - F<` �. 1 ,_•", ,• '• ,'e 1.. - MAX. GRADE r `k,is; .z13?S `°''i` ,. q' t'e�".z..�- M I N.' CURB RADIUS',.: p,7; •:,,.50 T ^. MAX. DR I VEWAYyW I D`.,� i • ,: 3 i F,�;'RESI0ENT,-IAL DR te•• • 24 F .} 'R ' rh 4 C' }" .NOTE •1': DICTATED -BY EXIS-TIN(, GRADE IIhE. - ; :- aI A '& .. S - 1., . . Yom' F . ✓>-, v ;t - FIGURE.5 .. r r . -,t ... p T< _I It<4 �a ice• \i.}Y S u '' 1 a L l d v E.�NO , A• G Q I I �e C Pj HY O ' r M5.. ' ....I C ILAFAYETt trio L•O( O� 1S0 p .. x W e yT II. 1 C # WYMAN RD Y Fn ' r .. HUNT-SVR:LEY q '1 ' -._ ...., _ieY CO •O' ,emu ➢ _. ..• .. Y¢ 2 E. 16th ST I AT (4t4. LTERNATE ROUTE LOGATION.S. NTS• X a $' FIGURE .r •� *, x! �E0IL'.t10RiNp L.00,AlIDN9 '. tT , ,_: . 4 ". „ • APPENDIX 1 PROPERTY OWNERS X BDt wOQLiEb& NQE tl_9IQE , MISSION BLVD. . • Mary C. Kirk Gregory W. Fes? WODDLAWN DRIVE Alice H. Gerard J.D. Harder & Maxine C. Harder Philip S. Bashor & Lorraine B. Bashor Janes F. &• Margaret S. Rogers •JACKSON DRIVE Mildred Davis Virginia Tidball M.M. Harral' C.P. Magness & Key B. Magness CREST DRIVE Stanley L. & Anne' J. Wenger. B.G.' Collier. 5 >rr , = Joel S. Freund § .,` voan .Ent♦r rises In':,. , .rY x'i m'A' 5j` d ;g.t `r'P 'Yr` '�.x + ry H H - H:y._ l St F: 4 ' r ` A • .: _. V. • I ". 6.._: ... pia .'1'}.%'� ._ .. a .. -.. -. t.. a I APPLEBURY DRIVE Thomas C. Young Ramond A. Young, 111 1€ Julia E. Young Jens Mark Jenkins Johnny Dee Stansberry Denton PEMBROKE ROAD .- Floyd W• & Mildred 'E. Summers Joseph M• & Maxine B• Clark EQ WQQQIE&I4___QUIdIQE MISSION BLVD sE000YAN DRIVE ,.;.F. Julia E. Crocker Trust ter; J.C. Nickell, Jr. & Joe Fred Starr Donald Roller Wilson & Kathleen Kay Wilson Frances E: McDonald & Evelyn McDonald CREST DRIVE Urban D. Holland Fred Hawn Ishmael C. Benton a Alice E. Benton David L. Monts & Dana R. Monts Holland'House, `Inc. Paul A. Gayer & Ruby C. Gayer Arkansas Western Gas RUTH AVENUE Frank R. Prassell M. David Howell i Kay C. Howell • S.T. Furman William G.: Underwood &'LeAnn Harie'Under, it iY. • END OF ROCK.WOOD TRAIL ANQC:QELYE_StQEIIAIQW. ar- �P_" n r ; { Ir WEST END OF MANOR'DRIVE M '% '%. Robert E. 4 Grace E. BabcoTck Paul R. &'Eunice.C. Noland,, a Woodson W:.-Bassett,"Jr. & Marynm''S.'Bass David L. &,Bernice Harner'. , .' • {l .1 11 V l I .]' 9-� 1 , !$y Y f5 Y -sf`r� . 4 a.�Ji n . e - lit .alc� - yid e J. II. wood I. ay : S yV 11? 3 Y 1 t • yY '~ ett .T, •l I" Aa x RIDGELY DRIVE Gerald H. & Ann L. Frost William HY & Mary Lee Wilmore Elmer W. & Madeline D. Tribble Dennis O.J. Baker CROSSOVER ROAD (State Hignway 265) tl6N4R_QBIYE_SSQYItl_SIQE2 WEST END OF MANOR DRIVE Carl M. Collier B.E. & Olga House Ronald W. Skeith Loyd K. & Marie 0. Wilson' AYT. & Mary ii. Ackerman RIDGELY DRIVE. James H. & Margaret A. Stewart .FayneC:&-Betty L.. Gibson • Leonard . Katherine.C..'White.' • w " r'•' --I - I .. ` fir. CROSSOVER ROAD (State Highways265) '? ' ✓ b. ya •k•' Y Q. BLTEHNBTE::Q____SQSIitl_SIQE k A _„ aYn Y MISSION BOULEVARD J.tM..''a �, � 5 . �. 4 W Pearl C. Young & .Marie M:}F}Yong * tf, r,•= r.w lam J. IMcGow3n. Se'Ke11%P'. C_arlthers } 'Michael • Sessions & Susan. C. 3esst,gns ':' a William M,Harrison .e:Merlee P.;Harrisor Joseph _.P.'Brennan & Helen E. Brennan „ • Fred Derwin & Linda "Derwin z r.e' s a9 n..i �y 1 S ♦t. -' '°4r' v+x � _...d �.l , b r b z''.y yr x` -i4 • ..9 �1.. _. i r DOGWOOD LANE (AT LAFAYETTE STREET) Betty Jo Easterling Holland House, IS. �• Jerry D. Sweatier & Sharon J. Seeetser DOGWOOD LANE (AT MISSOURI WAY) Helen -Falser ASSEMBLY ROAD David Randle & Jeane Randle SEQDOYAH DRIVE Robert John Hart Fred O.Hunt & Maxine Hunt WILLIAMS DRIVE ALIE8d8IE__Q�0IQ€It1_SIQE MISSION BOULEVARD Glendon R. Johnson L Mary V. Johnson Carl G. Clark f Jo Dean Clark • Steve E. Winkler. Charles W. Stewart i Mettte A'` Stewart` Stephen A. Melody S Paula Bondurant )lelodl y C � 4.. Robin Kern p Laura Leto . _''" . # rte: Patrick F. Callahan & Kairen^T.( : Calln' aha? • k� �_ .l f2�lli. '. L; .c s . $ ' t.�-.. '. - m♦ i .ESN k,ra ryi 3A lti S ' 4 • e �y+ r ' ,] o t .g • JB: Hays Trust '�" ; :� �, r , „5 � fy f -,.4.C.y. � • . h f•F'� Ronnie G. Freeman i Connie 3.r Free man N �, ^ w -r ys . .'y '..C 1. P - - . .'.. a •. '': [.. /. \ •- � • 95. 'l J - k { • • F ^FI `. I Ry 9N.' ♦• - TJ1' \J H GY J •-bl, I .ice - v TANSLKNOOD AVENUE Holland Honse0 Inc. Jerry D. $wetatr i Sharon J. Sveetser Fred Derwin and Linda Derv►n Thomas Nekair:a Dennealia McNair i William P. Kennedy I. Mary L. Kennedy ISSBMSLY ROAD Fred D. Hunt i Navin* Hunt WILLIAMS DRIVE 1. 3: , ..p I .. i µ a I •T i k ) •ST 1 4 Y I� r , . �• ia1M Y~ 4 Ste. .*', .1 f 1 vF Y y. ! I - I TOTAL PROJICT COST 6STINATE (1916 DOLLARS) . ., Canstruction 11,471,250 •1,381,400 •2,035,700 Design &.Construction k; 6ngImeer)ag 176.550 166,800 244,300 Log&1 A Administrative Costs 42,500 42,500 42,500 Right -of -May H 70,300 78,000 129,800 Utility Adlustsents 10,000 15,000 5,000 Signing A Striping 7,500 8,600 9,300 Coatingeactss __-1ZZ.24S2: _1bg.ZQ4 ___Z'k.9S24 TOTAL $1,956,000 11,860;500 $2,713,000 . 'y. tee.. ... ..-• IL i 1 - - t . n • :.� yam. lC` • fa\ 0 '. xa YfCk..ny _.1 1.<%, '.3 I:.• • . { 3 . FBI ♦./ $ .....f� a Y. e \ _ t APPENDIX 2 PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT • ,ir ::t;'• 1 - - ... ..:. L .:., • _ fir: r , ta.,L n r c v „q •• „ . 4 � A r � _ 1 • 461 sttdonlo,juj iii. 4sOltcMNIOAL SAtIIIIAU A CONIULTINO INGIN(UI$ February 6, 1906 fi Crottoni Tull,,Spann 6 Yoe, Inc. a. P; D. Drawer 549 Ly t: Rogers, Arkansas 72756 Attn: Mr, Don Brown Re: Fayetteville Preliminary Street SLudy 6E86-6 . Fayetteville, Arkansas Gentlemen: - _ P . S TO*scs Av,�NIN POW /WTN. AnANM, /7W/ • Induced are two reproducible cupieof the boring logs and Summary of lest Results for this project. This; it. -in accordance with our. proposal letter of November 20, 1985. Sails are classified in accordance with ASTM Standard D2487, latest revision; unlrss otherwise noted. This: Standard utilizes. the Unified Classification.System orAginall) developed by Arthur 'Casagrandc and later refined by the Waterways Cxucriment Station as described, in Technical Memorandum ko; 3-357. Visual classifications of soil are based upon ASTft Standard 02488, 1'atest:`revision. The stratification lines shown on :the Boring Logs. represent the approximate boundary between soil or rock typcu, and the actual transition from one material to another may begradual. L Water level readings vere.made at the drill holes at times and under conditions , stated on the Bering Log.. 'Hovcver^, it, must be noted that , fluctuations_ in the level of ground water are apt tc occurrreqularly due to variations in rainfall, temperature and -other factor: EvhA + y... afeubjectyto chance from the time v '' a +�. m nea:ts /ure1nent;VCrC inadC . ' • ;��, �w +,.�: &? ;< 3 r 9 ...(y 4 Vf f eF bix IMs� !w . _ 7t yAr ..'.f .. 1 Mr. Dan Brown Page -2 February 6, 1986 The conditions of the materials encountered within the test holes are -reported as they existed at the time of driling and at the specific location of. the test • holes. Deviations or changes in .nail and rock formations at other portions of the site are possible. Any cunclusionr: made as to the soil and subsurface conditor's at points other than the teat holes themselves are speculative and cannot be guaranteed. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until construction i:: in progregs. - Arkansas Laboratories,' Inc., retains the rights to -the Boring Logs and other date developed by this study and reserve. the right to reference and incorporate said information in future.investigations. Soil samples taken from the site and not used in the testing program will be retained for 10 days only, unless a written request is received to hold them for, a longer period of time• Samples used in the testing program will be disposed of upon completion of the testing. procedure." We appreciate the .opportunity to be of assistance on .:this preliminary study: Please do not hestitate to contact'. us `if you naive any questions.% Also, please contact us for additional requirements a^ this project progresses. Sincerely y/in 2 • _ u f + � '�� Fry J . Edg C•ncr. Y e ie' 4.' 'A.'. fl •y.� }}t�� '-. e. a .Y.' 4c' s d Tf $41k• [� �F •d. r' w. -- i - u F F n .' • T y- V4 F ^t ff {ayelr tea. 4yr $ { Enclosures • yv 4iyA V. _ ♦_ t p ..J f Y w y d A W 1 /1 O dv lMllul. nns No - .. �IaS JVrkandad aCaloraloried inc. Jan.'20, 198E 1 OIO'C CNN ICAt M"fe"li.L$ a CONIUIJIN.. (NOlNee"e lMSN'B) Drilled III- - PO "r sw't. PRN"NSAS Sch jpa _ Roberts P"M^ FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY • GROUND WATLR LE4E GF 964 - Dopth Dale Remulr FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS None 1-2a UPot'c°m$rle Minn/ LlletelMn As Shown on Plan SDAera LIPYet NI" Termmellgl D6eettell 1430 1415.1 Drill - Nretpr Penn Renld DnIIInC NeMI MathNl Depth Description of Metnrial LOmpm No of PorI.I and Bosons .. BIow6 PIn"t • 10PSUIL, Dark Brown Sandy Clay Very Moist and'Firm 13.0 2.5 — •SAND, Yellowish Red and Clayey With Sandstone Pebbles t I . Moist and Medium 17.2 RB • 6.9 SANDSTONE, Reddish Brovn and Weathered: Very Moist and Medium Soft 22.0 - - - 7'7 SHALE, Light Brovn and Weathered With - 1 Some Gray Clay and Sandstone Pebbles., _ - Dry and ldediucr Soft. - .Y fitri 9.7 i 10.B SANDSTU'.L, Reddish Brovn With Sumo. r ;i Weathered, Layers. - # _ ,Y , -: ;. Hoist and lledium Hard -Ia< =• f- My `€_4r.V. hi z . i ify , a e r:.. .t A ? 'l-. - - -)f �3 ey LTo yM I ' > r rsf .1 `--ter zo 12.0 ' ,, - -.1510 Trrmtn:ICed a 15 D'FL a, tgw. . ♦ppy,I 14$I - Its Gm/ 1i. ' .. OP -Oleo I.lp 4"IO - •VON, dnq . SS, -a, a Slone - 1'. ,4: PPy ldlglo r/CO10 • mama at No' OI q 'MIIrI �� ylrn GN GOw,1. so - flu? epap^ P♦' FOIIp/ IV,O { 9 sn ( 'S' ., v - V Ct(Nnll. rn 6' MO6 rMm.I RI, yN PQQII: WI. NnmOul i Ile "OC. e^ It SGIIeI:}YO.. LS-.fLITalOn, W n,r ^;SWU`n,leoa %(' -. •I`lprrl/IYIIT'wnt r SO pI0 taP1'.�..6C.,',s1 Ij ,J# .. r' a � �Ip n p Q Dea Drilled I NI S .Aiansae eCalora!ories Jncr Jan. 27, 1986 2 Oe or eCM»IC el re+►eI.0 ;e colleuur»„ a»a»eeloeeall BY Drilled IIYee POP' Roberts ern» •ee:+l e4e�;:; Sehlaq 4 = P^'n'ro GROUND WATER LEVEL FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY Depth Dole Remer►i GF 86-6 upon Gomplelbn FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS None 1=27 I►'ne LIalwm .. Berl.rs Elenhell Terminetca EeYellee As Shown on Plan. 1431 1418.4 :: Drill - Weur Pen.i Record Dnlllnl Not" Method Depth Deernption of Melrrlel Conlenl Nn of Pocbl • Blow% Penal end Re+rrb CLAY, Reddish Brovn and Silty 1.0 . TOPSOIL, Dark brown Silt) Clay 16.2 Very Moist and Firm 2.4 SAND,-Broun and Clayey With Sandstune Pebbles _ Moist and MediumI 4.0 8.7 SANDSTONE,, Reddish Brovn and Weathered Dpi I With Trace of Clay 5.3 Moist and Mediun. Soft .. SAND, Broun and Clayey ,!1,it.- -; - Sandstoi+c Pebbles. J ; Moist and Medium'--- 13.1 7.4 I _ .. ... .... 7r SHALE ,.Gray-Biack Dry and Medium Soft ;E e_ I `.s+, '� Drag Bit Refussl' P .' _ r 11 6 F t LI'tt51U'.L, Durk Gray',,; ' , _. j Ur < and._ Hard - _, tv.7 .t,•.,.I•. - ' •Terminated 12.6 rti"' .i 14�,*-Wcy, Y 1`�` • - i[Y ♦y e n x Y c ::a a £� Y e t\ril G' ft . .MbI.IO l 1' . `.AY el M ` _ C. Ce1e A,. SOB • Onr'e 0 p 0 r55 Srnonene - wronerm Yaowo a recwaee .e lee.ol bow •.r : .nn 'CW Cenw%i/r' $o Soil 5600+ M. Mono* AuQVI . On . Seen :).emie0 :In it men IKrenier', 'no ►eeur *'O mil%Out an Ron II 'L SF" 5%pegl4b. i5 l,-01000 W% WMInrAd p, ge ilinew i, m Ion. Mr ee I •_ N'.1 it . ,,•Ck...,, .. �. Jig• .1,1 A4anaaa a 4onro ir., inc. O{OT{{w N1e AL M*TINIAL{ $ {ON{NLTINN {NOIM{{II{ ean. ew T11 _, _. san e•sAs Proleel FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY 61 86.4 , FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ( slot L,IaTcn As Shwn on .Plan Descnplbn of Molrrlel 0.2 1 ASPHALT_ BASE COURSE, Chart Grovel:. With Clay. r Jan. tea's 7,19U Schlaq. Roberts GROUND WAtt{ Lint Papth bole - Kworki Upon Co.PSsn None • 1-27 lNr6re tl mvlan To morellos Swabo 1595 j' .1580 2 w..r Penal Resell Dellhirm Now cart Na of Pfilul - ReeisS •. plowPend 17.3 RB 3x8' 12.0 CLAY, Yellovish Red With Sandstone Pebbles Moist and Stiff. - CH 6.8:.. SHALE, Dark Gray With Weathered; 28.4 Seams on Top .(<'0.2 Ft.) e • Becoming Bluer With Depth as • - . .. 4 Slightly Moist and Medium ;: " Soft to Medium' Hard r !. C I 1 135 . ti XA ,. ' • ' 13.3. • r \SrD Terminated O 15.0 rte ,fl A\` i.eN.rmm�. ca Co. Au •'' De On elf Ae Au t O $ . $A e.n0110nL . IN71gl,pn tlNb.C• nwf.f .. NO Cw n$ cot. WI,., PP $fille HA MOIIM Auf.t soc. $n" _.eM a •1 fflllrb M $ ,MA Mftf,M,llf islow IM fOfN' ey .rMA1 ••1 elr y twb• P $MIp. T.b l$ Lill Wn ,.•- •e .. '�—�.—. .ws•s..�._ - . nl. ... iY 5i . _ I u- . IF .•/Fli. r4� • Al, pp n/1 aw batr ffrw w, �lTo. _ �Lardol'Jnt. �sn: TSr 3966 a O{OTI{MMICe\. YN{al l{ { COM{YL TIMu ION? SWIN aailAwSAS Seh.149 Rob�jf,�. .. tarwm FAYETTEVILLL PRELIMINAIY STREET STUDY GLD0ND WATtS Isvtl, tiF .K -b Dwh Dole WTb , a PAYETTCVILLE, ARKANSAS. 11d • " 4ru Lout" yffw t islet :IOyMaM.&VAN As Shorn. on Plan 1500 t 34Y7 % woof f{aw..aoc{d DAIr{Mar M^^ Drrcfpaoa of Maunei ranMel ro of ►e a rid laS ASPHALT . BASC COURSE, Chert Standotorie end 1.4 Limestone Grovels CLAY, Reddish Yellow 10.9 Moist and Stiff .. e. 2*4 CLAY, Yellowish-Req Becoming Reddish Yellow With Depth Moist and Stiff 22.8 5.1 CH •LIt S10'ct, Dark Gray • Dry and Hard I Terminated t 7.0 ft. _ r R J i t [.'Y. Y I v is 1 s Sg / / S 4 a.R• • Y� Ijy • 1- _ vpJl • .. � ..• •:.. " ' Pf s v . sa 1 L •— s . i SY r`S r •s , y _ .aa.e•Mn.. `:G C f' Li _• a{T' O. Ii, ur '*0 w:1Vpo a.i '-$(-{{ {IMn.M 5� .............. J:fyhigii0e In r raaea{a'as io jr aae.' .r ..,p ca Caa w.u:•.. N. reef {p.n '1 NA ' Male). Auto M - I '._ . • a "'nW.M in 'C '.'tlr!.rM1 'a" /Or4' a e {.InWI M axi Ii It : LNiar TUN L{ L'm.ea.. W. ` WNIN4a i Pw.t,* ! is 'a let M.. a. A>wamnss..ws�— ��n RweC Ne. W1911 , ,a, .ia6Oslorr. -inc. Jan .77,. 1986 OCOTCCNNiC*. SATCRINC a COMCVl11M. noising �OPC OY I 0rw FORT ewiT• eauweae , SChlaa A0R0• � Pi el FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY p,p,b CND WMTrRReu CF 86-6 URNS CepIMUR FAVETTEVILLE; ARKANSAS - None 1-27 sew�� An Shogun oh Plan. .1532* 15l71 Plevnaa tllwwr wear Pe1w. Reoom i d Depth DooMptIeR of Matanal Lalabl Neil ►eelel ad lath - ti Rowe Pear. TOPSOIL, With Sandstone Pebbles . . - 0.7 CIAY, Reddish Yellolu 14.0 - Moist and.Stifr • 1.6 - - CLAY, Yellowish Red With Sandstone Pebbles - - - Dry and Very Stiff_ 26.0 CH • 65 SHALE, Light Beoun and Weathered W• ith Some Siltstonc and -Sandstone Lenses 25.7 Black Coal a 6.6:Ft. 7.0 Ft. Gray Shale It. 7.0 Ft. - 7.4 Ft, �} it ,� I • Dry end Soft v• µ. .A Y t "A• 52 I F �-llC i�" 32 YY.' c�.• I. S •YLS ... Y P , . Y� TY pq - i B..P r1 a b j I ≥ y f� n • , 3 .T 1 T /•- F L Tg FY j: �� ..3 . }art Yt' >• e 1' ,M1 k ,7 .lY� r. ,fib •• 1 rye_ rr _ 6 0 .. . 15.0 Terminated Ilt 15.0 Ft, I, _ 100aryocn. CA Co.. b' it ' 0! 0.; it .AO loan Ong :(65°' Spill. nip' � �z An•�r.ep.I rw ei r.om01C B' No ' if ., •nn CW Cep. lIt N.'IVefepoon 'MA Mpeee A•,p .; en eMi( .- -p .el.o m it i pnere•rn11 :Ide heel Mo Mined M epe. e.1 {I a -NOT lu" x :. LS llT..1dn(v 717 pMeieIed •fin '.hp.no51. p1 pn wM pep w . '.. .. Y p .p n1 I pr 0rsy1 •rw Nl. OlOtllil Y.lN YNlO.+�►I -1 OOMIuitpw. INSINIlsl L -- DIM ay 0001. Irlr• *•%*N•4$ SChled Rabawa PwMa - ►AYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY e WATER 2VK CF 86-6 D/MI wu camel. rAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Vomn�o� n None.. 1.17 hOlsl,a,s 7urlw massy Tr --i StWmua As Shown on Plan 1550: 1S35s { Wour, r'Pwwl. m md. prpsel NlW y Depth DI psos of Mfuns& Cesioot No. of Poa"N ied Rwrko A elewo Poem. ASPMAL I 0.6 CLAY, Reddish Yellow 15.e Moist and Stiff - . CH • • 3.2 • CLAY, light Brown Very Dry and Verb 14.5 Stiff RB 6'8 SHALE, Gray 10.h Dry end Medium Soft I ; • 10.8 E• ry [{L K .L4 a., ^0X4 l :r k .s , f y. e , - 1: r' • s 1 L 1 ,— ft 12.0 \ � � L . • SHALE;,Black 1 Dry and Medium Hard E. 3. •.. I M t kY • 'Y • 15.0. .Terminated •@ 15.0 R. ,.:Z. .n aa___-r•a• a G 'CO,. a„ �- 0• O,W 61 " .O Aug" O„ I, "Be l.ed.md. . , lKrd.io�"dmd ..• raerd.d as No of , �Ijn Cw. C. .vnr " V kdl $*s M.' "Mono -w N •A.M Mgv1.a .. ' -t.. nI.' .s •df n w .NM.. •• I.a. MI "•T Mwe. TW. Li L!MNM. • Il.,l.lran•wr.t. TDM mr a d • Nrt ....A W2.1 bi Re w7 bead eba`oralorteh Jaw. ,lo.n.28. 1986 Hr 7 io tCMMIC a1 SAT/alas• / CON/YI TINu /MOIM//a/ II tI.Nt D$SIIV POST /MNN eo. owee/ Schlaq Rabltt� °iaNc' FAYETTCVILLE PRELIMINARY STRICT STUDY GIIOUND WAtM LgVtL - 1lefnh - Detc ll/otaTH CF 86-6 - - Upon C'eatpMwia FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS None le2B �� Latrtm - As Shown on Plan .. suti•u• !l. ♦.ixm Tonaawtaa Owefted 1h821 1667 t . ._ Water. P.twt saratd 0n1Ya/NOM. Dull Depth Description of Material Content So of Poclel artd pearrhs -' Me11rM % slows Panay. BASE COURSE, Chart Grovels RD I it CLAY, Dark Brovn and Sandy Moist and Stiff 2.9 CLAY, Yellauish Rd With Tlact• of Sandstone Pebble:: 4.8 Dry and Very Stiff CLAY, Light Braun Witt, Sonm - - Gray Clay 7.2 CH 21.3' Moist and Stiff 6.R Reddish Yellow and Sanoy - , ,^,LAY, Black Coal 6.7.6 Fte - 7.9 Ft.. 12.0 . Moist and: Stiff 7.9 . SHALL, Grayish Broun and Weathered ., - _ Dry and Soft . 91 I SHIALE:, 81ack With Weathered - Sears on Top Scars - ,_ r x e• yk ( Y Dry and Medium Hard - r-: - I: i' - .T, + a + ( 1~rvF � : as' .a .� • � � rt - 15.D 'TFL: ., . �_ 's'�' "' - ' •En.anaio•. `0'•.', '.0 erminatcd•6.15.0 Lola eL--'- ♦ DI ` c"So' epoot Auyel OnI:>' y;;SS 5Manun.,... , a ,fit 'Po.Wrnw- raaare • newaaa a .-:Pry. Me of Ns3 Reveal -nln Lw ' I Co.. W.I. '. Se aellapnon- HA Metro. Auger "/n,`. Snot. In'e'9rlba+lr t Sn0 _ v .la -dhEur .S " .0a iii • et Shelby teas . Ls - wM01tome . wn wOlhpy • rYnIFO"NY to in to Per go Sa.� :. � t �rlaYneae c aieralorl JRc.!.rfl, 1986 ' 8 t OlOT1CNNiCeI. YNIJIIe{/ 1 CON{YITrNw IMONl1{/ Li1 Ns'./yr IRrbIPBY .. PONT /MrTN eneaMMi ScF11Rq . A..� •Ptelelr FAYETTEVILLE PRELIMINARY STREET STUDY GROUND wATLR LEVEL GF 86-6 Dept fete Remnk . FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS None 1-28 lanai 4eannn sw ice FJeretmn T joii Deena. As Shown on Plan 1507* Petit Reomd 6IKS depth Daet:ripllnn of Material Conant No of Por:frt DF RR. Melee ♦ /Iowa Pent. and em de BASE COURSE, Gravels With Clay 1.0 12.8 CLAY, Brown With Sandstone Pebbles r 2.1 SAND, Reddish Yellow With Sandstone Pebbles and Sandstone Seams Moist and Medium 10.2 -RU - 5.4 SHALL, Light Broun and Weathered With Sandstone Lenses Dry and Medium Sort 6.2: I rt 7.9 SHALE, Blacl: - • - -. Weathered Layer a 10.3 Ft. - 10.e Ft:.,. ₹ 2.2• "' • Dry and Medium Hard ec h .8.0 'h- I1p . a e rC ♦ M- - •e t -fl;-* r tl:- '$i'k G Y.A r e. .YF• v -+j= ♦i Pd• " �: �,. � �Y �5 Jet [r •� t x t}f_, = T• - _ 15.0 Tnrjninated 9.15.0:Ft •,:w= ..: - .' a40...p.a0.. CA Cc'. Li' De Din bl - •o .ae.r Omv °Y+`. `6] "S.,atlen. - . gr.Ir.tca .m0 a ,,tie O p ie No St qq' u •,I Cw ewe W.I /a; Sr I sc.1c-.. •• we cw .y. e- S-• . •n.••No •- I .•w •'c•. .' aw der... e'.. •it oW As node'! `.. P. 5'r. •-r. L% . -.r r.a • w. w.rY Para •c --•P ..• ro•u MID Form 1 -• - • Y a W c I- H C N -' LL O = YI QW Q C W C') r r W W — I — ►cp, � Y > I f k yi ttm 1 ��y]••. - kA 1 r u u u u u - 'D1 I I J� V\ Q N 4 + t :b: I ri S O I I I' OIN ..iL �� I ti I.N-• N w1 M1I 1^ N rl _ :-J 04. N O N N J tD O N �J� n M .'! -•� iF H H W H T H iR a - �• ' V 2 - S• � f V � m 16) Ij J K +• ,_t R .Qi r l N -NCI •OlY` rl ~� a r. s • +F. t x� O ;V ;I'N) NI tt r S 6b _- i Ile I H �yX • .. a ' O O nO O r'C i'O .� •F' i� ae az- > >?9 =3 ` < CS —Ir Q H Sy IqN • e a • ai R . H i a i I 1 LY I I I, .tl e I $, a'. C. - W OC,I O O O� O "C O� P y ti ¢ I _ I- d- 1' 1 1 - 1 -:1- I' a '< � Cp L• L O ¢i IxNI •l\ •O r l. r •�.. . . W O r :�� k' '<i 3. a i 1 a �e' I �': .. - , I: .. 1.• N a .j. e UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM BOtb we Ybu+tly etwitled by (NP Unified Son Cisaalhcatlbn Ey!am on for poring logs DrN•td•d in this r•ooh. (kast:•Iz• •IWysN and Att•rbrg umtla tots at$ Ohs" of dorm•d on selila•d umot•S?O •id In Dl.saiflCtlbnI The Ct.OISOltlon apt•m h briefly outlined on this chart: For a more detailed d•acr$Dt on of the getem, as US Army TucScal memorandum No. 5,757 or ASTM Designation: 02457. di z MAJOR DIVISIONS CLEAN GRAVEL$ (Lou than 5% panne No. 200 level GRAVELS WIT" PINES (More than 12% passes No. 200 sieve) Limits plot below "A" has $ hatched tons on plasticity Chan Limits Got above 'Aline & hatched zone on plasticity chart GROW TYPICAL NAMES SYUSOL DW WWI graded gravel$. grnmelland ORION turn ____ OF Poorly graded rags, gravel•$nnd mix, lure$ GM Say grams. grsvelinndtdt mixture. DL. Clayey. gravels. gravel -sand -clay mix• lures ' a _ SW well graded sands. gravellysands RT CLEAN SANDS - - He C S (Lou than 5% passes No 200 sieve) ,,, Sp pooilyraded sands: gravelly sands o O Limns Dlot below - - - P a SANDS WITH "A" line 5 hatched tone SM Silty sands sandsdt'muiture5 C FINES on Dizsticrty cnart '12 (More than 12% passes > Limits 0101 above ii 3 No 260 sieve) 'A" line 5 hatched zone $C '• Clayey sandssand-clay mixtures. on plasticity chart - SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY ML-. inorganic silts, clayey silts with Wgrt W r . plasticity �! -- (Lwmo Limit Less Than 50) d r p > at _ SILTS OF NIGH PLASTICITY - �r M" Inorganic silts of lts. micaceous•tlmtoma- ® $• (Liquid Limit. More Than SOY ous line.sands or alts. elasticsilts. �, Inorganic Gays of low to memum Plas- E 8 �'x - CLAYS OF LOW. PLASTICITY > ' £' CL toyjK- gravelly clays. sindy clays, silty QOO al �.' 1 • � fci T"ri^ ._�'. iA9�n1.�K .<ot• t . - -- yam. CLAYS OF HIGH PyASfICIWY CH 6. •,•igh plastiplY, tat .:� NOTE. Coarse grained sods with between;5%-& 12% passing the;No: 200 sieve and,hne grained Sods with limits plotting in the hatched zone of to OlaStiCity chart to -nave dual Symto Ti 4' PLASTICITY CHART -, r x '+ DEFINITIONS OF SOIL FRACTIONS $ 60 .. t * 'r ..'tx„q a �• `r SpL COMPONENT .'I PARTICLE 80E RANGE , .F ixzl .I UPPER LIMIT CH =I ' a a. -x Cobbles Above J in .Yf.. 40 A E rt 3f Graver (0 3 m to No • sieve UN Coarse gravel 3 m Io a m i, ,.•' Jii in.lo No 4sieve ₹ V MN " s . + n4` fw a Finegravel„ Sand :',' , No :4 1O No 200 .kil, 11,20 - . - i Coarse No -4 to No 10 �. CL.M� CL. ' - Medmm 'NO. 10 to No 40 ,' 10 I y, Fines '"No 40 to NO 200'... 4, - ML ° ` ,it ", i fius;l alt or clay) Below No 200 sieve • O. ION 20 0 30 40 5,E 60,.f TO,SQ „OC t; s -.. ... -'x 0.r . F..- e LIQUID LIMIT `+ ' - PLATE A _ '.i i3 .. - i pa DESCRIflIVE TERMn CONEIETENCY OP COHI SIVS SOILS PIns Unttnlbiid CorpiegMN Daaallfn Rek ia..utea6en SIon/Pt. W h Tana N Tena/SqfA. Vary soft Con (batght twice diameter) nags under own weight. Easily penatrstald by fist and offers no resistance to blunt and of pencil -size bblect. 0.1 <0.26. Soh Cr' be pinched In two between thumb and forefinger Blunt end of pencil -size object makes deep penetration - easily. 2•a 0.25 to 0.60 Firm Can be imprinted easily with fingers Blunt end of pencil - Ole object makes N inch penetration with moderate ef- 6 S 0.5010 1.00 Stiff Can be imprinted with considerable pressure from fingers. • Blunt end of pencIl-stze object can make moderate done- tration (about % inch). 6.15 1.00 to 2.00 Very stiff Barely can be imprinted by pressure from fingers but tin' - gernail easily penetrates: - Blunt end of pencil -size object makes slight ir.lentation 16.30 : 2.00 to 4O0 Hard Cannot be imprinted by fingers or blunt end of pencil -Size - - . . object. Fingernail barely penetrates. s 30 ` >400 RELATIVE DENSITY OF •. DEGREE OF PLASTICITY COMESIONLESS SOILS . . OF COHESIVE SOILS feaMgbn 61ows Per Feet (N) - RNative Den$NY (bd Degree of Plastkky - - PlnWcay ten Very Loon - < - :O to 0:15. . None to Sli hl -' Loose - 5-10 OaSto 0 33 - Slight -.:..... ............. }T Meowm - 11.30 035 to 065. Medium...:....:. .... ... S-22 Dense 31.50 ' 065 1o085- ,k High to Very Hugh .. ` .. :"'.. over 22 .y VMY DMu• 0 - - >50 055th 100 .r � - SLOPE CLASSES FOR: 4b: TOPOGRAPHY DESCRIPTION £s RELATIVE PROPORTIONS ♦.-.•1 • fj f v. rvi % W at '' Deeenptl.. Term,- '' Paroim ", Level .,.- ..... .. 0101 ii Traci :...:: F.` '.. 1.10"r Newly Level .:.-. .: 110.3Little - ......... 11.20'..,. .. Gently 9banq,:'.:..... 3 to 8.',. Some :::.:. - '....'.. ..,,.....- 2l-35, Moderately 910pine :::. a'to 12 r : Antl _ ..: ....... .. ..... 96.50 ModenANY SteOP .. ... ..... .... _'.12 to 20 n -:, Sleep ... ... .:.. . .... ..... ......... 20 to 40 _ iF v .r :iiti' 0. e ♦ All j PLATES . , �: `riaj