Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout161-07 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 161-07 A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A REVISED MASTER STREET PLAN FOR FAYETTEVILLE INCLUDING REVISED STREET CROSS SECTIONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adopts a revised Master Street Plan of 2007 for Fayetteville including revised street cross sections. The Master Street Plan of 2007 replaces the existing Master Street Plan which is hereby repealed. PASSED and APPROVED this 4th day of September, 2007. APPROVED: By: ATTEST: By: Oil of t.e.� DAN COODY, Mayo! S NDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer 'cc* o; ---j a0: ein. e FAYETTEVILLE V„..,,,;;Sc"•••„.:7•15WA N74/o •••a CL n r+ sn —I Fc O C 7 7 ger O' rhr m 3-.' '< O 3'd 4.a= C o C O n a 51) rt rhro _, p -.. `< = O S O rDD (I) y t o S'C ao CD " LA 2E w O COCo -0 `< a -M y H'O fp Fr��yn il 'r'o<rr H eD M 5= 0, 77 cra n 2 eti 0; = cD n n p� is = N rD r�•F �V 3 O u' . a�+� oNna. V. O r* n S cr=a O. MlD rD rrn* O a s v+ r15.-11 Sam �0= 0r ► 0O' ;A ro o -1 = n �'Q- FIT N ? D O a ID N Q. +n C 07 5.1 N ; ro = O fp o+ di Q7 d so n Q. 4, rr i1 0- O O_ -1 o O <9 04 n 3 =- v, a D � Q+ �•rD 7 rrD Stf IiiO E v} �n oa y U =rD O -1+ eL ro M Cu c = N rr -0 0 FTLA C n -3 t11 Cr O ..4, O to o rtn o 2 {n n Ccs 3„'-c r* n-1 o6 m y 3 w^ m m eL00; ��� n = 3 = I iD C UQ .o ry. .S S O O n < in o • a 4'1= �fO� CL O � v' CO 0 = Q -y Q. 0• - Q1 < n n n o ua 3 m LA E. (D o r* (10 go CL y 3A go � < m 4 '<Z : a a a cr F LA LA LA Q o acv (7,m ro m 3 a• Cr 0- ao6, -,-,-, uo 'O _o a. V CD rt r- V v.ri a ,n Qh pore. Q ill aky RI p = a a o CT eDD ars• rr ry fa y 0_511-1 rf? et QO N or ,o -,-4 O v Qn O. n C vr. C Vn (DD O - m al O !n 441 N _, Z els < 2 9 O ,�-r _3 w n rt V1 3 O crh m o o t 3 mro '4 = (DD 0.. `< Cu Cu o” n 5 fir r.JO•eJlnallai(e;ssaaae•9ZOZue1d/ I PfJ:dp n c�v-,77 mm-lv� 1 rD yr n c��� 1/714c; -ra n wr n sir' rz=(2 n '' '- 0-=.4"12=-< Co ' ro<v, m .1.:' m om+ c-1 Fe, c mm mm m,• e3 o -II o� .o— w 3i 3r CDD0 m 73 el n a go ZnN1�ZNn -'Z-I ^ r Zn�GDZNn -'zO A r C 0 0 -0000a' ▪ 0 0 N m 0 0 0 o R o N o ,m,„... N 1�7 '^ S n•G L3 d ,„ (D ▪ 0 n v 0' d C D C -,• 74, a Q 30�,-�a �o 0: N300 -0O =N C C ��/+ to O 0 0' 0 c c N 0 0 rofal M a �" cn fil --).. -.(1=_�tA � ��om rDI n n a �n , -1 a =0 n ay 3 a a� :� a Tic' r�rDrt) 0p= rD �o O 03 yp yO 0 --11aap caQQ a m ID m ," m • co -I n rD `< n = O ru — m-0 Cr 0 wv F LI M4 IR xi -cp 73 IriIM 0$3z P El z � "4 D ,c, �0 G r 0 0 o r go n' ,,,,\ m met pom :N...'. P 1 amA C c d j aco• ron tS ro C N a N AI O L J •• ro O 2 CD rn on ra � Ill O 0 0 OOZ100 O rt c t7 t` r O r< eD � Ccr O m y CD ro0 CD /1 J I9 ___ * 9 g �iI ro n.ro mmonroQro�4°A'a'3=D CD -+�<(I) =ro NviO�nm0.,drD`�-1, ruD�Nov r7dUGrr _• '�IDMv.Uo d rD n Lrl �o rn ^�"NO n a n • o ::env A) n) t*kLaQnpm,4OnnnrD?B(�narD rD rr rr-1 v`<�i.1? off ro*°'����m0°roarornI�ru•=mr o. w ic N ..- R. 00 21- 524 PD N LA N=^ O Ii rt rD = 0 no O � � < � uo o: CD on m- Cr Do ro � -0 Al -_-4,1a) ? .-r A n a 00 cn 07 N Z -1 -� A < ~` rrtp O. .? rr < Q`� n N O '-' O St F St 6=.1 '8 tow ro o 0 a a Q = O `{ O CL IA �Q D.floo • = OU�a = r) p 5 1' x {, r* r* vi 0 O c o rD r o VI -I' r�D o. ▪ *' Q �, rn�a d ny c`nD rcrals o CO • ro • o" ro r* r[� 0-1'y rz�ci� H _, LA O .ro f'tm▪ o_� o ° FLyED rDa -O 2-,it nQ-o n) cO' -< nDo n H eT)n O O P. P i!U0 . rD d< m X'0 rD -S • 0 °Q-, -,•� ='Qa•C o cis vi i'DD' n pa Uo N , Ua rt = C. ro m. O ^s ro w ✓ n N m Z a r m m N I) 0 xixt !T# rrnn D zrn aZ ZD Mr 0 co 0 0 a O.0 Htna;;aAe;ssaDDE SZOZuPId/i;PII:d1; 8 r x 12m P1 m o N (I) n-4 • — mo 1 \ D z \ Z> rn . • o Or Aa 0 Q O* M. -- ,., la *CIrn o D e' \ 0 WI M p, 0 mz . PI c 1 Cis r 7G m Ir ---All w z o —1 xla sP ,t ag Ai, O • - vim, O. r m ;2m 3 4..n- - . Q r ' El: CD -n m ET rt) 1 = uo gi In n 9 (D m v"? XI -0 -0 -Ivvw 7 ' 0O.= ) 1--- (3 mas -v<a. ro 70 41 r ivQOg" D= * rw' Q ro �prO g-0Ar�r 13 n v$ o: S'Orop rDNA* a -I Q CD rn '< R- yrnig4> E�om-nrn ' O iv o.A y { 1 O -O va LA E rnv = 0 0 CL r+ n -' Ort o VI 0 •mroO�roCD " ,.,, o cQmQ ro0-,.ro ro Q 3<�rt rDalrnrn2-Ig ?o 'rn?o n m n) nin m -" OC-� �' rt) = < v, O r < 3=r°o �, ro n � N °+, a O "a P Q ro n O ini.-0,Q;'7 mPN v> Or Q (Dz n rD R al 12 O7 crn , p i 8 0 O O -I K v ay O illei ta �f uO ii; n) tIl X r+ n n ca vs o ,„„ x O_ A> O u+ D cra tilAl rD 0 G Q. O. CL 0 O ertr Z co UQ sc 0- ye oN quirmaa 'OM -* virminw 2 2 513321151VDO1 .r--1,.- m l; � ■ . . "Iir Nat �kr, 5 ( n^ .. . g« § $ ` ��. a.f- °� | \ M 1 .� o \ . : L rP rt ma 0 ui n rD N N M r rt 0 tia FD- Al "i sly tE r�r Al f 1 ^ V (D < m • g. o - -' rnr s, O o �+(D rD a• r en 00 rt . (p o ?. r�D 0 o n rn cu '.` O a- = -0 G 'O D! O _1 < r r to (D = o= (D 3 73 N (D =-- O' O yr < d rt • O n 1-11 rt. fp n ao mOQ'0_n- v 70 0Ci- -rn rn o o rn • �rn co = urna u-0 n to = -N -Y 0 3 L^ O 13 n W rt Q <�, rD (A nom, < (D — n (D Q1 iD O `C • (D r- = o n n= n eD -s O A^ r -e O n o (E> .-i-el not ti c eq , 0) Q rt 0 n N O o r1 N-' O -(D n ., 06-1 • n. ✓ r C O • ro- 0 y_ n • -'' rtO r.rL • O%'rop rt(p at —, rf (D = O r = • g O 3 • Q rt = O -1 rt (D e. • 0 0 ? • rt eDD (so rOr = (D t • D Q O O tom • o • fp 3 a, V A7 g a p (D (D (D S `{ Qin (p (Drt rt v, 0O 00 ▪ Q n) O .-p 0 O' n (D < go rt LL vii ¢7 (• oD = N m-� IA m a d = ▪ ' . in a rt n , (D O. (D • O r7.• - rD O S ..-p m n • y Q p' N 0 N 0 (D rr* ill al r -r 0 <rt 4_1 it r-rnro3 ei)• Q-n. m -I =cro• p Q � !"F CL�. rt V D C 1"r X11 O O R I'D -s G rt O' 0. -Ci tr • O rr O S O �. O ''t (D 3 • F4 d 0 ID rr (D O U 3 `� 'n• Frno oaaauQO(D • F, o 3 • arta) -.-z ((,D fl. n m O 0 , 'n �., .o n • (D — gi g. rt o - N N Si]3I1s NOID311103 C") 1-...11 XI E1 -iv CI .12. rn m3e�� 3 < = �'��i5 m �' ua F: m = O (7)• trt 0 rt '< N Pi' 1- fl' co n JQ • o 0 .1.10 V) et B 73 -I � _ a XI 0 c =.o _ 9.o �Oo �g N7 -4 6.) a� St FP St z -, -o-o 3 o o cl a, oa.00 Ct. w 0 al e d o= y o_< et jal CD r� �D �, n ‘•C gu ro L € o d `Al o rA a 3 N O n e -�, (DD N 3 N 0 rci (D rry • 0. 0.. 7 r7 it fD �,-r -ti 7D‘ E ,Y w '01.9 L LA m (D a —I •• m x v+ •9. IA, CO 1a) '— crit' so V O m=ain —n 3 —INr* n A n CD 0^ At m .� 0-o_ < fl' {=D n On o c3+ rn -i rrt _ W 3 S OCD 0 (DD r -r . co r -r Q Q 3 g; 3 0. " 3 O Q Z n"� Q'0 ct Jo•amnal;a..t;ssaD)2'SZOZu e1d,Slpj,:du GI v! x' N N co. vOcr w j y co o Q- n.- a= 0. 70 N trQ FD- a d• N xfl: O up O _ 3 r Nn —1 -0 3 rn ,�r n xi co FT1n 0. r N •--I •• •• 0 to T d - 4. 00MI7•00 Ln 14 102 00 0 U1 Zu = ltA cO OOn 0 ,u2 p• p rD p:J1 1...., esl "0 j a5. irDi "fl CD Q�� arD a 0 0' SD -,9 c, W o 3 Cr o 3 °, a 0 IV r I Q- a .< r~ sel err al 0 = d � •s d 0 rt Mir♦ �.. 0 lE l $� g '6 L 0 A 0 =" (D. � rr S133111S 1VIb3121V lONIW GI v? 70-v -v cc! -I 4 4 0+ n In -v Ri 0: uci a 1-1.IVn r 9. fD1. = n n N a =o� •• `n sr ..70 a en .o (gyp n. Z ,c n II) Sm p � < XI (D Ts: v) = a al it x ea 7o S m r- < m / w; oow 9 a. o n.)Z COTi P. Ti o O y Q �y °" -11 n �. i� r▪ aD ' C d+ 7� -art In 0 .. ,n ai = 7 -1 p n CO -'. rt `n ▪ ci _� U1 1- h Z `"A,y waQD trm 0 rt o �o 03 m s- 3 ,. fro (D m 0) 3 o X C1233-13rr+ = r R= z al o to R J Q 9 V {. UQ -1 rn til =1 VI S o < Q`C Q 4 f" 3 o = CN 0- ...< o c - (0 -w to a (D N in 0 fw Cr r4 rb fD 1111, r(Q� 1111147 O e_ rt 0 LI 77 //mom § 2 7 . < a 7 ƒ 01 g un ivo m eD-e2 n . 2' g= O al x oi N���E uaJ� �Er eD••k • X n I - :...4,o p:41o- E0.t.0-co�a�Ufl.A Zi «Ti - mo c,a .@ C0 0U0 0 nim �\� Er;32��2�(3�a �m�-9&�� _3, � � � g E 2 � � � §§ J § � / Ak � � � 3 E k ® „go p — @ @ \ 1 4 = i E # ,_--t..03 � o k k rD \eD ƒ/ g\ C„ ƒ 7g 2� co u711, - vvon co O- ucl < -9s c1 Q r rD N tD rD 7 < r© rT7 'p �+ ❑. N tit = r i 'O co g soQ m...7.-1- r rD ✓ o r�7 N tro 3fp m On rb••� d rD =" M < N N O a + • • E' W rp .• Z 1 Q'w0a0 t4 -' -1 rrD m (D rD rD rD fir -' rD v n rD -< n � � s:17= :74.000 m o o < -▪ a M N FE,- — �nn _.1 (1 -i n -•- r x) -1,=crn 3'-''nv) r* n s(D D0-'� 0a) 30- ?J {�Q c Ai. 0 o w00 a XIX 0 to = o �}` Biu a E r91w —iZn 0L'J"0—IN n —1ZONNZ-1•k A o 0& m W"m o C) ..D. a r(DD "- "Q o 2"' N O --n N O �rp rt O ▪ V � nc �(Dyi0r 0O > •00 3pr ..3< 3Q 3� VI 73 r'.r n O 70 rt (D rD n c (DD N Cr c c c uc UQ n L� o .....14E ti 1 872 g tor rqUI 1,1 68 E S� �N -k c �c- a Q § I. RA N • 00 HILLTOP -HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT STREETS 1 "r.io•aR snallaitejssappe•SZotueldl(;till d1.4 miuras. iirou 0 0 tit. AMA mss -IIs A 0 d (D z- o.=n= 17 n F � a. ru w .-t (D -.. w .. ?;(-i V 4, o .0 E 9 rr pp �L '54 02 4 GO W f 1 N Z ."1 A co OV. lD py —t o �! - - O fp .i.o- -a, .-i- o- 0 fy d 0- v'" O = " < 51, eL on(D4Po no.N CD et, - o fp a t 4 3 sa DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN STREETS are specific to the Downtown Master Plan area. 12.2.9 DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN STREETS Mit 0 IT ',APT cow 0 teln talk allIIIIIIIL 0 MEL& 0 L., x,. NN Q N 3 fD 7C - IT. n 0 (0m� II n w CD 030- E o 3 so i• o fl n a-, o �C NJ Oooz0 =OW _, N N CD o 4 v). a a o o tO -. 0 �, a, _0 °`-1 n o • `b r. oo n H to CD O A y� ✓ v! O Vf Crn -1 aCO (J1 ti A 0 Z 4.0 rn co co z :Ja•at Enal4aKe}ssa»e'gZOZueldA p//:dfl . imr �y: . 1 . 0 ��_ 1111111 �.�. k i� . IOW ANIIIIIIIIMPIII _MIN § c) tnxi NN@o (D § vl ri.a • �q n 1 c" =rD k 5- 2 ƒ m 0 3 R PpE/ƒ77%F�/ iii Pp K/ mac 1-1. CI: $ƒ=� \� G� 7g_tn D \� �(� k1.19. m /v K El ■ $ §i @ 0 k E m � z n - 1 0 00 a 03 N w ardinW O gar It 1 191Ankik. „...„,...i. -..i__ _ GZ cn70 -0-0mHv•o corua p- rr n Grua ul �n = moo, `rv, n a g= m rp •• stn•N n W rT to pp n r r p W O� O- Z Z 11 A r° s� a� sin -'(b (D - v rn rt ct rU ro ri) — CL 3 � a O w 17 * 0 n m -� igiCU. rr�r Oo -F, N H = no III rt CL 2 OM • WN N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nff N N i."-) N N N N N N jv jy N n 0 ..a � v _ j _T Q O O O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 p 0 sw gi CD 0 r.un o. rD n0=n o '0 a o ioma< Qp, r^0-r� rb o al •. L cs n �'•� c rr -o �/A r* fp Cu 0 a� m'< CI CD 51. a in=b ,r-°� Aso iiQ (D (D -, 03 Oro rcDo. ag �- = (D n ' rD et orb a <' tb = c fp O c a tD C `C a �. rb O G 0)r -r D_ ./� • C CD = 0 Cnl (D C rnp SD A, cr TA o H rr o y �' N N fa + rb UT to Oci, Q a O -0 rr r . Q. !b U0 3 • '�'� 3 n 0 rD r0. Q 0 0 e -r O rb O rr T. H AI rot 'Y Q 1:3IlvrQ-r N r�D _ �a a N rD 0 o ib y n ��t Q ria, o o �, o Q ro V Y GU 3 =T -h g == CD N N_ N ' w o C a n C O n n co to 0 q-, fl:), R+ 0_ a O z -o = o rb m. ro ' t n rD r. F-1-•"(;) a �' -�, n rr , '� Q O �r Ct. `r CD gi) ^- y t90 rD r�D r0 -r to n• g rnb -11 O 0 OC ^ o in '" Fin 13 ry-r O rD o 0) ID a s I^ D. O o ,0.. !SD 0, a c '� 0 0 < '`� g ,.r x �, �.0 rD a. -O a O a vi rD c c,. rLA ryD a e NI co 0 a O O .n7' • z 0 t 0 r(D Q o en << '1' < 3 "O 4.4 C r ft) N en -r n a, 0 v Tp5 " r. rp n o cr Q- N -10 0) 0 3 rr+ o rp a rD 0) n. 0 y a) rr r .7 girl H = cr Q 0 y r. rD < 4 n' rb = 0' Q tC �, 0- .••r o rb = Al ]� N w u� r* ,C.r u0a rb on O oo 0. O „r'* n rr 0 vet n (D 0 T 3 o rt c fp 0 -I' rrn 'O a rD Rl 0 fl so rb M rb = 'a 5 '< O 0 5' A� 3 H m =IA 0 s2en en in I a o. -��s 00, rr n n 0 0 O O en C y' 1, 0 ry; cD a ,-r r�-r go 1.-+^ lig .<' r -ss to i `� 0) r-► A) Ai • rD N 0 n n0 2 - 0 - 0 c a 1.1011) O n 3 a, < rb o f'1 c a a0' 0-. 0 C DO a 00) `c a/ o.00 �o0 rp - of n = 2 = c o '13 !" = .- 0) a 0) 0 ,-1- -, �C cu 61 C c en rD s 3 ' r* . C1 w to m o cr -o 0 m a urD co a rb . I o. I M 0 .< a Circulation: Guiding Policies Master Street Plan Guiding Policies Karen Minkel Submitted By 07-2625: (Master Street Plan Update): Cost of this request n/a Account Number n/a Project Number Budgeted Item City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form City Council Agenda Items or Contracts 4 -Sep -07 City Council Meeting Date Planning Division fud jt&& Operations Department Action Required: I by Planning Staff to adopt the Master Street Plan update. n/a Category/Project Budget n/a Funds Used to Date n/a Remaining Balance Budget Adjustment Attached 11 Department Dire for Date C' orney n/a Program Category / Project Name n/a Program / Project Category Name if n/a Fund Name Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a Original Contract Date: n/a Original Contract Number: n/a City Council Meeting of September 4, 2007 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Dire�torI. C. Ron Petrie, City Engineer Q Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning From: Karen Minkel, Senior Long Range Planner ' M. Date: August 14, 2007 Subject: Administrative item to adopt the Master Street Plan update (ADM 07- 2625) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of a resolution to adopt the Master Steet Plan update. BACKGROUND The Planning and Engineering staffs were charged with updating the Master Street Plan (MSP) to reflect the goals of City Plan 2025 and to complement the Future Land Use Map. In addition, staff wanted to standardize cross -sections in order to minimize the number of requests for individual street cross -sections in proposed developments. Staff developed the attached street cross -sections through multiple meetings, and the proposed MSP has been reviewed by the engineering and planning divisions, the fire department, solid waste division and the urban forester. Staff also utilized professional guidelines and manuals for the update, including A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the proposed Context Sensitive Solutions by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Changes to the map include: (1) Policy decisions that have been made by the City Council since the last update; (2) More small, connecting streets, mostly in the form of Collector streets; (3) Greater sensitivity to the Future Land Use Map; (4) Classification of streets in the newly annexed area; (5) Alignment with the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan; and (6) Alignment changes to streets based on hillside and floodplain data. Changes to the street cross -sections include: (1) Better accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists; City Council Meeting of September 4, 2007 Agenda Item Number (2) Greater sensitivity to context, offering low -impact development, suburban and urban street cross-section options; (3) Reduction of curb and gutter from two feet to one -and -a -half feet; (4) Overall reduction of right-of-way requirements; (5) Lane width measured from face of curb instead of back of curb in order to better describe the visual width of the road; and (6) Downtown street cross-section rights -of -way increased in order to make the downtown cross -sections consistent with the City's sidewalk and landscaping ordinances. Street Previous R -O -W Proposed R -O -W Alleys (3) 20' 20', 24' for commercial alley Residential 40' 43' Residential (LID) N/A 50' Hillside Residential 27' 27' Local 50' 50' Local Urban N/A 53' Hillside Local 33' 33' Collector 70' 59', 70' at intersections Minor Arterial 90' 85' Principal Arterial 110' 97' Principal Arterial Parkway N/A 107' DMP 2 -Lane Urban 30' 37' DMP 2 -Lane Urban 38' 45' DMP 1 -Lane Urban 40' 43' DMP College N/Al 63' Staff solicited feedback from three groups and the general public before presenting the proposed MSP to the Planning Commission. The Plan was presented initially to the Street Committee on May 31, 2007 and members expressed interest in hearing feedback from the public. The Plan was then presented to utility companies at a meeting hosted by Ozarks Electric, and the companies provided text that has been added to the front page of the MSP. A third session was held specifically for local engineers and developers to provide comments on June 26, 2007. Nine engineers, developers and architects attended the session. No changes were requested. City Council Meeting of September 4, 2007 Agenda Item Number A MSP Open House was held at the Town Center Plaza during the Farmers Market on June 23, 2007. Between 50 and 60 citizens took the self -guided walking tour during the Open House and five left comments. A second Open House was held at Gulley Park on July 26, 2007 during one of the summer concerts. Between 150 and 200 citizens viewed the proposed map and street cross -sections. Ten written comments were left at the Open Houses, which are shown below: What are the strengths of the MSP? • Providing bike lanes and green space • Bike lanes • More bike lanes • More boulevards • Coordination with F.A.T.T. plan for on -street bike linkages • Vision -this is the City we want to see • Multi -modal transport —alternative transport options • L.I.D. cross-section • The collector streets make good sense to me. What would you like to see changed in the MSP update? • Extension of turning lanes whenever possible to prevent bottlenecking • It looks like a great plan • I'm still a little unclear about how the middle section is going to be when things are changed and how that will work. • The chevron and bike symbol allow proper vehicle behavior for all roadway users. The solid bike lane stripe creates conflict at intersections • that can be resolved, but takes extra attention. • Rock St./71B intersection needs pedestrian crossing. Are there any important connections missing? • It appears to be thorough • Nothing that I know of • Needs more bike lanes at West Deane St. • My concern has not been added to the MSP-yet. But it does relate to College Ave./South School. Rock Street at intersection should be closed. Traffic from Huntsville Road at Jefferson light should be channeled there. Don't ruin the Spout Spring Neighborhood by running commuter traffic at high counts through. Many supporting safety, costs, etc. for this choice. I am suspicious of this. Trust me, the people in the hollow will not be able to access Huntsville at Rock so don't pretend to be making this decision for them. This is specifically accommodating commuters over community. Two blocks, maybe saved by the short cut. No real time due to curves, etc. Winter -Rock St. vs. S. College? Please re -engineer this dangerous intersection BUT you can do it with better intentions. Close the Rock St. access. Channel the 16E traffic down to the Jefferson light. • I like the improvements that have already been taking place around Wilson Park with speed bumps and look forward to more of this, and more City Council Meeting of September 4, 2007 Agenda Item Number greenery on College Ave. • Bike lanes for commuting will be important and useful when completing. Planning Commission Discussion: The Planning Commission first reviewed the proposed Master Street Plan at a meeting on July 9, 2007 and requested that Staff address design speeds, particularly in regard to the relationship between speed and lane width. Staff added the desired operating speed to each street cross-section as shown in the table below. Street Desired Operating Speed Residential 15-20 mph Local 20-25 mph Collector 25-30 mph Minor Arterial 35-40 mph Principal Arterial 40-45 mph The Engineering and planning staff also reviewed the proposed Context Sensitive Solutions in order to reassess the width of travel lanes in the street cross -sections. The travel lane recommendation for Collector Thoroughfares was 10-11 feet, which is consistent with the proposed Collector street cross-section. Collector streets that are part of the Trails Master Plan require a 15 -foot shared motorist and cyclist lane; collector streets without on -street linkages would have a 10 -foot and a 9 -foot travel lane. The desired operating speed of 25-30 mph is also consistent with the proposed Context Sensitive Solutions. The recommended travel lane width for arterials with two to four lanes is 10-12 feet depending on whether the area is residential or commercial. The proposed Master Street Plan is consistent with this recommendation, requiring 11' travel lanes for Minor and Principal Arterials. The Context Sensitive Solutions document does not address Residential or Local streets. Staff reevaluated two of these street cross-section recommendations based on comments from commissioners and amended the Low Impact Development street cross section and the Hillside Local street cross-section. Staff reduced the lane width§ of the Low -Impact Development street cross-section by one foot on either side, creating 9' travel lanes, which are consistent with the standard Residential street cross-section measurements. The two feet were added to the greenspace to make additional room for trees and maintain the proposed right-of-way of 50 feet. Commissioners also questioned the width of the Hillside Local street cross-section and asked whether the 12.5' travel lanes could be reduced. Staff has added 7 -foot on -street parking on one side to this cross-section, reducing the lane widths to 9.5 feet. City Council Meeting of September 4, 2007 Agenda Item Number The Planning Commission also requested that staff clarify the "green" neighborhood elements that would accompany the use of the low -impact development street cross - sections. Staff used the U.S. Green Building Council's guide to LEED Neighborhood Development projects to identify key elements of "green" neighborhoods, but wanted to provide developers with some flexibility to allow for innovative techniques and does not intend for the listed elements to represent an exhaustive list. The following text has been added: The Low -Impact Development street cross-section will be recommended by staff only if used in conjunction with other "green" neighborhood building practices. These practices may include, but are not limited to, increasing energy and water efficiency, decreasing vehicle miles traveled, avoidingfloodplains, conserving wetlands and water bodies, providing a diversity of housing types, utilizing a compact development pattern, including certified green buildings, minimizing site disturbance through site design and during construction, decreasing polluted Storm water run-off, building where jobs and services are accessible by foot or transit, and improving air quality. Collector Boulevards: In a second review of the proposed Master Street Plan, the fire department found that the Collector Boulevard street cross-section was inconsistent with Fayetteville Fire Code. The fire department requires 20 feet free and clear on either side of the boulevard, not including on -street parking. Attempting to reconcile this requirement with the Collector Boulevard concept did not produce a workable standard street cross-section, and Planning and Engineering staff recommend removing this street cross-section. The fire department has expressed willingness to work with individual developers who would like to utilize this type of street cross-section to find an acceptable solution, but staff did not feel comfortable recommending a standard collector boulevard given the fire code regulations. The Planning Commission did not discuss this recommendation on August 13; staff recommends that the City Council remove the Collector Boulevard street cross-section and the accompanying text. Public Comment: In addition, -Planning staff received written comments and letters, which are attached to the report. Letters from Jeff Gaddy and Bob Gaddy support the removal of a proposed north -south minor arterial east of Oakland Zion Road in favor of upgrading Oakland Zion Road to a minor arterial. Bob Gaddy further added that the Commission should consider connecting Sagely Lane to N. Altus Drive rather than extending Sagely Lane to E. Skillem Road. Skillern Road could then be extended to connect with N. Altus Drive. An email was received from John McClarty, Transportation Study Director with Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning, supporting the upgrade of Highway 112 from a minor arterial to a principal arterial parkway, although Regional Planning preferred N. Salem Road. The Planning Commission received letters from several members of the Estates at Salem Hills neighborhood opposing the designation of Howard Nickell as a Principal Arterial Parkway, which are also attached. This designation was adopted by City Council (Res. 209-05) in October 2005 when the City Council changed Rupple Road from a Minor to City Council Meeting of September 4, 2007 Agenda Item Number Principal Arterial. When the Estates at Salem Hills was platted in 2003, 90' of right-of- way was acquired in order to eventually accommodate a four -lane Minor Arterial. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission voted 6-1-0 in favor of this request on August 13, 2007. Commissioner Myres cast the dissenting vote and stated that while she thought the street cross -sections were well -designed, she was dissatisfied with some of the designations on the map. BUDGET IMPACT None. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT A REVISED MASTER STREET PLAN FOR FAYETTEVILLE INCLUDING REVISED STREET CROSS SECTIONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adopts a revised Master Street Plan of 2007 for Fayetteville including revised street cross sections. The Master Street Plan of 2007 replaces the existing Master Street Plan which is hereby repealed. PASSED and APPROVED this 4t' day of September, 2007. By: APPROVED: ATTEST: .._--------------- DAN GOODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 Connecting Fayetteville to other population centers and to provide for circulation within the community requires consistent planning. New development must be provided with proper access to alleviate problems associated with congestion and safety by requiring streets in sufficient number and of adequate size to accommodate peak traffic volumes. The following street cross -sections are functionally classified in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Functional Classification Study Manual. In addition, the street cross -sections provide sensitivity to context by providing options for both suburban and urban developments and accommodating cyclists and low -impact development neighborhoods. The International Fire Code (IFC), which the State of Arkansas has adopted, requires a 20 -foot minimum of unobstructed width on all roads, which is reflected in the proposed street cross -sections. If structures on either side of the road exceed 30 feet or three stories, then the IFC requires a 26 -foot minimum of unobstructed width. Additional Utility Easements will be required outside of the specified Right - of -Way on a project specific basis, as determined by the utility companies. * ACCESS MANAGEMENT: providing access to land development in such a way as to preserve safety and reasonable traffic flow on public streets. Low, moderate and high designations are used for the level of access restrictions. A high level of access management uses medians to restrict mid -block turns, consolidates driveways and controls the spacing of intersections. A low level of access management limits full access at some intersections. DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 ALLEYS are used in conjunction with streets to provide rear access to properties, garages, and off-street parking. Greenspace and alleys prohibit fences and parking. They have a low level of access management. 1 a. RESIDENTIAL REAR ALLEY: ONE-WAY Design Service Volume: < 200 vpd Travel Lanes: One 10' lane Parking: Not Allowed Paved Width: 12' from outer edge of concrete strip Right of Way: 20' Sidewalks: None Greenspace: Both sides of alley, min. 4' wide, unencumbered Curb cuts: Continuous access possible. No curb required Ib. RESIDENTIAL REAR ALLEY: TWO-WAY Design Service Volume: Travel Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: Curb cuts: < 200 vpd Two 7' lanes Not Allowed 16' from outer edge of concrete strip 20' None Both sides of alley, min. 2' wide, unencumbered Continuous access possible. No curb required I c. COMMERCIAL REAR ALLEY: TWO-WAY Design Service Volume: < 200 vpd Travel Lanes: Two 9' lanes Parking: Not Allowed Paved Width: 20' from outer edge of concrete strip Right of Way: 24' Sidewalks: None Greenspace: Both sides of alley, min. 2' wide, unencumbered Curb cuts: Continuous access possible. No curb required 2 DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 RESIDENTIAL STREETS provide for the lowest level of traffic and service. They provide access to residential property and are intended to be used only by local traffic. A high degree of street connectivity is strongly encouraged for easy dispersal of traffic. Residential Street block lengths shall not exceed 600 feet. The Low -Impact Development street cross- section will be recommended by staff only if used in conjunction with other "green" neighborhood building practices. These practices may include, but are not limited to, increasing energy and water efficiency, decreasing vehicle miles traveled, avoiding floodplains, conserving wetlands and water bodies, providing a diversity of housing types, utilizing a compact development pattern, including certified green buildings, minimizing site disturbance through site design and during construction, decreasing polluted stormwater run-off, building where jobs and services are accessible by foot or transit, and improving air quality. Residential streets have a low level of access management. 2a. RESIDENTIAL: Design Service Volume: Desired Operating Speed: Travel Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: <300 vpd 15-20 mph Two 9' lanes Not Allowed 20' from face of curb 43' Both sides of street, min. 5' wide, located in R.O.W. at R.O.W. line Both sides of street, min. 6' wide 2b. RESIDENTIAL LOW -IMPACT DEVELOPMENT: Design Service Volume: < 300 vpd Desired Operating Speed: 15-20 mph Travel Lanes: Two 9' lanes Parking: Not Allowed Paved Width: 20' Right of Way: 50' Sidewalks: One, at least 5' wide, adjoining 5' greenspace Greenspace: One side of street, min. 5' wide Bio-Swale: Both sides of street, 10' wide, tree plantings may be permitted by the Urban Forester 3 DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 LOCAL STREETS provide for a moderate level of traffic flow and service. They provide access to abutting land uses and provide connections to higher order street classifications. Local Urban streets are encouraged in City Neighborhood and Urban Center areas as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Local Urban Streets are also appropriate for areas that may function as a main street for a neighborhood, offering mixed uses and a pedestrian - friendly environment. They have a low to medium level of access management. 3a. LOCAL: Design Service Volume: < 4,000 vpd Desired Operating Speed: 20-25 mph Travel Lanes: One 10' lane, One 9' lane Parking: One 7' lane Paved Width: 27' from face of curb Right of Way: 50' Sidewalks: Both sides of street, min. 5' wide, located in R.O.W. at R.O.W. line Greenspace: Both sides of street, min. 6' wide 3b. LOCAL URBAN: Design Service Volume: < 4,000 vpd Desired Operating Speed: 20-25 mph Travel Lanes: Two 9' lanes Parking: Two 8' lanes with bump -outs Paved Width: 20' from face of bump -out curb 36' entire width to face of curb Right of Way: 53' Sidewalks Both sides of street, min. 8' wide with grated tree wells against curb Greenspace: Both sides of street, tree wells 4 DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 COLLECTOR STREETS provide traffic circulation within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. They collect traffic from local or residential streets in neighborhoods and facilitate movement into the arterial system. Connections between arterials should be direct in order to disperse traffic throughout the city. Collector streets vary in width and function as they respond to the context of the adjacent land uses. A minimum right-of- way of 59 feet shall be provided where a collector is depicted on the Master Street Plan with a 70 -foot right-of-way provided at intersections with other collectors, minor arterials and principal arterials. The intersection right-of- way must extend a minimum of 200 feet from the intersection. A 70 -foot right-of-way may be required if the volume of traffic generated or predicted warrants a continuous turning lane. Where on -street linkages are not shown on the Fayetteville Alternative Trails and Transportation (FATT) Plan, the paved width of 27 feet shall be constructed, and the design should be consistent with the paved width of the Local street cross-section. A Collector street without the on -street linkages would have one 10 -foot lane, one 9 -foot lane, a 7 -foot lane for parking, a 10 - and -a -half -foot greenspace and a 5 -foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. All Collectors have a moderate level of access management. A Collector Boulevard street cross-section with a 65 -foot right-of-way is encouraged in City Neighborhood and Urban Center areas as identified on the Future Land Use Map. A Collector Boulevard is also encouraged for areas that will receive or encourage significant pedestrian traffic. All Collectors have a moderate level of access management. 4a. COLLECTOR (THROUGH): Design Service Volume: < 4,000 vpd, < 6000 vpd with left turn bays Desired Operating Speed: 25-30 mph Travel Lanes: Two 14' shared motorist and cyclist lanes Turn Lane: 12' turn bays where warranted Bicycle Lanes: Shared with drive lane Parking: None Paved Width: 30' from face of curb Right of Way: 59' • Sidewalks: Both sides of street, min. 5' wide, located in R.O.W. at R.O.W. line Greenspace: Both sides of street, min. 9' wide 5 DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 4b. COLLECTOR (INTERSF Design Service Volume: Desired Operating Speed: Travel Lanes: Turn Lane: Bicycle Lanes: CTION): < 4,000 vpd, < 6000 vpd with left turn bays 25-30 mph Two 14' shared motorist and cyclist lanes 11' turn bays where warranted Shared with drive lane Parking: None Paved Width: 41' from face of curb Right of Way: 70' Sidewalks: Both sides of street, min. 5' wide, located at R.O.W. Greenspace: Both sides of street, min. 9' wide 4c. COLLECTOR BOULEVARD: Design Service Volume: < 4,000 vpd, < 6000 vpd with left turn bays Desired Operating Speed: 25-30 mph Travel Lanes: Two 10' lanes Median/Turn Lane: 10' Parking: Two 8' lanes Paved Width: 19' from face of curb 48' entire width including median Right of Way: 65' Sidewalks: Both sides of street, min. 8' wide, with grated tree wells against curb Greenspace: None MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS provide mobility throughout the city, providing multiple modes of transportation within the arterial network. Access should be limited to controlled intersections where possible. They have a moderate level of access management. 5 MINOR ARTERIAL: Design Service Volume: Desired Operating Speed: Travel Lanes: Bicycle Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: < 12,200 vpd 35-40 mph Four 11' lanes 5' wide, both sides of street next to curb None 54' from face of curb 85' Both sides of street, min. 5' wide, located in R.O.W. at R.O.W. line Both sides of street, min. 10' wide 31 DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS carry high volumes of through traffic. They are designed as boulevards for beauty and safety. They have a high level of access management and access should be primarily by way of streets rather than curb cuts. 6. PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BOULEVARD: Design Service Volume: < 17,600 vpd Desired Operating Speed: 40-45 mph Travel Lanes: Four 11' lanes Four 11' lanes at intersections Bicycle Lanes: 5' wide, both sides of street next to curb Median: 10', 12' turn lane at intersections Parking: None Paved Width: 28' from face of curb 66' entire width including median Right of Way: 97' Sidewalks: Both sides of street, min. 5' wide, located in R.O.W. at R.O.W. line Greenspace: Both sides of street, min. 10' wide PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL PARKWAYS carry high volumes of through traffic and are designed for beauty and safety. They have a high level of access management and access should be primarily by way of streets rather than curb cuts. 7 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL PARKWAY: Design Service Volume: < 17,600 vpd Desired Operating Speed: 40-45 mph Travel Lanes: Four 11' lanes Bicycle Lanes: 5' wide, both sides of street against curb Median/Turn Lane: 20' median, or 8' median with 12' turn lane Parking: None Paved Width: 28' from face of curb with median 40' from face of curb with turn lane 76' entire width including median Right of Way: 107' Sidewalks: Both sides of street, min. 5' wide, located in R.O.W. at R.O.W. line Greenspace: Both sides of street, min. 10' wide 7 DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 H.H.O.D. (HILLTOP -HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT) STREETS are designed with a narrow right-of-way in order to minimize grading disturbance and tree removal, while still accommodating utility locations, vehicular and pedestrian movements. (See example in street cross-section.) Hillside Residential streets carry limited traffic through neighborhoods, while Hillside Local streets collect traffic from the neighborhoods and disperse it to minor arterials. They have a low level of access management. 8a. HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL: Design Service Volume: Desired Operating Speed: Travel Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: Utility Easements: 8b. HILLSIDE LOCAL: Design Service Volume: Desired Operating Speed: Travel Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: Utility Easements: < 500 vpd 15-20 mph Two 9.5' lanes Not Allowed 21' from face of curb 27' One, at least 5' wide, abutting curb None Two, 15' at R.O.W. < 4000 vpd 20-25 mph Two 9.5' lanes One 7' lane 27' from face of curb 33' One, at least 5' wide, abutting curb None Two, 15' at R.O.W. DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN STREETS are specific to the Downtown Master Plan area. I ST 37 9/9 Design Service Volume: Traffic Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: 2 5T458/1019 Design Service Volume: Traffic Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: 3 ST 40 8/10/8 Design Service Volume: Traffic Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: 4 ST 63 11/11/11/11 Design Service Volume: Traffic Lanes: Bicycle Lanes: Parking: Paved Width: Right of Way: Sidewalks: Greenspace: <300 vpd Two 9' lanes Not Allowed 20' from face of curb 37' Both sides of street, min. 8' wide with grated tree wells against curb Both sides of street, tree wells < 300 vpd One 10' lane, one 9' lane One 8' lane 28' from face of curb 45' Both sides of street, min. 8' wide with grated tree wells against curb Both sides of street, tree wells < 4,000 vpd One 10' lane Two 8' lanes 26' from face of curb 43' Both sides of street, min. 8' wide with grated tree wells against curb Both sides of street, tree wells <17,600 Four 11' lanes None None 46' from face of curb 63' Both sides of street, min. 8' wide with grated tree wells against curb Both sides of street, tree wells 9 DRAFT: CITY COUNCIL September 4, 2007 Master Street Plan Guiding Policies In order to guide the formulation of a Master Street Plan and direct the Planning Commission regarding land use decisions that affect transportation issues, the following policies are suggested: I2.2.20.a Promote the coordinated and efficient use of all available and future transportation modes. (Goal 4) 12.2.20.b Meet the diverse transportation needs of the people of the City, including rural and urban populations and the unique mobility needs of the elderly and disability communities. 12.2.20.c Ensure the repair and necessary improvements of roads and bridges throughout the City to provide a safe, efficient and adequate transportation network. 12.2.20.d Minimize the harmful effects of transportation on public health and on air and water quality, land and other natural resources. 12.2.20.e Promote reliance on energy -efficient forms of transportation. 12.2.20.f Incorporate a public participation process in which the public has timely notice and opportunity to identify and comment on transportation concerns. 12.2.20.g Monitor and improve transportation facilities to conveniently serve the intra-city and regional travel needs of Fayetteville residents, business and visitors. I2.2.20.h Monitor the incidence of traffic accidents and implement physical and operational measures to improve public safety. I2.2.20.i Support the Razorback Transit service and the Ozark Regional Transit, which offer convenient and reliable alternatives to the automobile. (Goal 4e) I2.2.20.j Establish facilitates that accommodate safe and convenient travel for r pedestrians and bicyclists. (Goal 4e) I2.2.20.k Promote mixed -use and traditional neighborhood development to reduce roadway demand and change travel patterns. (Goal 3b, Goal 4) 12.2.20.1 Encourage consideration of the impacts on the transportation network in land use decisions made by the Planning Commission. 12.2.20.m Periodically update the Master Street Plan in order to evaluate the context sensitivity and the appropriateness of right-of-way dedication requirements. 12.2.20.n Encourage the construction of sheltered bus stops and bicycle parking facilities at transit stops, shopping centers and employment centers. 10 0 10 20 FEE I SCALE: 1' - 10' RESIDENTIAL. REAR ALLEY: 4: 4' 1 a ,ONE WAY GREEN- GREEN- RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD LANE Ej CONCRETE 20• CONCRETE R.O.W. RESIDENTIAL REAR ALLEY: z 2 l b TWO WAY GREEN- GREEN -. SPACE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CITY NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER 7 7 LANE LANE 1• CONCRETE 20• CONCRETE R.O.W. COMMERCIAL REAR ALLEY: TWO WAY 2' 2. CITY NEIGHBORHOOD GREEN- GRE€N- C. RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SPACE SPACE URBAN CENTER 9 9 __L �• LANE LANE �� CONCRETE 24• CONCRETE R.O.W. O PLANNING DIVISION n� MASTER STREET PLAN Ae" 12s W. MOUNTAIN STAE[T PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS-SECT1ONS £ 9 0 w 20 FEET SCALE: 1 • = 10' 2a RESIDENTIAL . RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD 1.5' 8� 9 9 NIN, 5 GREEN— �LANE LANE GREEN— MIN .inrwat y SPACE SPACE SIDEV PLANNING DIVISION +me MASTER STREET PLAN >; r ' E £ 155 W. NppNI41h STREET ra {•aa5 sas-nn r¢ ara-axm PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS -SECTIONS psn 0 10 20 FEET SCALE: 1' = 10' 2 y RESIDENTIAL LOW -IMPACT DEVELOPMENT U - RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD 50' R.O.W. �20' ROA1}�( SLOPE .1:1 SLOPE k l 2A yL�I SLOPE 01Ti ARE 3:1 0e LESS OR arcs F—�— � OR LESS -0R LESS SWIAL£ - • 9 --- — 9 --W-a CREEN-LSlDE— SW'ALE 70' MAX. 3 LANE LANE 7' SPACE WALK 10 4. AX. CONCRETE CONCRETE jil g� PLANNING DIVISION,.ne MASTER STREET PLAN s< ---- 175 w, UOVNTgiN STREETPROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS—SECTI0NS[�;�;s 0 10 20 FEET SCALE: 1' = 10' LOCAL 3 a RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CITY NEIGHBORHOOD rn 1.5' 1.5' CURB do CURB do dIN_ 5 6' T I 5' MIN. 5' SIDE— GRf€N— 6 PARKING GREEN— SIDE— WALK SPACE LANE LANE II LANE SPACE WALK 27 F.L. 50RD.W. rn JILINNING,,DIVISION��:J., °` MASTER S1REET.PLANi25 W. MOVNFN STREET 'I----, �e' �� .[s�„a .,�c.,c•�.lsH.r<. „„o • PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS —SECTIONS `E 0 5 20 FEE1 SCALE: 1' = 10' COLLECTOR (THROUGH) 4 G . RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CITY NEIGHBORHOOD m 1'5 1.S' CURB & PNR CURB & �T�R GUTTER MIN, 5 9 114 SHARED M0T0RIST14' SHARED MOTORIST), Ii.. MIN. 5' IDEwAIK GR£'ENSPACE k CYCLIST LANE & CYCLIST LANE CREENSPACE SI0EwAU 30' F,C. ® NNING DIVISION:: MASTER STREET PLAN W-Ksn-a.. 125 W. M0VNTMN STREET F!��.ems ien-gym ; � PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS —SECTIONS � £� 0 to 20 FEET SCALE: 4 COLLECTOR (INTERSECTION) b .RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CITY NEiGHBORHOOO 3 I 0 PLANNING DIVISION ane MASTER STREET PLAN J o 125 w. MOUNTaN STREET PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS -SECTIONS k RK4M SAt se[slw-0at ffv�(•m fn.am ' 0 10 20 FEET SCALE: 1' = 10' COLLECTOR BOULEVARD 6" 8• TREE— e _ 10 MEG AN/ 1G'J.— a 4L1TREE_; PARKING LANE TURNING LANE LANE PARKING WELL 19' f.C. 19' F.C. MIN. 6' MIN. B' 48' F.C. SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 65' RO.W. PLANNING DIVISION MASTER STREET PLAN 125 W. Y S 3 .R AIMOUNTN STREET PROPOSE© PLANS AND CROSS -SECTIONS £ $ o Y NW Ni-mr runs ryM ars�et r 0 W 20 FEET SCALE: 1' = 10' MINOR ARTERIAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD �1 10' ' BKEi it 71 it I" s.. 10 - BIKE MIN. 5' GREENSPACE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE GREENSPACE MW. 5' SIDEWALK 54' F,C. SI0EWAL iii PLANNING DIVISION ; �"` MASTER STREET PLAN . $ rya bf! S S.xs.i IZ5 W. MOUNTAIN STREET .¢1.�tl anwN. . �a l.�q vsams PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS-SECRONS � 1 0 10 20 FEEF SCALE: 1' = 10' PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BOULEVARD: 6 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CITY NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER CURB & CUTTER MIN. 5�pFFu¢Oer`C�I BANE LANE LANE 1 t J*1 iii, 5' Y DIVISION 7 ry MASTER STREET PLAN a1ettv1IIePLANNING y /y 120W.LAuNTArNSTREET10 3 A R 4 A k S A 5 [nl fn�u r¢ pn1 nyyp PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS -SECTIONS 0 10 20 40 FEET 7 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL PARKWAY: RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CITY NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN CENTER BSKE -J� it• �nME'D'IAN �• I II1' E LANE TURN LANE LANE LANE BANE E MIN. 5 10' SIDEWALK GREENSPACE /0' MIN. 5 1 GREENSPACE SIDEWAL 2B' LANf ID' LANE 713' F.C. 107' R. W. [] PLANNING DIVISION ; � } 1!I � MASTER STREET PLAN 25W MOUNTAIN STREET PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS -SECTIONS xx nnl sore¢ V zII w FEET SCALE: 1' = 10' HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL 8 a .RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD I5________ MIN ON a 36 4" GAS �l PIPE �1 8" WAi PIPE FLAT O AREA STORM PIPE (DEPTH VARIES) 8 yy� HILLSIDE LOCAL " RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD MIN `_o 36' 4 GAS PIPE 8WATER PIPE N.O.W.- PIPE TELE.CABLE ELEC. FLAT 0 AREA STORM PIPE (DEPTH VARIES) PIPE TEUE. CABLE £LEG �.. � PLANNING DIVISION : I nM MASTER STREET PLANI C' s e eee , a x u 125 W. IAOJNTAI1 STREET ' R PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS —SECTIONS G 20 40 FEE1 SCALE 1' = 10' 1.5' MIN. 8' 5I0EWALK s' I` JEL SMP 8�� vae LANE +' STREET 2 LANE URBAN 20' F.C. MfN, 8 sI0EWAIK (ST 30 10/10) R p W. Modified (ST 37 9/9) PLANNING DIVISION` �� MASTER STREET PLAN 125 W. MOUNTAIN STRE£T PROPOSED PLANS AND CROSS -SECTIONS 0 20 40 reetr SCALE: 1' = 10' 31458/10/9 6" g" TREE- $ U j.9' TREE- I DMP Thu PARKfNG LIEN. $' LAEPE UNE LANE IAN � STREET 2 LANE URBAN IEWALK 2$'G' SYDEWAI"I( (ST 38 8/10/10) R.G.W. Modified (ST 45 8/10/9) fsx PLANNING DIVISION g MASTER STREET PIAN r {� .xe I 1$5 W. MOUNTAIN ST900T PROPOSED PLANS AND CRASS -SECTIONS 9 y v $ Ii R Y h M S A i w [ar> sn-crr r¢ pny snJns ' 0 20 a0 FEET SCALE: 1' = 10' 3 ST 43 8/10/8 JLIiim:r ci91 '. cuRe CURB de 6' 6" s' a' ;� PARKING !0 PAKIRNG TREE— LaroE LaNe DRIP STREET 1 LANE URBAN LANEWELL MIN. 8 26' F.C. MIN. fl S& WAU< - 43, $IOEWALK ST 40 ( /1o/B) Modified (ST 43 8/10/8) .o.w. PLANNING DIVISION ` I ; MASTER STREET PLAN ^AND , of 125 W. MOUNUIN STREET ' a PROPOSED PLANS CROSS —SECTIONS 1 0 20 40 FEET SCALE: 1' = 10' 4 63 11/11/11/11 1i 1"ii-Th PLANNING DIVISION MASTER STREET PLAN 'J IJ�y" w•••/y125 W. MOUNTAIN STREETPROPOSED PLANS^ANC CROSS -SECTIONS 4 n t.wl fn-aa as w wets 6gagxr •? Wiring Coffimlesion City of FayeteqHe i:dmlnlsimtiOn Building 126 W, Mountain ayes Ile, AR 72701 Members of the Ptanntng Commission: I was lord.that the PlanniCommission will be discussing a revision of the street plan that would involve the removal or the proposed north -sou minor arterial east of Oakland Zion Road and instead, upgrading Oakes Zion purpose. I want to express my 8nthusiasticsupport for this ideas The praxes of the proposed minor anal to my home on Gulley Road has been a major concern to rue for a long time, and it is a huge rely t know that Oakland Zion Road might be used for that purpose instead4 Oakland Zion has always seemed to me be th moreappropriate coute,and I am excite that ray leaders appear to be in agreement. 1 plea to attendtie meeting n must 1, but I l wanted to make it known in avrce thI I t , t b1 :thtimhs up t! the op chanl - y or t ille 125 W Momutn Faille 7 br of th.c ManninC issi -, • i uudersartd that a prOpoMLi is being made- to the Pinning. Comrniion ti lter ihe long • .range 1reipIn byrcmoving the PrOposed north/south minor ial cos. Of Oa k • Zion Road and. intcL use Oaldaid Zip Road to carry th trail is toad:: I uu writing.to let the Planningcommission know that I Wily Stipp thatplan, My co1pauy. Gaddy • t Company,: n i.ol ayeue.it1.eta would ha beer' virtually flit down thit ruiddicopo road. Rehxivi oft tl � d w Personal. residence tl land without that direct " horsc ham andmight; be cut off bya ture rod.. I believe there are many good rei.*uns to use Oaklmn4 n Rpie. atid! Lt+ • total atreemeiit frthat: lanK l vouki also recommend visioii,tote plan tbr" dens of Sagely Lane west frnm Skin ftitcs through Gaddy mv meat company properly to ccnnect tu Skillern oad t Oakland Zion Ror'd. I belkse it would be more efficitnt to Lane rnit to Altus Drive. which I t Ftat, rather than to tUd Sagely Lano l'to Alto Drive a few :ket away from Alcu.Giddy Investment signitiun portion of f land fronting Altus Drive.. Tien. Skilkrrt 'Road could ha connccdLO 'At l Lane) by extending Sl ii;lerr . Road straight at: along the border o Gi4dy Invesinient Compiny proper1c'rhis approach would tiItimat1y allow the;,beautyag toe Wterpr.'ot cted; Lt±_ Mud Creek. Ire grcei space, etc. 11 mk you vimmuchfor your consideration of y opinions. Since y HbLG49y ,na MOZ MONn 4tO 3 W) 4' Karen Minkel - Fw: Fa etteville Master . � s# Plan Page 1 From: "John McLarty" <john@nwarpc.com> To: "Karen Minkel" <kminkel@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> Date: 6129107 2:34PM Subject: Fw: Fayetteville Master Street Plan Karen, While we think that the N. Salem Road "shortcut" should still be considered -₹or a future arterial connection, we would also agree with and urge the City of Fayetteville to upgrade the part of Highway 112 that proceeds north of Howard Nickell Road from a Minor Arterial Road to a Principal Arterial Parkway. Regards, John McLarty NWARPC Transportation Study Director ----- Original Message ----- From: John McLarty To: Karen Minkel Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:47 PM Subject: Fayetteville Master Street Plan Karen, Here is the link to the high resolution 2030 Regional Network. This Network was adopted as part of the 2030 NWA Regional Transportation Plan It is a large file, so you might want to save it to your hard drive. http://www.nwarpc.com/Maps/2030proposednetwork_hirez.pdf This email is to verify the Regional Planning MP0 comment on adding N. Salem Road to the Fay MSP as a connection from Howard Nickel Road to Hwy 112. The 2030 Network shows a modest curve where N. Salem intersect Howard Nickel. When we developed the 2030 Plan this was a universally accepted regional arterial link connecting Fayetteville's Rupple Road Project to Springdale's 56th Street Project. This will create an alternate arterial on the west side of 1-540 from south Fayetteville to north Springdale. The ideal cross section would be the boulevard type and hopefully Springdale would carry the boulevard concept through on their part. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. From my memory of earlier discussions, I think that Tim Conklin and Ron Petrie would also favor this addition to the Fayetteville MSP Regards, John McLarty NWARPC Transportation Study Director July 9, 2007 To the Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to present a resident's view of the proposed Master Street Plan. We would like to express our opposition to the proposed widening of Howard Nickell Road, as part of a "principal arterial parkway." We moved into our home at 3683 Howard Nickell Road last August. The first residents moved into this neighborhood approximately two years ago, and within months expressed the homeowners' association's unanimous opposition to the proposal, through a letter addressed to a member of the City Council. That letter — which is being reiterated by our association again today — put forth compelling objections, including issues of safety for the neighborhood's children, speed, and neighborhood integrity. The letter also requested that the city involve the homeowners' association -- The Estates at Salem Hills — in further discussions of this proposal. Since that letter, about 1-1/2 years ago, the neighborhood has filled out, more children have moved in, and the neighborhood has established itself as a lovely, coherent community. The homeowners' association has become more active, we have established ourselves as a neighborhood -watch community, we have installed street lights that operate at our expense, we have semi-annual cookouts, and friendships have developed. This is now a well -established neighborhood, which is threatened by this proposal. As other individuals have cogently explained in their own letters, the proposal would threaten safety and would also physically divide the neighborhood. Opposition to the proposal has grown with the neighborhood. It is opposed both by residents of Howard Nickell Road and by residents of the neighborhood's other streets. We are surprised to learn that the neighborhood's request to be consulted on this proposal was not honored by the city as the plan was revised. Our neighborhood is not in the City of Fayetteville. If the city plans to propose the annexation of our neighborhood, I would think the city would want to make annexation attractive. The development of this artery through our neighborhood would definitely not achieve that end. In addition to the issues of safety and neighborhood integrity, the residents of Howard Nickell Road would also stand to lose very substantial portions of our front yards: between 17 and 25.5 feet, depending on whether the right-of-way is exercised for 90 or 107 feet. This would also come at the expense of numerous trees along Howard Nickell, some of which are already quite mature and others of which will become mature by time this proposal is implemented. In short, the proposal would require the annexation of our neighborhood for the purpose of cannibalizing it to improve traffic flows for other neighborhoods in Fayetteville, including those yet to be built. I think you will agree that this is not an attractive proposition for us. We have created a lovely neighborhood, which could become a valuable addition to the City of Fayetteville in its own right. Please do not destroy this little gem with the proposed master plan. Sincerely, Robert and Rochelle Costrell 3683 W. Howard Nickell Rd. Fayetteville, AR 72704 479-442-5199, bobcostrell@msn.com PageIof Robert costreil From: "Ron and Maggie Lee" <ronmaglee@cox.net> To: <bobcostrell@msn.com> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:48 PM Subject: road I will not be able to attend the July 9 meeting due to our annual beach trip. Please pass on my comments. I have several concerns about the road, specifically in the Estates at Salem Hills (Howard Nickkle/Salem Road) area. My address is 3615 Hayfield Circle. 1. Planning- I am in agreement with planning ahead, but it seems like we might want to slow down on committing to build this road What will happen if they build the high school in this area? Will Howard Nickkle really be the best choice for a major road, or will Salem Road be a better choice? Also, will this road really need to cut through at the top of the hill, or further south? In addition, the area around the Estates at Salem Hills is not currently inside the city limits of Fayetteville. What if an annexation fails? What if the state does not improve HWY 112? 2. Speed -I think it is important to remember that this road will travel through my neighbor's front yards. We currently have a 25mph speed limit in our neighborhood to protect the families that live on Howard Nickkle. Prior to the installation of these signs, we had cars travelling at excessive speeds in our neighborhood. Now, every car will be going much faster unless you slow them back down to 25mph. The Wilson Park neighborhood got speed tables to slow down drivers, but we are getting a "principal arterial parkway" to speed drivers through our neighborhood. We would like to request speed tables in advance. 3. Cost- I think it is important to be good stewards of the people's money. I will never be in favor of spending more money to put a median in the center of the road. I think it is a nice idea to have pretty trees in the middle of the road, but at what cost? The city will have to pay for the installation of a much larger project, with trees, grass, two additional curbs, etc. The city will also have to pay to maintain this area for years to come. My neighbors would probably prefer to keep more of their property and plant their own trees. Please, please, please do not waste my money. 4. Safety- I am actually in favor of the bike lanes since we have so many bike riders on 112 and Howard Nickkle. I am also against any median because of two safety issues, visibility and confusion. If I turn left out of Hayfield Circle onto Howard Nickkle, I have to look right around a slight curve. If you build the median, I will have to look through a bunch of trees and hope I see an approaching car. Visibility will always be affected if you place trees in the middle of the road. Divided roads are also confusing. At another median in town, near Best Buy, I have seen cars turn down the wrong side. While living in Little Rock, I saw cars turning down the wrong side of a divided road. Improvements will also be needed on Salem Road at the intersection of Salem and Howard Nikkle because Salem is so narrow that cars travelling at a higher rate of speed will not be able to make a turn from Howard Nikkle to Salem. A stop sign will still be needed at the Salem/Howard Nickkle intersection because so many cars turn left from Howard Nickkle onto Salem during peak hours. 5. Preference- I prefer not to have this busy street near my home. Addtional traffic, additonal concrete, addtional speed and additional noise are not what led me to settle in the county. Sincerely, Anne Lee 7/6/2007 From: Original Message ---- FroDM Calhoun To: Robert costrell' Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:11 PM Subject: RE: meeting re Howard Nickle- new format Bob, I have two significant objections to a major thoroughfare routed through our neighborhood. First and foremost is the safety concern. We chose this neighborhood based upon its quiet, peaceful setting. We already experience people utilizing Howard Nickell Road as a through street. These people that utilize our neighborhood street as a "shortcut" rarely obey the posted speed limit or stop at the stop signs. I have even had someone pass me with horn blaring in our neighborhood when I was traveling 20 mph in a 25 mph zone. We cannot allow our youngest child in the front yard without constant supervision. I cannot imagine how dangerous the situation would be with a four lane road even closer to our home. My second concern is the effect on our property value. A major vehicular artery would effectively split our neighborhood in two, permanently altering its appealing character and devaluing our property. I believe that there are more appropriate routes available for a "principal arterial parkway" than through an established residential neighborhood. Hopefully these alternate routes will receive due consideration. The negative impact on the families in the Estates at Salem Hills should certainly outweigh the preconceived convenient routing. July 5, 2007 Dear City of Fayetteville Planning Commission, I am very concerned with the proposed changes for Howard Nickle Road, as seen on the most recent Fayetteville master street plan. Our neighborhood, the Estates at Salem Hills, was not developed with the intentions to have a major arterial road running through it. Our neighborhood in its current status is beautiful and we have many people that enjoy walking and bike riding here. Widening the road into a major artery will only increase traffic at high speeds, thus making it too dangerous to walk or ride safely. Please do not take action to change our road. Our homeowners will not benefit from it, we will only be hurt by it. Sincerely, Katie and Edward Jackson 3699 Hayfield Circle Fayetteville, AR 72704 444-7644; wwscribner@yahoo.com Dear Lioneld Jordan, My family lives in a custom-built home on Howard Nickle Road in a new neighborhood called The Estates at Salem Hills. We have four small boys under the age of six, and one of them has severe mental disabilities. We have recently heard that the county and city are considering widening Howard Nickle through our neighborhood into a boulevard 4 - lane as part of a new thoroughfare starting from Hwy. 62. While we support the need to move traffic more effectively in west Fayetteville, we do not support making the section of Howard Nickle that runs through The Estates at Salem Hills a part of this thoroughfare. A 4 -lane road will be disruptive and dangerous to an establishing neighborhood designed as a family centered housing addition with a current speed limit of 25 mph. If a boulevard is established as part of this 4 -lane directly through our neighborhood, local residents will be forced to approach and leave our homes in only one direction, and home to home access will be detrimentally affected. With or without a boulevard, parking on the street by guests and the safe use of the front yard by our children will be eliminated. We believe you will agree that the danger to our children, who will naturally want to cross the street to play with the other kids in the neighborhood, will greatly increase with increased traffic traveling at greater speed on a larger roadway. The Estates at Salem Hills HOA is unanimously opposed to the widening of Howard Nickle Road through our neighborhood, and its connection to Rupple Road as part of a "western bypass". We recommend that Salem Road be used as the north -south connector to Howard Nickle Road. This route is already a major thoroughfare to service Holcomb Elementary and the ball fields, and therefore would be less disruptive to the majority of the established homes in the area. Unlike the portion of Howard Nickle that serves as the main road of our neighborhood, Salem Road does not run directly through any established neighborhoods. We also believe that improvements to Mount Comfort Road and Rupple Road between Highway 16 and Mount Comfort should be higher priorities to accommodate the existing traffic problems. Please involve the HOA in the discussions about the placement of the road system in this area of Fayetteville. We appreciate your time and attention in this matter. Again, we believe another roadway connecting Hwy 62 and Hwy 16, and improvements to Rupple Road between Hwy 16 and Mount Comfort are good ideas, and those initiatives have our support. However, connecting Rupple Road to Howard Nickle Road as part of a major thoroughfare is not only extremely disruptive to our neighborhood, but dangerous for our children. Thank you again for your time, Cliff & Laura Grisham 3634 Howard Nickle Road Fayetteville, AR 72704 (H) 479-527-6303 (C) 479-236-1088 Email: cliff.grisham@a tyson.com M a JOHN DAVID & HEATHER C. BARRON 3739 IV. Cedar Ridge Lane • Fayetteville, AR 72704 Phone: 479-445-6329 Email: hharron@yahoo.com August 12, 2007 Fayetteville Planning Commission City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Dear Commissioners: This letter is to voice our opposition to the Master Street Plan concerning the widening of Howard Nickell Rd., which is currently just outside the Fayetteville city limits. We have lived at 3739 W. Cedar Ridge Lane (on the comer of Howard Nickell Rd. and W. Cedar Ridge Lane) in the Estates at Salem Hills Subdivision since September 2006. We have looked at the Master Street Plan for Howard Nickell Rd. and do not understand why staff would want to widen a street in a planned subdivision to a principal arterial street when Salem Road is so widely used and is in desperate need of widening. Howard Nickell currently ends into nothing. Constructing a new road to connect Howard Nickell to Rupple Road would be very expensive when Salem Road is so nearby and in desperate need of widening. It would seem that money would be better spent on improving Salem, especially in front of Holcomb Elementary School where traffic congestion is the worst during school beginning and ending times. The Estates at Salem Hills is a nice, quiet neighborhood with numerous children. We have 3 children, one 6 year old and twins that are 4 years old. They are learning to ride bicycles on our street. Our children's safety at and around our house is always a priority. Adding more traffic to Howard Nickell directly threatens their safety. We oppose any street development that would add more traffic through out neighborhood and create unsafe traffic conditions for our children. We are asking you to please reconsider any plans to widen Howard Nickell through the Estates at Salem Hills. Sincerely, Heather C. Barron J hn avid Barron Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 20 of 29 ADM 07-2625: (Master Street Plan Update): Submitted by Planning Staff, recommending amendments to and adoption of the Master Street Plan for the City of Fayetteville. Karen Minkel, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. She reviewed the process used by staff to create the proposed Master. Street Plan (MSP) and highlighted the major changes. Significant changes included: 1) the addition of more small, connecting streets; 2) greater sensitivity to the Future Land Use Map; 3) classification of streets in newly annexed areas; 4) alignment with the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan; 5) alignment changes to streets based on hillside and floodplain data; 6) Better accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists; 7) reduction of curb and gutter from two feet to one -and -a -half feet; 8) overall reduction of right-of-way requirements; 8) lane width measured from face of curb instead of back of curb to better describe the visual width of the road; and 9) a revision of the Downtown street cross -sections to make sidewalk and landscaping requirements consistent with City ordinances. Staff also reviewed the public input process, mentioning meetings and presentations with the Street Committee, utility companies, local engineers and developers and an Open House held on a Saturday, June 23 at the Farmer's Market. Overall, public input has been positive, commending the bike lanes, boulevards, and consistency with other City plans and ordinances. Staff recommended forwarding the proposed MSP with a recommendation for approval to the City Council. Roy Slaughter (citizen) stated that he was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road. He had heard about a thoroughfare or 4 -lane road through the neighborhood. A boulevard would force a different sort of access. Safety would be an issue. The Homeowners Association is unanimously opposed to widening and connecting to Rupple Road. Salem Road could be utilized instead since it does not cut through any exiting neighborhoods. Robert Costrell (citizen) stated that he was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road and passed out a letter signed by the property owners opposed to widening the road to a principal arterial parkway and an aerial of the neighborhood. He moved into the neighborhood last August and sent a letter to the City Council initially opposing the designation change from a minor to principal arterial. There are compelling objections regarding speed, safety, and the integrity of the neighborhood. The boulevard would physically divide the neighborhood; the only other example is Crossover, which is a thoroughfare. He expressed concern that neighborhood requests from a year ago have not been honored by the City. Residents would lose yards and trees. It would require annexation of their properties, which could become a valuable addition, but this will not help. The neighborhood is shown as a Rural area, and this change does not show sensitivity to context. Brian Teague (citizen) stated that overall the MSP is a good plan but is not perfect. He expressed concern that staff wanted to minimize the number of cross -sections in the MSP and he would like to see tighter lane widths. If the desired speed was less than 20 mph, then the City should have 8' lanes, 20-25 mph -9' lanes, 25-30 mph -10' lanes, and 30-35 mph -l1' lanes. He also had concerns about parking on the residential street cross -sections. What happened to the older 2 -way yield section? Where will visitors park when there is no driveway in an alley -loaded neighborhood? He also questioned the concrete strip required in the alleys, which would increase Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 21 of 29 the cost of development and was not necessary. How were the lane widths created? This is important in determining how fast we want traffic. Dirk Van Veen (citizen) stated that he had concerns about the Residential Streets and the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District (HHOD) streets. He offered to donate up to $1000 to get Rick Hall to create street cross -sections. It doesn't make sense to have no residential parking, which seemed to disregard or show lack understanding of design standards. This was a great opportunity to change and make the HHOD streets narrower than what was originally adopted. Ed Stevens (citizen) stated that he was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road. He said that the street would split the neighborhood in half. Taking 54' off his front yard and adding 17,000 vpd would not add value to the property. Commissioner Myres expressed a personal concern about a principal arterial (Garland Avenue) that would affect her neighborhood and asked staff if the intent was to build that road as a boulevard. Minkel responded that that was the intent, which was consistent with the current MSP. Commissioner Myres stated that there are approximately 17 streets that join Garland and wondered where breaks would be in the boulevard and would neighborhood residents have to drive in the opposite direction that they want to go in if there is a median with no break. She also expressed difficulty in envisioning a road that wide as it cuts through the UA Agricultural Farm. She had written numerous letters to the State regarding these plans and knew these concerns were probably not concerns that staff could address. There is traffic on that road but the principal designation would be overbuilding. She suggested that perhaps we were looking too far into the future. Commissioner Graves suggested giving staff the opportunity to address some of the public's concerns. Minkel stated that in regard to Salem Estate Hills the development was constructed after the designation of Howard Nickell as a principal arterial. Staff's rationale was to be consistent with plans that had resulted in the accrual of right-of-way as well as the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, which designated this road as crucial to a north south regional thoroughfare. Salem Road did not have similar right-of-way dedication since it was a Collector. Staff also commented that narrower streets, such as those used in a traditional neighborhood development, needed to be used in conjunction with other traditional neighborhood development elements. Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Management Director, added that staff had received multiple PZD submittals that had narrow streets that were not used in conjunction with a gridded street network, which would alleviate the concerns of engineering and fire department staffs. Minkel added that though she realized her statements would not directly address the concerns of Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 22 0f29 the residents on Howard Nickell or Commissioner Myres, staff attempted to remain consistent with the current MSP where appropriate rights -of -way had been dedicated. As the Commission is aware, it is much more difficult to go and buy needed right-of-way once development has occurred. Commissioner Anthes suggested finding where the points of consensus were, and where they weren't, so they could move forward. She asked how many staff hours had gone into the process. Minkel said that two engineers and two planners had met regularly once a month. Full staffs from both divisions had met once a month. Previous divisions and departments mentioned spent staff time reviewing and commenting on the proposal and at least two planning staff members had been present at each feedback session. Commissioner Anthes said that she wanted to provide some perspective on the amount of time staff had put into the project and asked staff to realize that any criticisms were respectful of that work. She asked if staff had been able to use GIS data to take into account streams, floodplains and hillsides. Minkel responded that staff did take into account hillsides and floodplains and changed some street alignments as a result. Commissioner Anthes also asked whether the discussions with the utility companies had resulted in putting utility lines under streets or under alleys. Minkel responded that this subject had been discussed but not resolved. Commissioner Anthes asked whether the low -impact street cross-section required bio- swales with appropriate structural soils. Minkel responded that that was staffs intent. Commissioner Anthes asked staff to comment on changes to sidewalks. Minkel replied that the current MSP had sidewalks that were 4' and 6'. Staff split the difference and made all the sidewalks a consistent 5' in width. Commissioner Anthes then asked if the commission was in general agreement with the overall principles and intent of the proposed MSP as presented by staff. Commissioner Ostner asked whether design speeds had been taken into account into the Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 23 of 29 proposed MSP and how they were determined. Minkel responded that staff used a combination of AASHTO, Context Sensitive Solutions and the engineering staff's expertise. Commissioner Ostner then asked why design speeds were not in the plan. Conklin responded that vertical and horizontal alignments affected design speeds, so speeds would vary depending on topography. Further, where staff could narrow lanes they did; however, this project was a collaboration with other divisions, and streets needed to accommodate service vehicles. Staff can associate a number with each street, but the speed will depend on the topography and the individual design. Commissioner Ostner stated that staff seemed to be saying that speed would take care of itself and "we'll take care of it," but developers, engineers, and the public would have a better idea of what we're talking about if there was a design speed associated with it. It would make a big difference in terms of education and he would strongly urge staff to integrate design speeds. Commissioner Winston asked if individual streets were designed taking into account unique circumstances or if staff used the MSP to say exactly what type of street would be built. Conklin responded that the process usually followed the former description. There are two ways streets are built. One is through individual developments and the other is through the Capital Improvements Program. Pate added that right-of-way requirements are determined by the MSP and the volume of traffic refers staff to the type of street that would need to be designed. One of the problems that the proposed MSP attempts to address is altering a street cross-section depending on whether it goes through a commercial or residential area. Commissioner Myres asked if there were any other options for a principal arterial for developers that were not available in the MSP. Pate responded that he was not aware of a principal arterial that had been designed by a private developer. Commissioner Anthes proposed working through the street sections and text before looking at that map. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 24 of 29 Conklin observed that some of the recently constructed alleys had asphalt that was not being held in place, which was why staff recommended concrete ribbons in the alleys for long-term maintenance. Twenty feet of unencumbered space was a request from solid waste and fire. The goal is to create consistency and reduce individual requests for different street cross -sections in one development. Commissioner Anthes commented that the commercial alley was 24', which was essentially a street with two 10' lanes. Conklin responded that the concern was service and emergency vehicle access. Pate added that many projects in the downtown were built right up to the street, which could prohibit vehicle turning movements if there was only a 12' right-of-way in the alley. It was a functional question. Commissioner Anthes said that she'd like to hear about residential streets based on comments made by the public earlier in the evening, especially in regard to the lack of on - street parking where alleys were also provided. Pate responded that previously the fire departments would not allow parallel parking on residential streets because they needed the 20' feet of right-of-way. Commissioner Anthes stated that staff would then advise a developer to use the local street cross-section. Staff confirmed this statement. Commissioner Winston asked for clarification. Does that mean that if you build a two- way street you cannot park on it? Commissioners said that this was the case if the street was designated as a residential street. Commissioner Anthes said that staff arrived at the 10' lane because of city services rather than design speed. Conklin responded that state fire codes repeatedly mentions the 20' free and clear. Commissioner Lack asked if the lane width could be reduced in the low -impact development street cross-section, since reducing the width would still leave the 20' free and clear. There is also a statement of restriction in terms of when the LID street cross- section would be allowed and it would be helpful if those components were listed in the ordinance for clarity. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 25 of 29 Commissioner Anthes stated that local streets were allowed for residential development only to have a POA prohibit on -street parking. This created a problem later when other developments could connect to their neighborhood and residents became concerned about traffic speeding through the neighborhood, which was a result of having a wider street cross-section. Conklin said this question should be referred to the City Attorney. Commissioner Myres asked about the difference in vehicle trips per day between residential and local streets. Conklin stated that residential streets were intended for minimal traffic. Brian Teague (citizen) stated that if block lengths were even shorter than 300' so that fire trucks would not have to drive down every street, then it would open discussion to having streets with paved widths less than 20'. He reiterated concern about the loss of the yield street. Robert Costrell (citizen) clarified that right-of-way dedications at the time of development were 90' rather than the 110', which would be an increase rather than a reduction. Commissioner Myres asked whether it would also be appropriate to stipulate a block length for local and collector streets. Pate responded that residential streets carry such a low volume that it would be appropriate to stipulate block length, and traditionally other roads have not had a limit on block length. Commissioner Anthes stated that she appreciated the addition of collectors to the map and the reduction of minor arterials. She asked staff to comment on how collectors would work with the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan. Minkel said that the developer would be responsible for providing the chevron symbols and that these symbols would only be required where there were on -street linkages. The right-of-way would remain the same if there was not an on -street linkage, but the paved width would match the local street cross-section. Commissioner Lack asked whether there was direction as to the length of 70' of right- Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 26 of 29 of -way required at intersections for collectors. Minkel referred the commissioners to the text, which states that the turn lane must extend a minimum of 200' from the intersection. Commissioner Winston asked about the pedestrian crossing situation in minor arterials. Minkel responded that she did not recall a specific discussion, but that staff did try to limit the use of that cross-section on the map. Commissioner Anthes commented that perhaps this made the boulevards a more pedestrian -friendly street cross-section. Conklin added that boulevards such as the ones on Garland and Arkansas Avenues can make the streets great addresses. He added that Old Wire was one of the streets that had been downgraded from a Minor Arterial to a Collector. Commissioner Lack asked about the design speed for minor arterials. Minkel said she hesitated to answer because she was not an engineer, but that the anticipated speeds were between 35-40 mph, which was the speed that determined the road needed a separate bike lane rather than a shared vehicle/bike lane. Commissioner Anthes said that she would like the engineering division to evaluate whether the minor arterial lanes could be narrower. Commissioner Myres concurred and said that it was a very wide street to cross. Reducing the paved width by four feet would make a difference, particularly for people who don't move quickly and people with small children. Pate added that these sections are sections that private developers typically do not get involved with; minor arterial and principal arterial design is usually determined by the City and there would be multiple hearings about the design of these sections. Commissioner Myres said that she favored the national standards, which are moving back to a more traditional design of narrower streets and supported Commissioner Ostner's statement about including design speeds for each of the street cross -sections. Commissioner Winston said that if the commission directed staff to include design speeds, it should give them some parameters such as the speed on a flat plane for a Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 27 of 29 particular length. Commissioner Anthes added that this meant a worst case scenario —a flat plane on a long stretch. Knowing the design speed for this type of case would give the commission an overall indication of expected traffic speed. Commissioner Lack said that there were hardly any streets in Fayetteville that matched that description. Commissioner Winston said that this was his point. It might actually be more confusing to include speeds because on a flat stretch the speed might be 65 mph, but this did not reflect the reality of most streets within the city. Commissioner Anthes said that even though the speeds may not make in into the final document, the exercise in identifying design speeds would be helpful. Commissioner Trumbo commented that the text for principal arterials read that access should be primarily through side streets rather than curb cuts, which seemed to be slamming the door on curb cuts. He expressed concern about this language and its effect on businesses. Pate responded that where there were no local streets, access had to be granted through a curb cut. However, the text reflected most safety manuals. The situation could be likened to interstate access where access is only granted at controlled access points. Commissioner Lack asked about parkways and how a developer would develop half of the parkway and whether it would make sense for the developer to build 27' feet rather than 28', which would be the local street cross-section. Pate responded that those widths were based on the ability of the street to carry a specific volume. Commissioner Anthes asked whether staff had reexamined the hillside/hilltop overlay district cross -sections. Conklin responded that given the length of time it took to reach consensus on these streets, staff felt it would be better to actually see some on the ground before changing the street cross-section. With these cross -sections, the rights -of -way were being minimized by reducing the utility easements. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 28 of 29 Commissioner Anthes asked staff to see if the local street cross-section for hillsides could be revisited to see if narrower lanes were possible. Commissioner Anthes remarked that the Downtown cross -sections seemed to be simpler and then asked what the commission's charge would be when they reviewed the map. Was it the rationale behind the map that the Planning Commission should consider, and the disposition and connections between streets? Are the designs of individual streets a policy or City Council issue? Conklin responded that the map should be viewed as a long range planning tool. The City of Fayetteville generally used a hub -and -spoke pattern. If the Planning Commission saw areas where there needed to be more connections or Collector streets, they should make that recommendation to the Street Committee and City Council. There are some streets that do not show up on the map; for example, the City Council has made a policy decision that roads will not run over Mount Sequoyah, so no streets will show in that area. It is important to look at the larger picture in terms of our circulation and how we move people through the community. Commissioner Anthes asked if the horizon was 20-50 years or so. Conklin replied that he thought so. The cost of the facilities made the long-term planning essential. Minkel added that staff reviewed the map by first blowing up the map and dividing it into six sections and then having each section reviewed by two staff members who shared their changes with the larger group. The map was then divided into four sections and two and so on. Commissioner Lack said that one of the most ambiguous areas that the commission had to determine was connectivity and perhaps more streets should be on the map, particularly roads that went over hillsides. He had a specific question about the area north of Fox Hunter Road and whether there were no roads because of topographic issues or for other reasons. Minkel responded that the commissioners. did not have a the Future Land Use Map overlay on their proposed MSP maps, but that rural and natural areas on the map would have fewer roads than more dense areas of town. Conklin mentioned that the issue in the particular area mentioned by Commissioner Lack was the White River, floodplains and hillsides. Planning Commission July 09, 2007 Page 29 of 29 Commissioner Anthes said that eastlwest connections came up frequently south of Huntsville Road and wondered whether staff had examined that area. Pate said that staff tried to look at those areas and many would require small bridges, although staff did add one road at the base of Dead Horse Mountain. Drainage issues and lack of bridges made much of that area more difficult. If there were additional suggestions, staff was definitely open to them. Commissioner Lack mentioned another area that could use further connections was in the area just west of Howard Nickell Road. Pate said that at the next meeting, staff would bring the Future Land Use Map. The area Commissioner Lack just mentioned was one of the most highly ranked natural areas. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to table the proposal indefinitely so that the commission would have a chance to review requested changes and the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Bryant seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion to table the request indefinitely passed 6-0-0, with Commissioners Graves and Ostner having left during discussion. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 9.45 PM. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 4 of 21 Old Business: ADM 07-2625: (Master Street Plan Update): Submitted by Planning Staff, recommending amendments to and adoption of the Master Street Plan for the City of Fayetteville. Karen Minkel, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. She reviewed the process used by staff to create the proposed Master Street Plan (MSP) and highlighted the major changes. Significant changes included: 1) the addition of more small, connecting streets; 2) greater sensitivity to the Future Land Use Map; 3) classification of streets in newly annexed;; areas; 4) alignment with the Fayetteville Alternative Transportation and Trails Plan; 5) alignment changes to streets based on hillside and floodplain data; 6) Better accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists; 7) reduction of curb and gutter from two feet to one -and -a -half feet; 8) overall reduction of'right-of way requirements; 8) lane width measured from face of curb instead of back of curb to better describe the visual width of the road; and 9) a revision of the Downtown street cross -sections to, make sidewalk and landscaping requirements consistent'with City o public input process, mentioning meetings and presentations companies, local engineers and developers and two Open Hoi 23 at the Farmer's Market and the other on July 26, 2007 at a: Overall, public input has been positive, commending the bike with other City plans and ordinances. Minkel further discussed issues Planning Commission on July ;9 cross-section at the request of if travel lanes and speed using the of Transportation Engineers and widths for Collectors, Minor Ax that had been 2007. First, Context ress for :s. Staff also reviewed the Street Committee, utility ne held on a Saturday, June Park summer concert. and consistency of the MSP by the lded desired operating speeds to each street ;ion and reviewed the relationship between mnsitive Solutions developed by the Institute New Urbanism. The proposed travel lane Arterials are consistent with the national recommendations Staff modified the Low -Impact Development street cross-section, reducing the lanes widths 9 -feet and nicking themconsistent with the other Residential street cross-section, and staff added on -street parking to the Hillside Local street cross-section without changing the total paved width in order to narrow travel lane widths. Staff also addressed the definition of a "green" neighborhood by addiig elements identified by the LEED Neighborhood Development projects. Finally,. Staff recommended removing the Collector Boulevard street -cross section and accompanying text based on a second review of the MSP by the Fire Department, which found that this street cross-section does not meet the Fayetteville Fire Code as it does not provide at least 20' free and clear on either side of the boulevard. Staff reviewed the public comment received, which included several letters from residents at the Estates at Salem Hills opposed to Howard Nickell's classification. Bob Gaddy and Jeff Gaddy also wrote letters supporting the designation of Oakland Zion Road as a Minor Arterial, John McClarty from the Regional Planning Commission stated support for the designation of Highway 112 north of Howard Nickell as a Principal Arterial Parkway to continue a regional north/south connection. Staff recommended forwarding the proposed MSP with a recommendation for approval to the City Council. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 5 of 21 Commissioner Anthes expressed appreciation for the additional information that staff had provided. Katie Jackson (citizen) stated that she was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickel] Road and stated that the Principal Arterial would drastically change what the neighborhood is like and could not imagine cars going by at 50 mph. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the opposition to this designation. Roy Slaughter (citizen) stated that he was a resident of the Estates at Salem Hills on Howard Nickell Road. He said that the only other road built like the proposed road was Garland Avenue, which was not safe for adults, much less children. The residents who moved to this neighborhood wanted to get away from the hustle and bustle and only .found `out about this proposed road three weeks before the first Planning Commission meeting,: Dwayne Calhoun (citizen) stated that he was also a re his thoughts had been summarized in a letter that he su in the front yard now, and a future four -lane, boulevard neighborhood. Commissioner Anthes asked staff for an o designation and clarified for the public that 40 mph and 40-45 for a Principal:Arterial at Salem Road and He can't let his four-year old play ,=amatically change the eon the Howard Nickell with a Minor Arterial were 35 - Minkel stated that when the development came through the review process in 2003, Howard Nickell had been classified as a Principal. Arterial and Rupple Road as a Minor Arterial and these two roads had a T intersection ;The developer proposed to change this intersection to a curve and the curve was designated as a Minor Arterial, which was consistent with Rupple Road, and 90' of Right -of -Way was dedicatedas a condition of approval. In 2005, City Council changed Rupple Roads designation to a Principal Arterial Under the proposed plan, a Principal Arterial Parkway would require 107' of Right -of -Way. Commissioner Anthes asked if staff saw any other way to make the connection. Minkel responded thattere are no other minor or principal arterials in the area where comparable right-of-way has been acquired. The north/south connection that Rupple represents is important to the City as well as the region. Staff added that the design of this particular segment will determine how much right-of-way is ultimately needed; the existing 90 -foot right-of-way may dictate the design. Commissioner Lack stated that often we see with existing right-of-way that the ideal cross- section is modified to meet what the City has. He had a great deal of compassion for the property owners in this instance, but didn't feel that this compassion should override a City Council policy Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 6 of 21 decision. In fact, it may be more appropriate for the City Council to review this decision; however, in looking at the map he didn't see the potential to change the current designation without shifting the same concerns to another neighborhood. He also thought that the changes to the cross-section proposed with the boulevard were much more pleasing than a Minor Arterial or Principal Arterial without the boulevard. He appreciated the modifications made by staff to the cross -sections and the addition of ideal design speeds. He felt comfortable forwarding the proposed MSP to the City Council. Commissioner Myres stated that she was going to vote against the MSP because she had had problems with the process from the beginning. She was not happy with decisions that have been made, for example, with Howard Nickell and Highway 112. Some of the street sections are too big and over -designed for the neighborhoods they go through. Commissioner Ostner asked about the College Avenue, Rock Street and Archibald Yell intersection. It seemed on the map that College Avenuebetween;Rock and South streets was designated as a Local or Residential street. Was this foreshadowing of prohibiting that connection with a cul-de-sac? He was adamantly opposed to that. Minkel responded that this was not staffs_Ij streets had changed to Local or Residential` cross -sections in this area, but this segment sections in the Downtown Master Plan. Staff number of the.Downtown Master Plan sous because of the consolidation of street .vas intended to reflect the street cross - this segment. Commissioner Ostner stated that it was not appropriate to drop the designation to gray. However, the street cross sections overall seemed appropriate, the design speeds look good and he appreciated the extra work Commissioner Anthes added that she liked the access management shown for each section. Commissioner Ostner requested more specifics from Commissioner Myers and which streets she was bothered by. Commissioner 1Vlyres responded that she had stated her opinions in previous meetings, but that she felt four- and five -lane roads running through neighborhoods was not appropriate. She realized that everyone wants an efficient transportation system but that it needed to be a sensible one. The MSP probably needed to go forward but she was not happy with it. Motion: Commissioner Lack made a motion to forward the Master Street Plan to the City Council with a recommendation for approval with an amendment to the map that showed College Avenue as a Collector street between Rock Street and South Street. Planning Commission August 13, 2007 Page 7 of 21 Commissioner Ostner seconded the motion. Commissioner Anthes asked Commissioner Myres whether her problems were with the map or the street cross -sections. Commissioner Myres responded that she thought the street cross -sections had been well - designed but she had a problem with the location of some of thern;:cn the map. Street Plan to the City nissioner Myres s9.5A7 Clarice Pearman - Re: Master Street Plan Page 1 From: Clarice Pearman To: Minkel, Karen Date: 9.5.07 1:51 PM Subject: Re: Master Street Plan Karen, It looks like all I need is the revised plan. Please see that I get one to attach to the resolution. Have a good day. Thanks. Clarice >>> Karen Minkel 9.5.07 11:46 AM >>> Clarice, The Master Street Plan resolution passed City Council last night. Let me know what you need from our office, and I will begin assembling those materials. Thanks, Karen Karen Minkel Senior Long Range Planner City of Fayetteville (479) 575-8271 Ii F •r -. --II •-',, T'i f !'„.•........ ...................„._. _ •-- ..s .. -.-- "+' it -- - _ - 1 , : i • } I.��: 1' 'r 4 ..............i'...Y' __ . 'i••____ i . rJ 1- W U LL d w ______ .; H 0 a¢ w a 1l_ oca�0 Zz? W N O D m z z A_ _L 2 m n -ml to a A b w Z 0 w D cr t O r O Z r r- X{ O Z m m v Aa o C OZ v� to m z m coVZ p m ...... CD L. 1:-' -_ ......_ C �`......... 3 , � p ��.. . __J is -�. �- . .rF - 1 g \_• �.. ........... ••�.. 1- - .............».._.....^......' r 'y y �' r _ l . CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Master Street Plan - - Adopted December 19, 2000. Resolution No. 170-00-B, 22-01, and 147-02 r � August8,2007 PROPOSED DMP I% • Z : - ST -40 (ONE WAY) PROPOSED PLANNED PROPOSED CHANGE or EXISTING 4 11 II ------ COLLECTOR COLLECTOR :. ' FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY .- ` a ---- MINORARTERIAL MINORARTERIAL _ --- PRINCIPALARTERIAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ---- PRIN ARTERIAL PKWY - PRIN ARTERIAL PKWY ' , f -.._......__._ LOCAL STREET LAKE ' NEW STREET STREAM CITY LIMIT PLANNING AREA PARK N W E 0 0.25 0.5 1 15 2 M les 1:24,000 ..� ..... .�.,,...,.�,,.«��...-. Ii F •r -. --II •-',, T'i f !'„.•........ ...................„._. _ •-- ..s .. -.-- "+' it -- - _ - 1 , : i • } I.��: 1' 'r 4 ..............i'...Y' __ . 'i••____ i . rJ 1- W U LL d w ______ .; H 0 a¢ w a 1l_ oca�0 Zz? W 9.5.07 Clarice Pearman - Re: Master Street Plan Pa e 1 From: Karen Minkel To: Pearman, Clarice Date: 9.5.07 1:53 PM Subject: Re: Master Street Plan Clarice, We are reformatting the final document so that it fits into the City Plan 2025 document. Can we get it to you within a week? Also, I'll have GIS print a final map for you. Thanks, Karen Karen Minkel Senior Long Range Planner City of Fayetteville (479) 575-8271 >>> Clarice Pearman 09/05/07 1:51 PM >>> Karen, It looks like all I need is the revised plan. Please see that I get one to attach to the resolution. Have a good day. Thanks. Clarice >>> Karen Minkel 9.5.07 11:46 AM >>> Clarice, The Master Street Plan resolution passed City Council last night. Let me know what you need from our office, and I will begin assembling those materials. Thanks, Karen Karen Minkel Senior Long Range Planner City of Fayetteville (479) 575-8271 From: Clarice Pearman To: Minkel, Karen Date: 10.5.07 11:54 AM Subject: Res. 161-07 Attachments: 161-07 Revised Master Street Plan.pdf CC: Audit; Goddard, John; Parsons, Susan Karen: Attached is a copy of the above resolution passed by City Council, September 4, 2007. The revised map is not attached because my capabilites on the 3rd floor does not allow scanning larger than 11x17 but it will be scanned when archived. Please let me know if there is anything else needed for this item. Have a good day. Thanks. Clarice