The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About66-14 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 66-14 A RESOLUTION TO REAFFIRM THE CROSS SECTION OF RUPPLE ROAD FROM MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD TO WEDINGTON DRIVE AS A FOUR LANE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City Council approved submitting a capital sales tax issue to the Fayetteville voters in 2006 with a stated objective to build Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Program with the bond proceeds; and WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the approved Transportation Improvement Program included $8,155,000.00 for Rupple Road as an arterial from Martin Luther King Boulevard to Persimmon Street; and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville citizens voted to approve this sales tax to support the bonds for the street improvements in September 12, 2006; and WHEREAS, Rupple Road has long been and currently is designated as Principal Arterial Parkway on the City's Master Street Plan approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 reaffirms the designation of Rupple Road as a Principal Arterial Parkway between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Wedington Drive and confirms and approves the cross section of this four lane boulevard as presented to the public in the meeting at the Boys and Girls Club on Rupple Road in May of 2013. PASSED and APPROVED this 181h day of March 2014. APPROVED: ATTEST: By:/?K SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer `ttItm i rrrrir�� ti .tip ■ City of Fayetteville Item Review Form Chris Brown Submitted By 2014-0119 Legistar File Number 3/ 18/ 14 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Action Required: Development Services Department Resolution Approving the Typical Cross Section for Rupple Road -Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. to Wedington Dr. Does this item have a cost? N❑ Cost of this request Account Number Project Number Budgeted Item? Category or Project Budget Funds Used to Date $0.00 Remaining Balance Budget Adjustment Attached? Program or Project Name Program or Project Category Fund Name V200130812 j It coli-N , Previous Ordinance or Resolution # V) t 4 Original Contract Number: Comments: Cx- 3- 3 • z.o%ti CITY OF • Tay 711C ARKANSAS MEETING OF MARCH 18, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director FROM: Chris Brown, City Engineer DATE: February 28, 2014 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Typical Cross Section for Rupple Road -Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. to Wedington Dr. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a 4-lane cross section with medians on Rupple Road, between Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd and Wedington Drive, for the following reasons: 1) Rupple Road is designated as a Principal Arterial Parkway on the City's Master Street Plan (Figure 1), and as an arterial on the Regional Arterial Network (Figure 2). 2) Voters approved the Transportation Bond Program in 2006 with Rupple included as a 4-lane boulevard cross section (Figure 3). 3) The cost savings derived from constructing a 2 lane versus a 4 lane facility, while not insignificant, will be less than the cost of constructing the 2 lanes in the future, not only due to inflation, but due to required reconfiguration at intersections, traffic control requirements, a more constricted work area, and other factors that contractors must contend with on a widening project that do not exist on new construction. 4) Funding is available now in the Transportation Bond Program to construct the full 4 lanes, as approved by voters. Future funding is unknown, and funding may not be available when the need for widening arises. BACKGROUND: Rupple Road, in the western part of the City, is on the City's Master Street Plan as a Principal Arterial Parkway, and is the only north -south principal arterial on the Master Street Plan west of 1-540. Principal Arterials on the Master Street Plan are planned as 4-lane facilities with medians. Refer to Figure 1 for a depiction of the Master Street Plan. Secondly, Rupple Road is included on the Washington and Benton County Regional Arterial Network as established by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, as shown in Figure 2 attached. This regional network map is intended to identify all streets and highways in the 2-county area that should be planned for 4 lanes or more. A summary of major project events includes: Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 2004-The Street Committee (now Transportation Committee) began compiling a list of projects to be presented to voters for a transportation bond issue. Rupple Road was included on that list as an arterial street. In 2006, as voting on the bond issued neared, a public meeting was held at the Fayetteville Public Library, and conceptual plans and cost estimates of all of the proposed bond projects were made available for public review. Rupple Road, from Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. to Persimmon Street was presented at that meeting as a 4-lane road with a median. (The conceptual plan presented at the meeting is attached as Figure 3). June, 2006 —The City Council approved an Ordinance setting a special sales tax election for the bond program. Included in the City Council agenda packet was a list of proposed projects, including Rupple Road as a new minor arterial. See the attached memo from City Attorney Kit Williams for further details and a summary of events and discussions related to Rupple Road prior to the bond election. September 2006-Voters approved issuance of up to $65.9 million in bonds for transportation improvements. 2007-Widening of Rupple Road between Persimmon and Wedington Drive was recommended by the Committee, and this segment was added to the Bond Program budget, creating a total budget of $10 million for Rupple Road between Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. and Wedington Drive. Both segments of the project were planned to be funded by the sale of the third set of bonds, which at the time was planned for 2012, but was subsequently moved to 2014. May 2013-In anticipation of funding for construction being available in 2014, a public meeting was held at the Boy's and Girl's Club on Rupple Road, to allow the public to review proposed conceptual plans for Rupple Road and provide input on the project prior to the commencement of detailed design. After this meeting, staff presented the summary of public comments to the Transportation Committee, and requested a recommendation from the Committee on the cross section. Staff recommended project elements included a 4 lane roadway, a 9 to 15 foot wide median (the narrower median was proposed between Persimmon and Wedington), a 5 foot sidewalk on the east side, and a 12 foot multi -use path on the west side. At that time, the Transportation Committee discussed the possibility of constructing only 2 of the 4 lanes, and staff proposed conducting a traffic study to determine the number of lanes needed from a capacity standpoint. The Transportation Committee concurred with this recommendation, and in September of last year Jacobs Engineering was engaged to perform the study. DISCUSSION: The traffic study by Jacobs Engineering analyzed existing traffic patterns, and predicted future traffic levels based on this traffic, as well as development patterns expected in the project area and on changes in traffic patterns that the new connection would bring about. The study developed level of service estimates for immediately after construction as well as for a 20 year horizon, for use by the City in making decisions about the type of facility that would be adequate now and in the future. A summary of the traffic study inputs and analysis is as follows: • Future traffic was generated in the study area by using densities similar to Rupple Row (Traditional/New Urbanism Development Pattern) of 6.24 units per acre or 1997 units which equates to a 24-hour two-way volume of 19,111 vehicles at build out. The development area used in this calculation is depicted on Figure 4. Based on historical traffic volumes, growth rates from 1.2% to 1.9% were applied to historic traffic counts outside of the Rupple Road corridor (background traffic) that would be utilizing the new Rupple Road. The intersection of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street was evaluated using the year 2033 volumes to determine whether a signalized intersection or a roundabout would operate the more efficiently and safely. In regards to the Level of Service, the roundabout barely nudged out the signal by 2 seconds which is considered negligible. Therefore, Jacobs recommends, and used a signalized intersection in the model in favor of the improved safety conditions for pedestrians, especially within a school zone. Two future intersections on Rupple Road south of Persimmon Street were modeled as roundabouts. Final Study results are as follows: • The 2-lane Build will operate at acceptable levels of service the opening year of this facility. • The first section which will fail operationally or have unacceptable levels of service will be the 2-lane section from Persimmon Street to Wedington, with the Wedington intersection the most problematic due to the significant traffic volumes on Wedington. • The study shows that in the design year 2033, Rupple Road needs to be a 4-lane facility to provide acceptable levels of service at each intersection/roundabout and acceptable travel times from MLK Jr. to Wedington Drive. • The study states that a 2-lane roadway should operate with acceptable delays and speeds until the corridor is developed to approximately 50% to 75% of build out. The study states that this level of development could occur in 10 years given the need for the north -south connection, the close proximity to the school, Boys & Girls Club and 1-540; however, the City has no control over the actual rate of development, which may be substantially different from the 10 year estimate. Staff developed cost estimates for the new segment of Rupple Road, between Persimmon and Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. using three different road cross sections (Figures 7 and 8, attached). These estimates are summarized in the following table: Road Cross Section Est. Cost Dollars Percentage Saved Saved 2-Lane 2-lanes west side only depressed median, 12' trail $5.67 -$1.70 -23% Option 1 Million Million 2-Lane 2-lanes depressed median, gravel shoulders, 12' $6.67 -$0.70 -10% Option 2 trail, 5' s/w Million Million 4-Lane 4-lane boulevard w/ 12' trail & 5' sidewalk $7.37 -Option I Million Considering the relative closeness (for projects of this magnitude) of the above construction estimates, the difficulty of access management without the median in place, and the lack of major alternate routes for citizens, staff recommends moving forward with the 4-Lane Option. If the Council chooses a 2-lane option, Option 1 is preferred over Option 2 due to the relative ease of constructing the additional lanes in the future. If Option 1 is chosen, the intersection at Wedington needs to be widened to accommodate the heavy northbound right turn on to Wedington and the intersection at Persimmon Street will also need to be widened to provide increased safety and a properly aligned intersection with the installation of the new traffic signal. Because of these needed improvements and considering that there exists a short section of 4-lane Rupple Road south of Persimmon Street, staff recommends 4-laning this entire segment of Rupple Road from the Persimmon Street intersection north to Wedington. The traffic study also identified this segment as the first to fail from increased traffic volumes. The cost to widen only the intersections at Wedington and Persimmon is $1.5 million, versus $2.2 million for full widening between Persimmon and Wedington. Regardless of whether the 4-lane option or the 2-lane option is chosen, staff recommends: 1) Signalization at Persimmon Street and Rupple Road. 2) Construction of roundabouts at the 3 planned collector streets intersecting Rupple Road. 3) Full width construction from MLK Jr. Blvd. to the Farmington Branch of Goose Creek crossing. 4) Widening Rupple Road to 4-lanes between Persimmon Street and Wedington, as noted above. The Transportation Committee heard this item at the Committee meeting on February 251h, and voted to forward to the full City Council without a recommendation. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: The total budget for Rupple Road, between Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. and Wedington Drive, is $10 milllion. This funding is adequate to construct the full 4-lane section. Potential savings if the 2-lane options are selected include $2.4 million in construction and approximately $200,000 in asphalt maintenance costs over a 15 year period. However, this savings will ultimately be less than cost of constructing the additional two lanes in the future. This cost cannot be quantified accurately, but, by way of comparison, the cost of the two lanes of Rupple Road from Wedington to the Boys and Girls Club in 2002 was approximately $800,000, and the estimate cost of widening Rupple between Persimmon and Wedington to 4 lanes is $2.2 million. Attachments: Figure 1-Partial City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan Figure 2-Benton and Washington County Regional Arterial Network Figure 3-Concept Drawing presented at the May, 2006 public meeting. Memo from City Attorney -History of Rupple Road and Sales Tax Capital Bond Election Figure 4-Development Area used in traffic study calculations Figure 5 and 6-Concept Drawings presented at May 2013 public meeting Figures 7 and 8-Alternative 2-lane and 4-lane concepts currently under consideration Figures 9 an 10-Alternative concepts between Persimmon and Wedington Detailed Cost Estimates Traffic Study by Jacobs Engineering 4 N Legend w E FIGURE 1 - COLLECTOR MASTER STREET PLAN FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY S - MINOR ARTERIAL I inch = 7,000 feet - PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL - PRIN ARTERIAL PKWY ento tori: Bentonville iif 41-� or Highfili * 1 ; ! .upon ve Springs -1 i, I Lowell + � •' ... �� rf .. ethel Heightsti. In {� J Elm pd $'I' �l' t:!• xJi.' '' .— .. + � _ i j Springr � Tontitow PPLE _ G! y I -i _.7. • ' . t M1 i - yetteui ; f Farmington' - t [ z X Y t FIGURE 2 ON-+ 2025 Road Projects WASHINGTON AND BENTON CO. Future 4+ Lane 2015 ARTERIAL NETWORK tL. Existing 4+ Lane -- -- to Z N w wZ o >mj o� Q �__3 CLVICL �l a cL !�LJ w 0 F Ctf Of Departmental Correspondence RKANSns TO: Mayor Jordan City Council CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Paul Becker, Finance Director Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director Chris Brown, City Engineer FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: February 24, 2014 Kit Williams City Attorney Jason B. Kelley Assistant City Attorney RE: History of Rupple Road from Martin Luther King to Persimmon and Sales Tax Capital Bond Election For many months before the September 12, 2006 Special Sales Tax Bond Election, the City Council Street Committee studied the citizens' needs and desires (as ascertained by Citizens Surveys) and finally agreed to the Transportation Improvement Plan of which Phase One was to be financed by the Sale Tax Capital Bonds. "In response to a question from Alderman Marr, Alderman Jordan said we are probably looking at August before a bond election could be held. He thinks the Street Committee will need to initiate the discussion. He wants to be careful to have enough time for public comment. "Alderman Marr said he agrees that we need to have time to make sure it is done right but wants to also make sure it is a priority. He said he wants to see the Committee begin working on this at every meeting because it was the number one item two years in a row in the Citizen Survey." City Council Street Committee Minutes of February 13, 2006 (page 7) (emphasis added). In the Agenda Packet for the Special Election for the Sales Tax Bond Ordinance, City staff informed the City Council what the bond revenue would be used for. "The City Council Street Committee has for the last 18 months been discussing the need for a major street improvement program based upon the community -wide Citizen Surveys of 2004 and 2005. The program has evolved during this time frame into 3-phases. Phase 1 is proposed to be a 6-year $62,000,000 program, providing traffic capacity and safety improvements and economic development opportunities to those corridors with the most need. Later phases, through additional bond elections, will address additional safety, capacity, and economic development needs. The resources required for the initial phase of the Transportation Improvement Program is $62,000,000 plus the bond and debt placement and surety costs." Included with the memo was a listing of the road projects to be completed in Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Plan. Project #17 was "Rupple Road (6th to Persimmon), New -Minor Arterial- $8,155,000.00...." The Special Election Capital Sales Tax Extension agenda item was entitled: "An Ordinance calling for a Special Election on September 12, 2006 to....pay.... for Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Plan as recommended by the Street Committee...." Thus, both the City Council and the public were expressly and explicitly informed before enacting the Special Election Ordinance that Rupple Road from Martin Luther King to Persimmon was supposed to be built to arterial standards at an estimated cost of over $8 million from the Sales Tax Capital Bond Proceeds. My memory is that the voters were PA frequently informed that this project as well as the other major road improvement projects (Highway 265 from Highway 45 North to the City limits; Garland Street from North to Melmar; Mount Comfort, Fifteenth Street, Cato Springs, etc.) would be built as a result of a successful bond election. I drafted the Bond Election Ballot to be more general: "acquisition, construction and equipping of certain street improvements,"; without specifically naming each proposed street improvement. Therefore, it is unlikely that the City could be found to have committed an illegal exaction if Rupple Road is not built to arterial standards. However, it is clear that the public was informed before the election that the City would construct Rupple Road as an arterial (as part of the City's "box" of arterials to improve city wide transportation). Thus, the City Council could be accused of not "keeping the faith" with citizens if it chose to build a two- lane road rather than arterial for Rupple from MLK to Persimmon. 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO REAFFIRM THE CROSS SECTION OF RUPPLE ROAD FROM MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD TO WEDINGTON DRIVE AS A FOUR LANE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City Council approved submitting a capital sales tax issue to the Fayetteville voters in 2006 with a stated objective to build Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Program with the bond proceeds; and WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the approved Transportation Improvement Program included $8,155,000.00 for Rupple Road as an arterial from Martin Luther King Boulevard to Persimmon Street; and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville citizens voted to approve this sales tax to support the bonds for the street improvements in September 12, 2006; and WHEREAS, Rupple Road has long been and currently is designated as Principal Arterial Parkway on the City's Master Street Plan approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 reaffirms the designation of Rupple Road as a Principal Arterial Parkway between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Wedington Drive and confirms and approves the cross section of this four lane boulevard as presented to the public in the meeting at the Boys and Girls Club on Rupple Road in May of 2013. PASSED and APPROVED this 18th day of March 2014. APPROVED: ATTEST: IN I0 LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer . 73 r. ow N " A r:a 7i; 1. �• �,_ } il I��W.'C•al - ZI . ,; & 77L I., W. O- "€ J S 4 'MEN A j lei i -19 Lei jr I S'r I II � II tl Cr r" " N Rupple Rd. Improvements - MLK to Persimmon FULL WIDTH CONCEPT COST ESTIMATE - FEBRUARY 2014 Item No. Unit Estimated Quantity Costs Unit Price Estimated Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 $150,000.00 $150.000.00 2 Construction Staking LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 3 :Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 4 Tree Protection Fencing LF 1,000 $5.00 $5,000.00 5 Excavation Safety LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 6 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 7 R & D Curb & Gutter LF 200 $4.00 $800.00 8 Asphalt Milling SY 200 $8.00 $1.600.00 9 Unclassified Excavation Cy 54,400 $8.00 $435,200.00 10 Compacted Embankment - Select Hillside Cy 36.266 $12.00 $435,192.00 11 Undercut & Backfill CY 10,000 $17.50 $175.000.00 12 Six-inch Aggregate Street Base Course (Class 7) SY 44,200 $8.00 $353,600.00 13 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 30,000 $1 1.50 $345,000.00 14 -rwo-inch ACHM Surface Course (Type 2) SY 36,000 $12.00 $432,000.00 15 Four -inch ACHM Binder Course (Type 2) SY 36,000 $16.00 $576,000.00 16 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 6,000 $50.00 $300,000.00 17 36-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 3,000 $110.00 $330,000.00 18 4 Ft x 4 Ft Type 'C' Drop Inlet EA 40 $3,000.00 $120.000.00 19 IDrop Inlet Extension (8 Ft) EA 40 $1,000.00 $40,000.00 20 Erosion Control LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 21 Concrete Sidewalk (4") SY 4,300 $32.00 $137,600.00 22 lConcrete Trail SY 10,200.0 $35.00 $357,000.00 23 Seeding & Mulching AC 8.5 $2,500.00 $21,250.00 24 Imported Top Soil SY 40,000 $3.00 $120,000.00 25 Striping and Signage LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 26 3" PVC Schedule 40 Conduit LF 750 $20.00 $15,000.00 27 Right -of -Way/ Easement Acquisition LS 1 1 $575,000.00 $575,000.00 28 Concrete Bridge (66'x 100') SF 6,600 $130.00 $858,000.00 29 Street Trees EA 85 $600.00 $51,000.00 30 Si alization (Sixth St.) LS 1 $150,000.00 $150.000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $6,144,242.00 CONTINGENCY (20%)11 $1,228,848.40 TOTAL ESTIMATED COS $7,373,090.40 Rupple Rd. Improvements - MLK to Persimmon OPTION 1 COST ESTIMATE- FEBRUARY 2014 Item No. Item Descri tion Unit Estimated ]F- Quantity Costs Unit Price Estimated Price 1 ;Mobilization LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 2 Construction Staking LS 1 $50,000.00 $50.000.00 3 Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $15,000.00 $15.000.00 4 Tree Protection Fencing LF 1,000 $5.00 $5,000.00 5 lExcavation Safety LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 6 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 7 R & D Curb & Gutter LF 200 $4.00 $800.00 8 As halt Milling SY 200 $8.00 $1,600.00 9 Unclassified Excavation Cy 34.756 $8.00 $278,048.00 10 Compacted Embankment - Select Hillside Cy 23,170 $12.00 $278.040.00 11 Undercut & Backfill Cy 6,000 $17.50 $105,000.00 12 Six-inch Aggregate Street Base Course (Class 7) SY 24,556 $8.00 $196,448.00 13 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 23,200 $11.50 $266,800.00 14 Two-inch ACHM Surface Course (Type 2) SY 20,133 $12.00 $241,596.00 15 Four -inch ACHM Binder Course (Type 2) SY 20,133 $16.00 $322,128.00 16 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 4,500 $50.00 $225,000.00 17 36-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 2,250 $110.00 $247,500.00 18 4 Ft x 4 Ft Type'C'Drop Inlet EA 30 $3,000.00 $90,000.00 19 Drop Inlet Extension (8 Ft) EA 30 $1,000.00 $30,000.00 20 Erosion Control LS 1 $50,000.00 $50.000.00 21 Concrete Sidewalk (4") SY 500 $32.00 $16,000.00 22 Concrete Trail SY 10,200.0 $35.00 $357,000.00 23 Seeding & Mulching AC 7.0 $2,500.00 $17,500.00 24 Imported Top Soil SY 32,400 $3.00 $97,200.00 25 Striping and Signage LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 26 3" PVC Schedule 40 Conduit LF 750 $20.00 $15,000.00 27 Right -of -Way/ Easement Acquisition LS 1 $575,000.00 $575,000.00 28 Concrete Bridge (66'x100') SF 6,600 $130.00 $858,000.00 29 Street Trees EA 85 $600.00 $51,000.00 30 Signalization (Sixth St.) LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 31 1 $0.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $4,725,660.00 CONTINGENCY (20%) $945.132.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSJF $5,670,792,00 Rupple Rd. Improvements - MLK to Persimmon OPTION 2 COST ESTIMATE- FEBRUARY 2014 Item No. Item Description Unit Estimated Q110Dtity Costs Unit Price Estimated Price i Mobilization LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 2 Construction Staking LS 1 $50.000.00 $50,000.00 3 Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 4 'free Protection Fencing LF 1,000 $5.00 $5,000.00 5 Excavation Safety LS 1 $5,000.00 $5.000.00 6 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 7 R & D Curb & Gutter LF 200 $4.00 $800.00 8 Asphalt Millin SY 200 $8.00 $1,600.00 9 Unclassified Excavation Cy 49,111 $8.00 $392,889.00 10 Compacted Embankment - Select Hillside Cy 32,740 $12.00 $392,880.00 11 Undercut & Backfill CY 9,000 $17.50 $157,500.00 12 Six-inch Aggregate Street Base Course (Class 7) SY 38,911 $8.00 $311,288.00 13 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 16.400 $11.50 $188,600.00 14 "rwo-inch ACHM Surface Course (Ty e 2) SY 20,889 $12.00 $250,668.00 15 Four -inch ACHM Binder Course (Type 2) SY 20,889 $16.00 $334,224.00 16 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 6,000 $50.00 $300,000.00 17 =36-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 3,000 $110.00 $330,000.00 18 4 Ft x 4 Ft Tv e 'C' Drop Inlet EA 50 $3,000.00 $150,000.00 19 ]Drop Inlet Extension (8 Ft) EA 40 $1,000.00 $40,000.00 20 Erosion Control LS 1 $50.000.00 $50,000.00 21 Concrete Sidewalk (4") SY 4.300 $32.00 $137,600.00 22 Concrete Trail SY 10,200.0 $35.00 $357,000.00 23 Seeding & Mulching AC 9.5 $2,500.00 $23.750.00 24 Imported Top Soil SY 47,600 $3.00 $142,800.00 25 Striping and Signa e LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 26 3" PVC Schedule 40 Conduit LF 750 $20.00 $15,000.00 27 Right-of-Wav/ Easement Ac uisition LS 1 $575,000.00 $575,000.00 28 Concrete Bridge (66'x100') SF 6,600 $130.00 $858,000.00 29 Street Trees EA 85 $600.00 $51,000.00 30 :Signalization (Sixth St.) LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 31 Five -inch Aggregate Base Course for Shoulder SY 12,089 $7.00 $84,623.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $5,560,221.00 CONTINGENCY (20%) $1,112,044.20 TOTAL ESTIMATED COS�j $6,672,265.20 Rupple Rd. Improvements - Persimmon to Congressional FULL IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE - FEBRUARY 2014 Item No. Unit Estimated Quantity Costs Unit Price Estimated Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 $150,000.00 $150.000.00 2 Construction Staking LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 3 Maintenance ofTraffic LS 1 $15,000.00 $15.000.00 4 'free Protection Fencing LF 1,000 $5.00 $5,000.00 5 Excavation Safety, LS 1 $5,000.00 $5.000.00 6 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 7 R & D Curb & Gutter LF 3,740 $4.00 $14,960.00 8 As halt Milling SY 11.070 $8.00 $88,560.00 9 Unclassified Excavation CY 5,700 $8.00 $45,600.00 10 Compacted Embankment - Select Hillside CY 9,150 $12.00 $109,800.00 11 Undercut & Backfill CY 500 $17.50 $8,750.00 12 Six-inch Aggregate Street Base Course (Class 7) SY 6,171 $8.00 $49,368.00 13 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 7,860 $11.50 $90.390.00 14 Two-inch ACHM Surface Course (Type 2) SY 10,556 $12.00 $126,672.00 15 Four -inch ACHM Binder Course (Type 2) SY 5,400 $16.00 $86,400.00 16 1 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 600 $50.00 $30,000.00 17 36-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 1,300 $110.00 $143,000.00 18 4 Ft x 4 Ft Type'C'Drop, Inlet EA 30 $3,000.00 $90,000.00 19 Drop Inlet Extension (8 Ft) EA 30 $1,000.00 $30,000.00 20 Erosion Control LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 21 Concrete Sidewalk (4") SY 1,700 $32.00 $54,400.00 22 Concrete Trail SY 3,900 $35.00 $136,500.00 23 ISeeding & Mulching AC 2 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 24 Imported Top Soil SY 10,300 $3.00 $30,900.00 25 Striping and Si nape LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 26 3" PVC Schedule 40 Conduit LF 700 $20.00 $14,000.00 27 Right-of-Way/Easement Acquisition LS 1 $100,000.00 $100.000.00 28 Signalization LS l $250,000.00 $250,000.00 29 Street Trees EA 30 $600.00 $18,000.00 30 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,852,300.00 CONTINGENCY (20%) $370,460.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COS $2,222,760.00 Rupple Rd. Improvements - Persimmon to Congressional INTERSECTIONS ONLY COST ESTIMATE - FEBRUARY 2014 Item No. Item Descri lion Unit Estimated Quantity Costs Unit Price Estimated Price 1 Mobilization LS 1 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 2 Construction Staking LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 3 Maintenance of Traffic LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 4 Tree Protection Fencing LF 1,000 $5.00 $5,000.00 5 Excavation Safety LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 6 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $20,000.00 $20.000.00 7 R & D Curb & Gutter LF 2.400 $4.00 $9,600.00 8 Asphalt Millie SY 7,470 $8.00 $59,760.00 9 Unclassified Excavation CY 2,100 $8.00 $16,900.00 10 Compacted Embankment - Select Hillside CY 1,400 $12.00 $16,800.00 11 Undercut & Backfill CY 150 $17.50 $2,625.00 12 Six-inch Aggregate Street Base Course (Class 7) SY 2,300 $8.00 $18,400.00 13 Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 2,500 $11.50 $28,750.00 14 Two-inch ACHM Surface Course (Type 2) SY 10.556 $12.00 $126,672.00 15 Four -inch ACHM Binder Course (Type 2) SY 2,087 $16.00 $33,392.00 16 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 250 $50.00 $12,500.00 17 36-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) LF 500 $110.00 $55,000.00 18 4 Ft x 4 Ft T e 'C' Drop Inlet EA 15 $3,000.00 $45,000.00 19 Drop Inlet Extension (8 Ft) EA 15 $1,000.00 $15,000.00 20 Erosion Control LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 21 Concrete Sidewalk (4") SY 1,000 $32.00 $32,000.00 22 Concrete Trail SY 2,100 $35.00 $73,500.00 23 Seeding & Mulching AC LO $2,500.00 $2,500.00 24 Imported Top Soil SY 6,800 $3.00 $20,400.00 25 Striping and Signage LS 1 $30,000.00 $30.000.00 26 T' PVC Schedule 40 Conduit LF 500 $20.00 $10,000.00 27 Ri bt-of-Way/EasementAcquisition LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 28 Signalization LS 1 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,253,699.00 CONTINGENCY (201/ $250,739.80 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,504,438.80 RUPPLE ROAD Corridor from MLK (Hwy 62) to Wedl*ngton Drive (Hwy 16) Traffic Impact Analysis Date: February 25, 2014 1IPage Introduction JACOBS was hired by the City of Fayetteville to conduct a traffic impact analysis for the extension of Rupple Road from MLK (Hwy 62) to just south of Persimmon Street. The study area also included the existing section from Persimmon Street to Wedington Drive. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Study Area Currently Rupple Road in the study area extends south from Wedington Drive to just south of the Owl Creek Elementary/Middle School. There is a traffic signal at the intersection with Wedington Drive and a 4-way stop at the Persimmon Street intersection. Rupple Road does not exist between the school and MLK (Hwy 62). The Master Street Plan (City Plan 2030) designates Rupple Road as a principal arterial parkway. The typical section for principal arterials obtained from the Master Street Plan is shown in Figure 2. For the study, parking was not included in the analysis. 2 1 P a g e PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS WITH ON -STREET PARKING are intended to be used in compact urban environments that are highly walkable and where building entries front the street. This street section is not intended to be used where traffic speeds exceed 30 MPH, 7 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BOULEVARD (WITH PARKING): Design Service Volume: < 17,600 vpd Desired Operating Speed: 25-30 mph a:. °"' Travel Lanes: Four 11'Lanes Bicycle Lanes: Shared with outer R auto travel lanes Median/Tum Lane: 10' median, 12' tum Pane Parking: 8'lane, both sides of street Paved Width: from face of of curb vrith median 42' from face of curb with L. turn lane - 70' entire width " including median Right of Way: B7' Sidewalks: Both sides of street, min. I 8' vide with grated tree wells l against curb Greenspace: None Figure 2. Master Street Plan — Street Section Study Process: The step by step study process that we have used in this study is: 1. Collected the existing information in and around the study area. 2. The turning movement counts were collected from two (2) intersections(Rupple Road/Wedington Drive and Rupple Road/Persimmon Street). Turning movement counts were collected on a Tuesday and a Wednesday in October and November, 2013. 3. Radar counters were used to collect 24 hour counts at strategic points on the road network around the campus as shown in Figure 3. 4. The City of Fayetteville provided the future zoning information for the study area (see Table 4). 3 1 P a g e 5. Jacobs has collected some information from other sources: a. Signal timings from City of Fayetteville. b. Average Daily Traffic (ADT's) from the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) website. 6. Development of VISSIM and Synchro base models for the study area. 7. Development of future traffic numbers based on the historical traffic counts in the area as well as future development of the area along the corridor using the future zoning information provided by the City. 8. Analysis and calibration of the existing traffic in the base models. 9. Analysis of the future alternatives. 10. Summary of results and findings. After collecting the data a base traffic model was developedfor the analysis. The modeling software that is used on this project is VISSIM. VISSIM is microscopic time step driver behavior traffic simulation software, developed to model urban traffic (vehicle and pedestrian) and public transit operations. The program analyzes traffic and transit operations under constraints such as lane configuration, traffic composition, traffic signals, transit stops, etc.,thus making it a useful tool for the evaluation of various alternatives based on transportation engineering and planning measures of effectiveness (MOE's) such as vehicle delay, travel times and queue lengths. This program is capable of implicitly modeling passenger vehicle, light rail transit (LRT) vehicle and pedestrians simultaneously and also offers great visualization from simple to complex traffic conditions to provide a realistic picture of the traffic operations. Level of Service Level of service (LOS) is a term defined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to describe the operating performance of an intersection or roadway. The LOS of an intersection is a qualitative measure of capacity and operating conditions and is directly related to vehicle delay. LOS results range from "A" (minimal delay and conflicts) to "F" (significant delays and congestion), with LOS A representing very short delays and LOS F representing very long delays. As a practical consideration, LOS D is considered the limit of acceptable operation in an urban environment. LOS C is the desirable condition. LOS conditions for signalized intersections are shown in Table 1. For unsignalized intersections, the levels of service are shown in Table 2. The graphical representation of each intersect on LOS category is displayed in the below Figure 4. 5 1 P a g e Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level -of -Service Average Control Delay (LOS) (seconds/vehicle) Description A <_ 10.0 Very low vehicle delays, free flow, signal progression extremely favorable, most vehicles arrive during given signal phase. B 10.1 to 20.0 Good signal progression, more vehicles stop and experience higher delays than for LOS A. C 20.1 to 35.0 Stable flow, fair signal progression, significant number of vehicles stop at signals. D 35.1 to 55.0 Congestion noticeable, longer delays and unfavorable signal progression, many vehicles stop at signals. E 55.1 to 80.0 Limit of acceptable delay, unstable flow, poor signal progression, traffic near roadway capacity, frequent cycle failures. F > 80.0 Unacceptable delays, extremely unstable flow and congestion, traffic exceeds roadway capacity, stop -and -go conditions. Source: HCM 2010 Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level -of -Service Average Control Delay (LOS) (seconds/vehicle) Description No delays at intersections with continuous flow of traffic. A <_ 10.0 Uncongested operations: high frequency of long gaps available for all left and right turning traffic. No observable queues. B 10.1 to 15.0 Same as LOS A Moderate delays at intersections with satisfactory to good traffic C 15.1 to 25.0 flow. Light congestion; infrequent backups on critical approaches. Increased probability of delays along every approach. Significant D 25.1 to 35.0 congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. No standing long lines formed. Heavy traffic flow condition. Heavy delays probable. No available E 35.1 to 50.0 gaps for cross -street traffic or main street turning traffic. Limit of stable flow. Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Traffic moves in forced F > 50.0 flow condition. Average delays greater than one minute highly probable. Total breakdown. Source: HCM 2010 6 1 P a g e Figure 4 - Level of Service Description! LOS Intersections A No vehicle waits longer than one signal indication. B On a rare occasion, vehicles wait through more than one signal indication. C Intermittently, vehicles wait through more than one signal indication, occasionally backups may develop, traffic flow still stable and acceptable. ❑ Delays at intersections may become extensive, but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance, preventing excessive backups. E Very long queues may create lengthy delays. F Backups from locations downstream restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of approach creating a "gridlock" condition. 7 1 P a g e Existing Traffic The existing traffic data collected forth e study area are summarized in the tables below. The traffic data counts are in the appendix. Overall, the AM traffic counts represent higher peak hour volumes for the study area and are, therefore, the focus of the analysis. Table 3 — Existing 2013 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Existing Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound AM Lt 'Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Intersection Wedington Dr 182 107 45 172 239 82 14 74 161 172 999 25 /Rupple Rd Persimmon St 106 127 63 79 66 13 32 72 124 90 175 27 /Rupple Rd MLK Blvd /Rupple - - - - 114 - - - - - 351 - Rd(Future) Existing Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound PM Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Intersection Wedington 154 101 158 194 835 110 20 46 121 51 527 13 Dr/Rupple Rd Persimmon 41 36 44 27 61 16 12 76 58 60 79 7 St/Rupple Rd MILK Blvd/Rupple - - - - .304 - - - - - 200 - Rd (Future) 8 1 P a g e Future Traffic Future traffic was generated for the study area using zoning to estimate future development densities. Fayetteville Planning provided two densities for residential zoning in the area. Table 4 — Future Zoning in Study Area Fayetteville Planning Type Density Mountain Ranch Typical Suburban 1.95 units per acre Development Rupple Row Traditional/New Urbanism 6.24 units per acre Development Pattern The future zoning area is approximately 1 mile long by a half mile wide or 320 acres. Which would provide approximately 1997 units with the higher density or 624 units for the lesser density. For this study, 1997 units were used. Table 5 — Average Weekday — ITE Trip Generation Average Weekday — ITE Trip Generation 24 Hour Two-way 7-9 AM Peak Hour 4-6 PM Peak Hour Units Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit 19111 379 1118 1278 739 1997 12537 249 734 838 485 1310 5972 119 349 399 231 624 Using the data from the table above, traffic was generated along the study corridor. For the future design year (2033), historical traffic volumes were used to develop a growth rate for 9 1 P a g e road. Multiple growth rates were developed (Wedington Drive, Rupple Road, and MLK Blvd). The rates varied from 1.% on Rupple Road, 1.8% on Wedington Drive and 1.3% on MLK Blvd. Table 6 — 2013 Opening Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Improvements Existing (with Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Improvements) AM Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Intersection Wedington 164 143 45 216 215 82 45 105 185 172 999 130 Drive/Rupple Road Intermediate 18 461 10 10 2 25 5 235 13 75 2 25 Int/Rupple Road Persimmon 126 292 78 79 66 13 62 135 124 105 175 46 Street/Rupple Road School/Subdivision/ 25 362 30 40 10 50 20 251 20 20 10 20 Rupple Road Future Intersection 25 362 30 40 10 .50 20 251 20 20 10 20 1 Future Intersection 20 382 20 25 20 50 15 184 15 57 20 25 2 MLK Blvd/ Rupple 357 - 75 - 114 125 - - - 89 316 - Road (Future) 101 Page Table 7 — 2033 Future Traffic with Improvements Future (with Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Improvements) AM Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Lt Th Rt Intersection Wedington Drive 239 248 66 374 307 117 159 269 674 246 1284 201 /Rupple Road Intermediate 23 765 13 13 3 32 6 973 18 96 3 32 Int/Rupple Road Persimmon Street 187 498 125 101 85 17 80 845 159 135 224 59 /Rupple Road School/Subdivision/ 32 .588 38 51 13 64 26 994 26 26 13 26 Rupple Road Future Intersection 86 610 86 144 26 233 62 572 59 241 26 144 1 Future Intersection 60 780 60 112 26 201 58 324 55 168 26 112 2 MLK Blvd /Rupple 818 - 186 - 148 288 - - - 149 409 - Road (Future) Analysis Synchro Analysis The intersection of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street was evaluated in Synchro using Design Year-2033 volumes (developed earlier when determining the type of intersection control to be used at the intersection, not the same traffic volumes used in the VISSIM models) to determine if the intersection would operate best as a signalized intersection or as a roundabout intersection based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology. 111 Page €+k Edit T. i. Oylim Do —it Me¢ i■MMM-4WRA. MMS CL O. +s� cxr.r� tV sa7 W v_ r- r ►��A �jl *85 rTri0 Persimmon C5a< 4-> 5N T CO Cq LO V-T- Figure 5 — Syncrho Roundabout Graphic The following assumptions were made regarding the roundabout analysis: • North and south approaches reduced to one lane northbound and one lane southbound • Two-lane roundabout with two exit lanes on the south leg. • 75 feet outer radius • 15 feet roundabout lanes • 18 mph circle speed • PHF = 0.92 • 5% heavy vehicles • 25 mph approach link speed 121Page Figure 6 — Syncrho Signalized Graphic The following assumptions were made with regard to the signalized intersection analysis: • Existing lane configuration at approaches will not change • Cycle length of 120 seconds • Permitted left turns • PHF=0.92 • 5% heavy vehicles • 25 mph approach link speed The results are shown in the table below. Table 8 — Persimmon Street Intersection Delay Comparison Scenario Delay LDS (seclveh) Roundabout 9.3 A Signalized Intersection 11.3 B 131Page Both scenarios have a low overall intersection delay. Given the negligible difference in overall delay, it was decided to model the intersection of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street as a signalized intersection in VISSIM to provide improved safety conditions for pedestrians. VISSIM Analysis Three (3) horizon year models were created within VISSIM. These models consisted of an Existing Year 2013, Opening Year 2013, and Design Year 2033 scenarios. The Existing Year 2013 model has the existing geometry for Rupple Road including the intersections of Wedington Drive and Persimmon Street. The Existing Year model was calibrated using traffic volumes and travel times collected in October and November 2013. The targets of this calibration effort were obtained from the Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume 111 — Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and shown in the figure below. Criteria and Measures Calibration Acceptance Targets Hourly Flows, Model Versus Observed Individual Link Flows Within 15%, for 700 veh/h < Flow < 2700 > 85% of cases veh/ h Within 100 veh/h, for Flow < 700 veh/h > 85% of cases Within 400 veh/h, for Flow > 2700 veh/h > 85% of cases Sum of All Link Flows Within 5% of sum of all link counts GEH Statistic < 5 for Individual Link Flows* > 85% of cases GEH Statistic for Sum of All Link Flows GEH < 4 for sum of all link counts Travel Times, Model Versus Observed Journey Times, Network Within 15% (or 1 min, if higher) > 85% of cases Visual Audits Individual Link Speeds Visually Acceptable Speed -Flow To analyst's satisfaction Relationship Bottlenecks Visually Acceptable Queuing To analyst's satisfaction Figure 7 — FHWA Microsimulation Model Calibration Targets 141Page Most of the criteria included in the above figure are self-explanatory, with the possible exception of GEH Statistic. This measure is a formula used in traffic modeling to compare two sets of traffic volumes (Observed and Modeled). Its mathematical formulation is similar to the Chi -Squared test, but it is not a true statistical test but rather an empirical formula. The formulation for the GEH Statistic is as follows: 2*(M-0)z GEH = (M+0) Where M represents model estimate volume and 0 represents field counts. This statistic is typically used to offset the discrepancies that occur when using only simple percentages, as traffic volumes vary over a wide range. In other words, if using only percentages, small absolute discrepancies have no impact on large volumes but a large percent impact in smaller numbers, and vice versa. It has been shown that for traffic volumes smaller than 10,000 a five percent variation yields smaller numbers than a GEH of five. Beyond 10,000, five percent differences keep growing linearly whereas GEH=5 follows a decaying curve. The tables below summarize the calibration results in terms of GEH values and link flows for the AM peak period model. The results indicate that the model satisfies the volume calibration criteria listed above. Table 9 — Percentage of Links Meeting Flow Thresholds Individual Link Flows Time Flow<700 vph (± 100) 700<Flow<2700 vph (± 15%) Flow>2700 vph(±400) AM 100% 100% NA Table 10 - Sum of Link Flows (Criteria within ±5%): Sum of Link Flows AM 0.1 % 151Pabe Table 11— Percentage of Links by GEH (Criteria GEH < 5) GEH Links AM 100% According to the calibration guidelines, a model is reasonably calibrated when the modeled travel times are within 15% (or one minute if higher) of the average field collected travel time for 85% of the cases. Of the field collected travel times provided, only one of the segments fell within the section of Rupple Road being modeled in the Existing Year model. This segment, specifically southbound Rupple Road from Wedington Drive to Persimmon Street, had an average field collected travel time of 83 seconds, this time is used to help calibrate the Existing Year model. The travel time for this segment within the Existing Year model was also 83 seconds. The detailed volume and travel time calibration spreadsheets are included in the appendix for further reference. For the Design Year 2033 VISSIM analysis the following geometry assumptions were made: • Rupple Road would curve west shortly after the existing southern terminus before traveling directly south to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard The two proposed roundabouts between Persimmon Street and MLK Boulevard would have approximately equal spacing between them. The intersecting east -west roadways were assumed to be two-lane undivided facilities. • As determined based upon the Synchro analysis, the intersection of Rupple Road and Persimmon Street would be modeled as a signalized intersection. 161Page Wedin on Dr Persimmon St Roundabout t Roundabout 2 M LK Blvd Figure 8 — Rupple Road Extension VISSIM Model 171 P age The following three (3) Build Alternatives were analyzed: • 2-lane Build: Two-lane Rupple Road extension: This alternative provides a 2-lane roadway between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and the existing 4-lane southern termini south of Persimmon Street, thereby providing a 2-lane facility between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Wedington Drive, with the exception of the existing 1,300 foot 4-lane segment south of Persimmon Street. • 4-lane Build: This scenario provides a four lane roadway between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and the existing 4-lane southern termini south of Persimmon Street. Under this scenario, Rupple Road between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Persimmon Street has a 4- lane section that reduces to a 2-lane facility at Persimmon Street. • 4-lane to Wedington Drive Build Alternative: This alternative would provide a 4-lane facility from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Wedington Drive, eliminating the choke point which occurs when the roadway reduces from four lanes to two lanes at Persimmon Street. This alternative will require widening between Persimmon Street and Wedington Drive. Additional improvements also proposed under this scenario include: o Persimmon Street intersection: Modifying the northbound right turn lane into a shared thru-right turn lane o Wedington Drive intersection: Modify the northbound approach to include exclusive left turn lane, through lane and exclusive right turn lane with overlap phasing. o Wedington Drive intersection: Modify the southbound right turn lane to a shared thru- right turn lane. The alternatives were evaluated using opening year and design year demand volumes, with the exception of 4-lane Build to Wedington Drive alternative which was only analyzed for Design Year 2033. Average vehicle delay at each intersection, corridor travel times, and network -wide performance measures (i.e., total process volumes, latent demand, total delay time, and average speed) were extracted from the VISSIM models to assess the performance of each alterative. Summary of Results and Findings One of the objectives of this analysis was to determine if and/or when the proposed segment of Rupple Road, extending from the current terminus south of Persimmon Street to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, would need to be expanded from a two-lane roadway to a four -lane roadway. After analyzing the proposed segment of Rupple Road modeled as a two-lane roadway, it was determined that, although a two-lane facility appears to be operate satisfactorily under opening year demand conditions, a two-lane facility would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the design year demand. Severe congestion was observed throughout the corridor in the Year 2033 2-lane Build microsimulation model. As shown in Table 12, an acceptable level of delay was observed at all intersections for both the 2-lane and 4-lane Build alternatives during opening year; whereas, Table 13 shows the intersection delay at several intersections increases considerably as a result of the increase in 181 Page traffic volume expected in Year 2033 and lack of intersection capacity under the 2-lane and 4- lane alternatives. The results also indicate that delay along the corridor is substantially decreased when Rupple Road is widened from two to four lanes between Persimmon Street and Wedington Drive. Under the improved 4-lane scenario, intersection delays are less than 25 sec/veh, with the exception of the intersection at Wedington Drive which experiences a significant delay on the eastbound approach. Table 12 - Opening Year 2013 Intersection Vehicle Delay Intersection Approach Direction Opening Year (Existing AM with Corridor Extension) 2 Lane Build 4 Lane Build Difference (411- - 2L) Approach Delay Intersection Delay/LOS Approach Delay Intersection Delay Approach Delay Intersection Delay Wedington Drive SB 25.8 26.0/C 26.8 26.3/C 0.9 0.3 WB 20.0 20.4 0.4 NB 36.4 34.5 -1.9 EB 25.5 26.1 0.6 Persimmon Street SB 10.3 10.8/B 9.1 10.6/13 -1.2 -0.2 WB 12.9 13.0 0.0 NB 9.6 10.0 0.4 EB 11.9 12.2 0.3 Roundabout 1 SB 5.3 5.1 /A 2.9 2.8/A -2.4 -2.3 WB 3.0 3.4 0.3 NB 5.4 1.2 -4.2 EB 4.8 6.0 1.3 Roundabout 2 SB 6.5 5.4/A 1.9 2.0/A -4.6 -3.4 WB 2.7 2.0 -0.7 NB 4.5 1.5 -3.0 EB 4.9 3.7 -1.3 Main Street / MLK Boulevard SB 23.7 13.9/B 20.5 12.1/13 -3.2 -1.8 WB 7.6 6.4 -1.1 - - - - EB 6.9 1 6.1 -0.9 191Page +• >, V O (D N M N Ln n m a� Ln r er rn n 06 ti O U t CDC Q1 O Lo T Ln TLq O n CO Lr) o Lo O) It d O (D M O T M O O L._O ~ Q O ❑ N N C7 O r Mr (D In N N LO C? Ll C? O r 00 Lo N T (D N Q i a C N 0 m N J N I N O a i (0 r CV a)y n N N C)N m C ❑ lv •i t Q � O M N M M (D W N M LO M N O N C? M to (D 0� M Lq Cn L.. O Q Q co m � (D � Di r r 6 ItM 4 00 C) M 'd- M LO (D 00 N r N f� r 00 r Q. a C Cl)0 J _j LO 00 C7 N M y tv A Ln LL7 Ln M CD p 7 O -C ❑ O — U C � O OLo LO r r I� N O (0 a% I� � (v CO (coD Ui LO LO O 00 LLB r N I� M Lfi ICL ii. ❑ T T I r N a Cl) L0 LL LL LL LO V J N ti r a a i 06 � 06LO 00 06 O +O+ N r r n �Q N - - a� — C O J U O m T Ln . D) M N O O N c9 r- _ N I, M N O m It M Il- O CO Ln CO N LC) C0 Q N N a C N O • ; 0 LL L\. LL LL V co rn in CDCD � 0 i R M n CM r r p 06 LO C N N r r N n7 O C O .0 J U >` ,V O M O It M 00 M M T O M T C0 O (0 ,- O M 00 Oj CL d N M (D U LO LLB I� 00 Cl) M (D M r- L6 N O M f- CD 00 I- -t It CO r O 0) LO LO O ct M N Cl) r N Q❑ N CO LO CO M r T N a C U _O O 4- m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Cn Q Z W (n Z W 0Z W 0Z W (� W CL.L a❑ C C C 3 O O O O � O +• O a 0 tm m E -co Q -004 N i L Or i N NJ O C 3 d❑ 0 In addition to intersection operations, the travel time along the corridor and network wide performance were also assessed for each Build alternative. The travel time results are summarized in Table 14, while the opening year and design year network wide performance measures are presented in Tables 15 and 16, respectively. Table 14 — Rupple Road Travel Times Travel Travel Analysis Year Alternative Direction From To Time minutes Opening Year 2013 SB Wedington Drive Main Street / MLK 5.7 Boulevard NB Main Street / MLK Wedington Drive 6.1 2-lane Build Boulevard Opening Year 2013 SB Wedington Drive Main Street / MLK 5.3 Boulevard 4-lane Build NB Main Street / MLK Wedington Drive 5.9 Boulevard Design Year 2033 SB Wedington Drive Main Street / MLK 8.1 Boulevard NB Main Street / MLK Wedington Drive 32.1 2-lane Build Boulevard Design Year 2033 SB Wedington Drive Main Street / MLK 5.8 Boulevard NB Main Street / MLK Wedington Drive 27.4 4-lane Build Boulevard Design Year 2033 SB Wedington Drive Main Street / MLK 5.4 Boulevard NB Main Street /MLK Wedington Drive 6.1 4-lane to Wedington Drive Build Boulevard Demand and processed volume comparisons, as well as detailed travel time and vehicle delay results for all three (3) Build Alternatives have been provided in the appendix for further reference. 211 Page Table 15 — Opening Year 2013 Network Wide Performance Measures Measure of Effectiveness 2 Lane 4 Lane Build I Build Number of Active Vehicles (veh) 117 126 Number of Arrived Vehicles (veh) 3,790 3,814 Number of Processed Vehicles Latent Demand (veh) Table 16 — Design Year 2033 Network Wide Performance Measures Measure of Effectiveness 2 Lane 4 Lane 4 Lane to Wedington Build guild Drive Build Number of Active Vehicles (veh) 772 686 306 Number of Arrived Vehicles (veh) 5,144 5,261 6,112 Number of Processed Vehicles veh 5,948 Latent Demand (veh) 1,177i3 % Latent Demand 1 17% Total Delay Time (hrs) 456 Average Delay Time (sec/veh) 276 Average Speed (mph) 7.3 With respect to travel time along the study corridor, the travel time along the two-lane and four -lane extension of Rupple Road between Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Wedington Drive is relatively the same in both the northbound and southbound directions in 2013, about 6 minutes; however, in 2033, the travel time is much longer in the northbound direction, about 32 minutes for the 2-lane Build alternative and 27 minutes for the 4-lane Build alternative. The travel time is improved considerably when the four -lane section is extended to Wedington Drive, reducing the average northbound travel time to 6 minutes in 2033. 221Page Likewise, the network wide performance measures show noticeable improvement in Year 2033 when comparing the 2-lane Build to the 4-lane to Wedington Drive Build. The average speed is almost doubled, the latent demand is reduced in half, and the total network wide delay is decreased from approximately 500 seconds to 100 seconds. It should be noted that from a network wide standpoint, the 4-lane Build alternative does provide a minimal benefit in terms of total delay and average speed over the 2-lane Build alternative; however, the true benefit of providing a four -lane extension is diminished by the lane reduction at Persimmon Street which exists in the 4-lane Build alternative. Based on the operation along the network with expected volumes in the opening year design, the 2-lane Build and the operation along the network with expected volumes in the design year, the 4-lane to Wedington Drive Build, the network should operate with acceptable total delay and average speed until the corridor is developed to approximately 50 to 75% built out. Determining when this level of development would occur would be difficult to approximate. Given the need for the connection, the close proximity to the school and 1-540, the development could conceivably reach a 50 to 75% build out in 10 years. 231Page Appendix 241Page Collpening Year 2013 Z*Lane Build RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS c m Approach PP E Delay by Processed Processed Approach Processed Intersection Movement % Movement Delay Weighted Wei Intersection Demand w Direction m o movement (sec) Volume Volume Volume AVolumeh A pproach % Total Volume Weighted by Delay by A roach PP Delay VolumeDifference FA=h % Difference (vph) (vph) Volume (seclveh) (sec/veh) (vPh )(vph) (sec/veh) R 7.7 48 14 % 1.0 45 p` c SB T 27.9 143 354 41 % 15 % 11.3 25.8 143 352 2 0% 0 L 29.4 162 46% 13.5 164 R 11.6 82 16 % 1.9 82 0 T 18.6 217 514 42 % 21 % 7.8 20.0 215 513 1 0% 3: L 24.7 215 2431 42 % 104 26.0 216 R 31.1 201 56% 17.3 185 K NB T 44 0 113 362 31 % 15% 137 36.4 105 335 27 8% a L 40.7 48 13% 5.4 45 R 23.4 128 11 % 2.5 130 EB T 27.0 904 1202 75% 49% 20.3 25.5 899 1201 1 0% L 19.1 170 14% 2.7 1 172 R 8.0 82 16% 1.3 78 u) SB T 9.4 293 501 58 % 36% 5.5 10.3 292 496 5 1% o L 14,0 126 25% 3.5 126 E R 6.7 14 9% 0.6 13 N WB T 10.4 67 158 42% 12% 4.4 12.9 66 158 0 D% ° d L 16.2 78 1374 49°/ 7.9 1038% 79 R 7 2-8.8 °e NB T 9.124 8 160 387 41% 28% 4.1 9.6 135 321 66 21% m a L 13.3 78 20 % 2.7 62 R 8.6 45 14 % 1.2 46 a K EB T 11.9 181 328 55% 24% 6 6 11.9 175 326 2 0% L 13.4 101 31 % 4.1 105 R 4.8 19 4% a2 20 SB T 5A 396 435 91% 47% 4.9 5.3 382 422 13 3% o1 L 4.7 20 1 51/. 02 20 R 3.0 49 51 % 1.6 50 WB T 3.3 22 95 23% 10% 0.8 3.0 20 95 0 p% 0 ofa1 L 2.8 24 920 26% 0.7 5.1 25 R 6.0 i9 6% 0.4 15 NB T 5.4 247 288 86% 31% 4.7 5.4 184 214 74 35% a L 4.9 22 8% 0.4 15 R 4.5 24 24 % 1 A 25 a 3 EB T 5 3 20 102 20% 11 % 1.1 4.8 20 102 0 0% L 4.7 57 1 56 % 2.6 57 R 5.6 24 5 % 0 3 20 � SB T 6.5 402 446 90 % 52 % 5.9 6.5 382 422 24 6 L 6.3 20 5% 0.3 20 R 2 7 50 53% 1.4 50 WB T 2.8 21 95 22% 11 % 0.6 2.7 20 95 0 0% L 2.5 24 854 25 % 0.6 5.4 25 R 43 i6 7% 03 15 NB T 4.6 182 212 86 % 25 % 4.0 4.5 184 214 -2 -1 % L 4 0 14 7% 0.3 15 R 51 26 25 % 1 3 25 a EB T 4 9 21 102 20 % 12 % 1.0 4.9 20 102 0 0% L 4 9 55 54% 2.7 57 Opening Year - 2 Lane 2013 RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Q c Processed Processed movement Weighted Demand m Apprpach Delay ay Processed Approach Intersection Movement I Approach % Delay Delay by Intersection Demand Approach P Direction m a movement [sec] Volume Volume Volume Approach Total Volume Weighted by Approach Delay Volume Volume Difference %[3ilforence c [vph) (vph] [vph} Volume Volume {seciveh} (seelreh) {vph) (vph] {sewveh} R 12.5 s0 18% 2.2 75 _ m S6 447 - 41 % - 217 0 432 15 4% L 26.1 367 82% 21.4 357 R 5.4 123 52% 2.8 125 w NIB T 9.9 116 239 48% 22% 4.8 7.6 114 239 0 0% 'n 1094 13.9 0 - - 0 m 3 EB T 6.9 318 407 78% 37% 5.3 6,9 316 405 2 1% L 72 90 1 1 22% 1 1 1.6 1 1 89 Opening Year - 2 Lane 2013 Travel Time Evaluation AM - Southbound CP From Intersection VISSIM Crossing Intersection (Sec) (Min) 1 Wedington Dr 79.41 1.3 2 - Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St - Roundabout 1 96.84 1.6 3 3 Roundabout 1 - - — Roundabout 2 75.74 1.3 4 4 Roundabout 2 Main St / MLK Blvd 92.42 1.5 5 Total 344.4 5.7 Travel Time Evaluation AM - Northbound From Intersection VISSIM CID Crossing Intersection (sec) (min) 5 Main St / MLK Blvd - -- 79.8 1.3 4 Roundabout 2 4 Roundabout 2 73.6 1.2 3 Roundabout 1 3 Roundabout 1 - - 100.2 1.7 2 Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St 111.8 1.9 1 Wedington Dr Total 365.4 6.1 Opening Year 2013 4-lane Build RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS C `m Processed Processed Processed Movement % Movement Delay Weighted Intersection Demand Demand ` Approach Direction E m Delay by movement (sec) Volume Approach Volume Intersection Volume Approach Approach % Total Volume Weighted by Delay by Approach Delay Volume Approach Volume Difference %Difference Y 0 (vph) (vph) (vph) Volume Volume (sec/veh) (sec/veh) (vph) (vph) (sec/veh) R 7.8 47 13% 1.0 45 p` SB T 275 146 357 41% 15% 11.2 26,8 143 352 5 1% o L 31.6 164 46% 14.5 164 R 10-8 80 15 % 1.7 82 c WB T 18 5 216 508 42% 21 % 7.9 20.4 215 513 -5 -1% L 25.9 212 2436 42% 10.8 26.3 216 R 30.6 208 56% 17.2 185 NB T 40.3 115 372 31% 15% 12.4 34.5 105 335 37 11% ° a L 37.8 49 13% 4.9 45 R 23.5 128 11% 2.5 130 a EB T 276 903 1200 75% 49% 20.8 26.1 899 1201 7 0% L 20-4 170 1 14 % 1 2.9 172 R 7.5 81 16% 1.2 78 u> SB T 7.3 292 499 58 % 36 % 4.3 9.1 292 496 3 1% o L 14.3 126 25% 3.6 126 E E R 6A 14 9% 0.6 13 E WB T 10.6 70 165 42% 12% 4.5 13.0 66 158 7 4% d L 16.2 81 1389 49 % 7.9 10.6 79 R 7.4 148 38% 2.8 124 o6 NB T 10.5 165 389 43% 28% 45 10,0 135 321 68 21% L 14.3 75 19 % 1 2.8 62 R 8.4 48 14 % 1.2 46 a EB T 12.4 184 336 55 % 24 % 6 8 12.2 175 326 10 3 % L 136 105 31% 42 105 R 3.1 19 4% 0.1 20 SB T 2.8 400 439 91 % 47 % 2.6 2.9 382 422 17 4% 'o L 3.6 20 5 % 0.2 20 R 20 49 51% 1-0 50 a � � WB T 6.7 23 97 23 % 10 % 1.6 3.4 20 95 2 2% L 3.0 25 931 26% 0.8 2.8 25 R 1.0 19 7% 01 15 a NB T 1.2 251 291 86% 31% 10 1.2 184 214 77 36% L 1.9 21 7% 0.1 15 R 37 11 24% 09 25 a EB T 7.1 21 104 20% 11% 1-4 6.0 20 102 2 2% L 6 6 58 56 % 3.7 57 R 16 i9 4% 0.1 zu SB T 18 408 450 91% 52% 17 1.9 382 422 28 7% o L 2.5 23 5°J 0.1 20 R 1 6 49 52 % 0.8 50 a � WB T 26 21 94 22% 11% 06 2.0 20 95 1 -1% � L 2 2 2a 863 26 % 0.6 2.0 25 R 1.2 15 7% 01 15 x NB T 1.5 186 215 86% 25% 1.3 1.5 184 214 1 1% L 2.7 14 7% 1 - 15 R 3,2 26 25% 0.8 25 d EB T 4,3 21 104 20% 12% 0.9 3.7 20 102 2 1% L 3.7 57 1 55 % 2-0 57 Opening Year- 4 Lane 2013 RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS s Approach ach 15 Delay by Processed Processed Approach Processed Intersection Movemant% Approach % Movement Delay Weighted Delay by intersection Demand Demand Approach m Direction movement [sect Volume Volume Volume Approach Total Volume Weighted by Approach Delay Volume Volume Difference % Difference [vph] [vRh] [vph] Volume Volume (secfveh] [Si ( Ph] [vph] (seclveh) _ R 8.1 113 25% 2.0 75 m SB _ 456 - 41% - 20.5 0 432 24 6% L 24.6 343 1 75% 18.5 357 R 4.8 126 51 % 2.5 125 N WB T 8.2 119 244 49% 22% 4.0 6.4 114 239 .5.2% m 1105 12.1 0 a 0 a a EB T 6.1 316 405 I 78% 37% 4.7 6.1 316 405 .0 0% L S.1 89 22% i.3 89 Opening Year- 4 Lane 2013 Travel Time Evaluation AM - Southbound CID From Intersection VISSIM Crossing Intersection (Sec) (Min) 1 Wedington Dr 79.14 1.3 2 - Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St 89.76 1.5 3 Roundabout 1 3 Roundabout 1 --- Roundabout 2 68.1 1.1 4 4 Roundabout 2 81.87 1.4 5 Main St / MLK Blvd Total 318.9 5.3 Travel Time Evaluation AM - Northbound CID From Intersection VISSIM Crossing Intersection (sec) (min) 5 Main St / MLK Blvd 74.6 1.2 4 Roundabout 2 4 Roundabout 2 67.1 1.1 3 — - Roundabout 1 3 Roundabout 1 96.1 1.6 2 Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St 114.8 1.9 - 1 - Wedington Dr Total 352.6 5.9 Design Year 2033 2-Lane Build RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS o Approach E Delay by Processed Processed Approach Processed Intersection Movement % Approach % Movement DelayIntersection Weighted Delay by Demand Demand m Direction d o movement (sec) Volume Volume Volume Approach Total Volume Weighted by Approach Delay Volume A Approach Volume Difference 9b Difference c 0 (vph) (vph) (vph) Volume Volume (secfveh) (seelveh) (vph) > (vph) {seciveh) R 7.8 68 12% 1.0 = 66 p` SB T 25.5 242 550 44% 17% 11.2 29.8 • 1 �..' 248 553 3 •190 o L 40A 239 44% 17.6 239 WB R T 157.5 179-8 108 271 702 15% 39% 22% 24.3 69.411w - - 117 307 798 o' C •', L 379.8 323 �' , . _ -98 1296 3258 46% 174.87`23 _- 374 R 353.8 431 61 % 216.3 "I 674- ' z•` .'.' CC NB T 360.5 171 706 24% 22% 87.2 '35i¢' _ 269 1102 -$B93t o_ L 353.4 104 15% • a - 159 R 181.9 150 12% 21.0 21. `.j ', '• 201 f EB T 185.4 970 1300 75% 40% 138.2 1284 1731 f L 1 187.8 181 1 14% 26.1 246 R 30.4 113 15% 4.7 125 n SB T 32.8 452 729 62% 37% 203 37A -' 498 810 .$1 -10% 0 0 L 55.0 164 23% 12.4 187 E R 45.8 17 8% 3.8 17 WB T 436 88 201 44% 10% 19-0 038 85 203 -2 -1°k IL L 85.2 97 1975 48% 40.9 247,9. 101 R 538.5 91 14% 77.7 - 159 °d NB T 585-3 492 631 7$% 32% 456-0 °.+75:3 845 1084 o n L 543.3 48 8°6 41.7 �' - 80 R 38.6 59 14% 5.5 59 n EB T 48.8 224 415 54 % 21 % 26.4 65.8 224 418 •3 1 % L 107.4 131 32% 33-9 1 135 R 2B. 7 69 11 % 3.1 86 SB T 32.5 498 637 78% 39% 25.4 32.1 610 782 --445' =19% 'o a L 32.9 70 11 % 3.6 86 R 395.8 93 5 7%0 225.5 233 - WB T 380.5 11 164 6% 10% 24.7 387sQ 26 403 -238 5996 L 401 9 60 1645 37 / 146.9 T93.5 144 R 390.8 39 8% 32.3 _ 59 x NB T 376.4 390 474 82% 29% 309.7 378,8 572 693 . -M -V% m a L 389.0 45 9 % 36.7 62 R 134.E 131 35% 47.7 144 EB T 1281 23 370 6% 23% 8.0 144-1 26 411 -41 -100k L 151.7 216 58% 88.4 241 R 1147 49 7 % 7.9 60 v SB T 113.2 620 714 87% 47% 98.3 - 780 900 "21 o L 118.3 44 fi% 7.4 - y - 60 t. . K 2u5.5 117 59% 120.2 �! 201 WB T 1349 16 199 8% 13% 10.6 i8Q:f71 - _ 26 339 i.-i(LlF:4'i •, i- 8196: w L 178.4 67 1518 34 % 60.0 - .i �•• 158.8- 112 - -- - - R 262-4 41 55 °a 13% 33.2 -- NB T 253.3 239 320 75 % 21 % 189.2 324 437 I V mI L 262.1 40 13% 33.1 �''t�• �� 58 f�+ n ti R 122.9 110 39% 47.5 112 [r EB T 132.7 26 285 9% 19% 12.1 26 306 -21 -79p' L 154.1 149 52% 80.5 168 Design Year - 2 Lane 2033 RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS a m Approach E Delay by Processed Processed Approach Process®d Inlorsection Movement% Approach k Movement Delay Weighted Delayb inlersoction Demand Demand Approach 2 3 Direction o 3 ° movement [sect Volume Volume Volume Approach Total Volume Wei glued bS y Approach Delay Volume Volume Difference %DiiTerrnte c M IvPhi ivph) IvPhi Volume Volume (seclveh] [seclveh) Nph) ivph) [seclvehj y R 21.3 152 19% 4.1 186 - = m Y SB 796 45% - 28.8 0 1004 _1 L 3Q.d 64A 81% 24.6 818 ✓� R 34,8 260 65% 22.5 288 in W8 T 33A 743 403 35% 23% 11.8 34.3 148 436 43 -80/0 1749 I7,8 0 m m FEB T 15.4 411 551 7' 31% 1i.5 21.8 409 558 -7 1% L 40.6 140 250.4 10-3 i49 Design Year - 2 Lane 2033 Travel Time Evaluation: 2033 AM - Southbound CID From Intersection VISSIM Crossing Intersection (sec) (min) _1 Wedington Dr 91.13 1.5 2Y Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St 120.31 2.0 3 Roundabout 1 3 Roundabo_ut 1 Roundabout 2 178.08 3.0 4 4 Roundabout 2 97.06 1.6 5 Main St / MLK Blvd Total 486.6 8.1 Travel Time Evaluation 2033 AM - Northbound CID From Intersection VISSIM - Crossing Intersection (sec) (min) 5 Main St / MLK Blvd 337.5 5.6 4 Roundabout 2 4 Roundabout 2 482.6 8.0 3 Roundabout 1 3 Roundabout 1 702.2 11.7 2 Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St 406.6 6.8 1 Wedington Dr Total 1928.9 32.1 Design Year 2033 4-Lane Build RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS e ;, d Approach m E Delay by Processed Processed Approach Processed Intersection Movement °,6 Approach % Movement Delay9htad W0i Delay t]y lntersection Demand Demand 12 Direction o movement (sec] Volume Volume Volume Approach Total Volume Weighted by Approach Delay Volume A roach PP Difference °k Difference c (vph} (Vphl (Vph} Volume Volume �clveh I I {vPhl Volume {seclveh] Isedveh] {vph} R 9.1 64 11% 1.0 66 p` SB T 24.7 268 561 48% 17% 11.8 29.1 �- 248 553 8 1% o L 39.8 230 41% 16.3 239 °' _ f 1. WB R T 122.2 135.3 107 271 694 15% 39% 21% 18.6 52.7 _ • - "~ xn�'7 587. ' 117 307 798 = ; T "LD¢ .. ii -t89fi ' L 276"4 31T 3252 46% 126.2 �.' ?-I, ., 374 : jiff"�' p a8 1Z8a. �. R 341.5 433 0 61 /a 208.2 ,C 674 i• �. _. NB T 350.5 172 710 24% 22% 85.0 269 1102 n" 1,36% n L 360"8 105 15% 53"3CL 159 _- R 139.6 155 12% 16.8 ' - 201 - - EB T 1404 954 1287 74% 40% 104.0 7 iO:D: 1284 1731F - +.4�q:; ; i • _2gyb L 138A 179 14% 19"2 246 .. R 26"8 113 15% 4.1 125 65 SB T 29.6 453 732 62% 35% 18.3 :9 496 810 -78 -I0% o L 551 166 23% 12.4 187 E R 427 18 8% 3.6 17 WB T 42.9 90 210 43% 10% 18.4 70,s :. 'i 85 203 7 3% a L 99"0 102 2066 49% 48.3 ?;7 101 R 679.3 97 14% 94.7 159 -'- as o' NB T 761"2 546 697 78% 34% 595.8 7392 845 1084 L 6257 54 8% 48.7 80 l,: he 43.6 61 14% 6.3 59 n r EB T 51.6 231 427 54% 21% 27.9 71;Q.. 224 418 9 2% L 116.8 134 31 % 36.8 135 R 12.6 33 5% 0.7 86 SB T 14.7 564 627 90% 36% 13.3 15.9 610 782 -159 -20% . a L 42"3 29 5% 2"0 gg R 219.4 83 59% 128.5 233 a WB T 320.6 9 142 6% 8% 20.7 245:x 26 403 =2_@_i, 8598 0 L 274.4 50 1755 35 % 95.9 - -- - 7... 144 187.3 48 is% 15.2 59 Ca NB T 223.9 490 596 82% 34% 184.0 221 B':, '. ' 572 693 _97 •14% L r 232.8 58 10% 22.5 - _ 62 R 52 4 141 36% 18.9 - 144 ti..; w EB T 778 24 391 6% 22% 4.8 77:7 26 411 •20 -5% L 93.5 226 58% 54.0 241 R 5.0 49 6% 0-3 60 a SB T 6.0 658 756 87% 41% 5.2 6.1 780 900 =�ia5'a, �• •; -195( L 8.4 49 6% 0.5 60 R 7 6 198 4 5 201 m WB T 94 26 337 $% 18% 0.7 8.2 26 339 L 8.9 112 1842 33% 2.9 8'4 112 R 4.3 56 13% 0.6 55 as NB T 5.1 322 436 74% 24% 3.8 5A 324 437 -1 D% L 8.1 58 131/, 11 58 R 16.7 119 300% 6.4 112 a a' EB T 18.9 28 314 9% 17% 1.7 18.4 1 1 26 306 8 2% L 19.5 166 53% 10.3 168 Design Year - 4 Lane 20:73 RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS o m Approach E Delay b Y Y Processed Processed Approach processed intersection Movement9b Approach °9 Movement Delay Weighted Delay by Intersection Demand Demand Approach v Direction v 'a movement (sec) Volume Volume Volume Approach Total Volume Welgh[ed by Approach Delay Volume Volume Difference °!a D111erence E Ivphl lrph) {Vph) Volume Volume (seclveh) (seciveh) Nph) (vph) (9eChreh) 2 R 10.5 160 1BA 1.9 186 m so - 900 47% - 21.2 0 1004 -104 -10% Y g L 23.7 734 82% 19.3 816 R 12.5 290 65% 8.1 288 rn VVB T 21.8 154 443 35% 23% 7.5 15.7 148 436 7 2% G 1900 98.5 D EB T 15.8 408 557 73°I° 29°/0 11.5 16.3 4D9 55$ 1 D4'o L 17.5 149 27% 43 149 Design Year - 4 Lana 2033 Travel Time Evaluation: 2033 AM - Southbound CID From Intersection VISSIM — Crossing Intersection (sec) (min) 1 Wedington Dr 84.1 1.4 2 Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St 102.35 1.7 3 Roundabout 1 3 Roundabout 1 74.22 1.2 4 Roundabout 2 4 Roundabout 2 85.07 1.4 5 Main St / MLK Blvd Total 345.7 5.8 Travel Time Evaluation 2033 AM - Northbound CID From Intersection VISSIM Crossing Intersection (sec) (min) 5 Main St / MLK Blvd 79.5 1.3 4 Roundabout 2 4 Roundabout 2 278.7 4.6 3 Roundabout 1 3 Roundabout 1 905.5 15.1 2 Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St 381.7 6.4 1 Wedington Dr Total 1645.4 27.4 Design Year 2033 4-Lane to Wedington Drive Build RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Approach pp E Delay by Processed Processed Approach Processed Intersection Movement % Approach % Movement Delay Weighted Delay Intersection Demand Demand ` Direction a, i; 0 movement (sec) Volume Volume Volume Approach Total Volume Weighted by by Approach Approach Delay Volume Approach Difference %Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) Volume Volume (sec/veh) (vph) Volume (sec/veh) (vph) R 29.1 64 11 % 3.3 66 p` SB T 28 3 270 562 48 % 15 % 13.6 32.3 248 553 g ° 2 /0 o L 37.9 228 41 % 15-4 239 R 20.4 120 15 % 3 1 117 v WB T 25.2 309 798 39% 21% 9.8 43.3 307 798 •1 0% L 65.9 369 3855 46% 30.5 71.2 374 R 41-1 676 61 % 25.3 674 NB T 52 6 267 1100 24 % 29 % 12.8 46.3 269 1102 2 0 °1 a L 57.6 157 14% 82 159 a R 1232 167 12 % 14.8 201 EB T 124.5 1,036 1396 74% 36 % 92.4 122.6 1284 1731 . -335 -19% L 111.8 192 14 % 15.4 246 R 10.6 135 16% 1.7 125 n SB T 12.6 501 823 61 % 32% 7.6 19.8 810 13 2 o L 46.0 187 23% 10 4 187 87 E E R 195 17 8% 1.6 17 r2 WB T 34.1 89 206 43 % 8% 14.8 4533 85 203 3 2 a L 59.8 100 2537 48 % 28.8 22.7 101 R 13 1 160 15 % 1.9 159 x NB T 142 840 1080 78 % 43 % 11 0 14.5 845 1084 -4 0% L 20.0 80 7 % 1.5 $0 R 30.1 61 14 % 4.3 59 a EB T 37.6 231 427 54% 17% 20.3 38.3 224 418 9 2% L 432 136 32% 13.7 135 R 7.7 38 6% 0.4 86 SB T 9.3 616 687 90% 31% 8.3 9.2 610 782 -95 -12% o 0 L 10.8 33 5% 0.5 86 R 41.5 237 58 % 23.9 233 WB T 44.5 27 411 6 % 19% 2.9 43-0 26 403 8 2 0 L 45.1 147 2192 36% 162 22 2 144 R 4.0 55 8% 0.3 59 NB T 4.1 567 687 83% 31% 3.4 4.2 572 693 -6 -1% L 5.4 66 10 % 0.5 62 R 50.8 144 35 % 18.0 144 n a EB T 560 25 407 6% 19% 3.5 533 26 411 -4 -1 % L 54.4 238 58% 31.8 1 241 R 5.8 59 7% 0-4 60 SB T 6.7 791 908 87 % 45 % 5 8 6.8 780 900 8 1 % a L 9.4 59 6 % 0.6 60 R 7.1 200 59 % 4.2 201 WB T 8.3 27 339 8% 17% 0.6 7.5 26 339 0 0% 0 L 8-1 113 1999 33 % 2.7 10.1 112 R 4.7 57 13% U 6 55 NB T 5.3 323 438 74 % 22 % 3.9 5.6 324 437 1 0% L 8.0 59 R 274 120 38% 10.5 112 a a: EB T 310 28 313 9% 16% 1 2.7 1 28.9 26 1 306 7 2% L 29.6 166 53 % 15.7 168 Design Year- 4 Lane to Wedington with improvements 2033 RUPPLE ROAD INTERSECTION ANALYSIS m Processed Processed Processed Movement % Movement Dela y Weighted Intersection Demand Demand Approach E m Delay by Volume Approach Intersection Approach Approach % Weighted by Delay by Delay Volume Approach Difference %Difference Direction c movement (sec] Ivph] Volume Volume Volume Total Volume Volume Approach {seclveh) (vph) Volume c 0 Svph1 ZvPn] {seclveh] {s Neh] (vph) 7 R 10,3 191 19% 1.9 186 SB - 1027 51 % _ 21 _a 0 1004 23 2% Y L 24.4 835 81% 19.9 818 M R s32 289 65% 8.6 288 h WB 7 25.6 154 443 35% 22% 6,9 17,5 148 435 7 2% 2028 20.0 0 0 ° FEB T 18.6 410 559 73% 28% 13,7 18.9 409. 558 1 0% a L 19.5 149 27% 5.2 149 Design Year - 4 Lane to Weding ton with improvement$ 2033 Travel Time Evaluation: 2033 AM - Southbound CP From Intersection — - Crossing Intersection VISSIM (sec) (min) 1 Wedington Dr 72.46 1,2 2 Persimmon St 2 Persimmon St 94.7 1.6 3 Roundabout 1 3 Roundabout 1 - -- - Roundabout 2 73.87 1.2 4 4 Roundabout 2 85.04 1.4 5 Main St / MLK Blvd Total 326.1 5.4 Travel Time Evaluation 2033 AM - Northbound CID From Intersection VISSIM - Crossing Intersection (sec) (min) 5 Main St / MLK Blvd Roundabout 2 79.8 1.3 4 4 Roundabout 2 71.1 1.2 3 Roundabout 1 3 2 Roundabout1 - - Persimmon St 101.0 1.7 2 Persimmon St 115.7 1.9 1 Wedington Dr Total 367.6 6.1 Turning Movement Counts Persimmon Street / Rupple Road CA A Wedington Drive / Rupple Road JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 File Name : Persimmon-Rupple Site Code :Count 1 Start Date : 10/8/2013 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Cars - Bank 1 RUPPLE PERSIMMON RUPPLE PERSIMMON Franc North From East From South From West Stnli Time Righl 'llhru Left _ Pcds Am e,A Rivm 111rU__Left _ Pcds At Tr Itigln Tlttu Left Pcds ! _A�.r�i Right nru _ Left_'_Peds . A,, T-1i 1.11.1. 07:00 AM 19 20 6 0 45 1 15 11 0 27 9 11 7 0 27 6 22 18 0 46 145 07:15 AM : 18 50 26 0 94 6 17 32 0 55 34 15 10 0 59 11 51 20 2 84 292 07:30 AM 19 45 37 0 101 2 24 20 0 46 53 33 10 0 96 8 52 22 1 83 326 07:45A�i' 7 12 37 0 56 4 10 16 0 30 28 13 5 0 46 2 5_0____30_ 0 82 _ 214 Total 63 127 106 0 296 13 66 79 0 158 124 72 32 0 _ 228 27 175 90 3 295 977 08:00 AM 16 5 16 0 37 1 8 1 0 10 4 7 1 0 12 0 26 15 0 41 100 08:15 AM 8 3 6 0 17 4 5 0 0 9 3 5 0 0 8 0 16 15 0 31 65 08:30 AM 7 7 7 0 21 3 6 1 0 10 0 3 1 0 4 1 23 7 0 31 66 08.45 AM 5 4 7 0 16 0 5 1 0 6 0 5 0 0 5 1 11 9 0 21 48 Total i 36 19 36 0 91 8 24 3 0 35 7 20 2 0 29 2 76 46 0 124 I 279 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 3 3 6 0 12 0 7 3 0 10 3 3 0 0 6 0 10 6 1 17 45 11:15 AM 5 9 1 0 15 3 5 1 1 10 0 5 0 0 5 0 11 5 0 16 1 46 11:30 AM 7 4 8 0 19 2 10 2 0 14 1 5 3 0 9 1 8 9 0 18 60 11:45 AM 14 1 8 0 23 4 5 1 0 10 3 6 0 0 9 1 9 8 0 18 60 Total 29 17 23 0 69 9 27 7 1 _ 44 7 19 3 0 29 2 38 28 1 69 211 12:00 PM 8 4 7 0 19 2 10 0 0 12 2 5 1 0 8 0 13 4 0 17 56 12:15PM 5 5 4 0 14'i 3 6 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 5, 0 10 8 0 18! 46 12:30 PM 7 11 7 0 25 2 7 2 2 13 2 4 0 0 6 0 10 4 0 14 58 12:45 PM 6 10 5 0 21 1 4 1 0 6 2 6 1_ 0 9 1 11 4_ 0 16 52 Total 26 30 23 0 79 8 27 3 2 40 ' 6 20 2 0 28 1 44 20 0 65 212 *** BREAK *** 02:30 PM 12 16 5 0 33 3 16 7 0 26 7 9 1 0 17 3 10 12 0 25 101 02:45 PM 16 _ 19 10 0 45 4 7 14 0 25 _ 11 16 3 I 31 4 12 7 1 24 125 Total 28 35 15 0 78, 7 23 21 0 51 IS 25 4 1 48 7 22 19 1 49 226 03:00 PM 6 5 13 0 24 5 16 6 0 27 29 34 6 124 193 2 30 28 5 65 1 309 03:15 PM 9 8 12 0 29 4 8 4 0 16 12 16 2 50 80 0 17 13 0 30 155 03:30 PM 13 4 6 1 24 3 30 3 0 36 6 10 1 2 19 1 20 12 0 33 112 03:45 PM 19 11 7 0 37 8 16 3 0 27 1 8 4 3 16 2 14 9 9 34 114 Total 47 28 38 1 114 20 70 16 0 106 48 68 13 179 308 ! 5 81 62 14 162 690 04:00 PM 8 6 9 0 23 5 22 1 0 28 5 8 1 0 14 2 17 9 0 28 93 04:15 PM 13 3 9 2 27 9 18 2 0 29 5 5 0 0 10 0 8 17 0 25 91 04:30 PM 14 14 9 1 38 7 29 5 2 43 6 4 1 4 15 2 13 17 2 34 130 04_45 PM 12 24 12 0 48 8 23 7 2 40 3 8 10 12 2 15 12_ 0 29 129 Total 47 47 39 3 136 1 29 __ 92 15 4 140 19 25 3 4 51 6 53 55 2 116 443 05:00 PM 11 16 9 0 36 0 19 4 1 24 0 4 0 0 4 0 12 14 2 28 92 05:15 PM 13 14 7 0 34 0 15 5 0 20 0 6 1 0 7 0 9 11 0 20 81 Grand Total 300 333 296 4 933 94 363 153 8 618 229 259 60 184 732 50 510 345 23 928 3211 Appreh % 32.2 35.7 31.7 0.4 15.2 58.7 24.8 1.3 31.3 35A 8.2 25.1 5.4 55 37.2 2.5 __.Total % 9.3 10.4 9.2 0.1 29.1 2.9 11.3 4.8 U 19.2 7.1 8.1 1 A 5.7 22.8 1.6 15.9 10.7 0.7 28.9 Cars 300 333 296 4 933 94 363 153 8 618 229 259 60 184 732 50 510 345 23 928 3211 % Cars 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1_00 100 100 100 10.0_ 100 100 100 100 ' 100 Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 _100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Persimmon-Rupple Count 1 10/8/2013 :2 RUPPLL Out In Total 698 9333 16301 300 333 296 4 .0. 0 0 0 300 333, 296 4 Right Thru LeftPeds 0 w w� z o v aa North � v ou _00 m o co�n c ±n 2. 1018l2013 07:00 AM w w 10181201305:15PM o �' a N a ui -nr r 000w i Mnri nr- ;:2 w Cars 'wow z 0 � Ina n Bank 1 m o sw � ' a a Nmow wowm 1 F QWt. Thru Rlght Peds- 60 259II 229 184 0. 01 ❑ 0 60 259, 229 184 536 732 F 1268' n- o- 536 732 1268i Out In Total JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No RUPPLE PERSIMMON Fsbin 1Vorlh From East Start Time — .... Right 77tru Left Pcds nm r. - .Rizirr lhnr Leif Pals Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 19 20 6 0 45 11 1 15 11 0 07:15 AM j 18 50 26 0 94 6 17 32 0 07:30 AM 19 45 37 0 101 1 2 24 20 0 07:45 AM 7 12 37 0 56 _ 4 10 16 0 row Volume 63 127 106 0 296 13 66 79 0 App. Tc 21.3 42.9 35.8 0 8.2 41.8 50 0 PHF 1 .829 .635 .716 .000 .733 .54�617 U00 Cars 63 127 106 0 296 13 66 79 0 % Cars 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Persimmon-Rupple Count 1 10/8/2013 3 RUPPLE PERSIMMON From South From West I— Righr T11111 Left Pcds - .fro f". Right_._ Thru Leff Pc& . nn. r„a inl. TaA 27 9 11 7 0 27 6 22 18 0 46 145 55 34 15 10 0 59 11 51 20 2 84 292 46 53 33 10 0 96 8 52 22 1 83 326 30 28 13 5 0 46 2 50 30 0 82 . 214 158 124 72 32 0 228 27 175 90 3 295 977 54.4 31.6 14 0 ! 9.2 59-3 30.5 1 -718 .585 .545 -800 .900 .594 .614 .841 .750 .375 .878 .749 158 124 72 32 0 228 27 175 90 3 295 977 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RUPPLE Out In Total _ 1751 2961 1 4711 0 0 0i 175' 2961 4711 63 1271 1061 01 0 0 01 0' 63 1271 1061 01 Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data V +T N J _ A A D z +n o North o `" o �Q2 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM 1 c rnM e Cars r mow, g a Bank "waw w wow— d n p° P QO 1 + / Leis Thru. - pigM.-Ped..s- 32 721 124 0 v_ a1 o v 32 72i 124 ❑ 233 228 461 0_ 0 0 __ _ 233 228461, Out In Total JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 File Name : Persimmon-Rupple Site Code : Count 1 Start Date : 10/8/2013 Page No : 4 RUPPLE PERSIMMON RUPPLE PERSIMMON From North From East From South Fran) West Start Time Right Thru Left 1 Peds _-ma—Right Thru Left Peds j_npp. Thru Left Peds _ Yw `Bight 1 hni Left Pcds %w 1 o 1 - hp TWO Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:15 AM 11:15 AM 5 9 1 0 15 3 5 1 1 10 0 5 0 0 5 0 11 5 0 16 1 46 11:30 AM 7 4 8 0 19 2 10 2 0 14 1 5 3 0 9 1 8 9 0 18 60 11:45 AM 14 1 8 0 23 4 5 I 0 10 3 6 0 0 9 1 9 8 0 18 60 12:00 PM 8 4 7 0 19 2 _10 0 0 12 - 2 5 l 0 8. 0_ 13 4 0 17 56 Total V01ume ! 34 18 24 0 76 11 30 4 1 46 6 21 4 0 31 2 41 26 0 69 ., 222 _%APp. Total ! 44.7 23.7 31.6 0 23.9 65.2 8.7 2.2 19A 67.7 12.9 0 2.9 59.4 37.7 0 PHF .607 .500 .750 .000 .826 .6.88 .750 _500 .250 _921 500 .875 .333 000 ._961 _.500 .788 .722 .000 .958 -925 Cars 34 18 24 0 _ 76 11 30 4 1 46 6 21 4 0 31 2 41 26 0 69 222 % Cars 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0', 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RUPPLE Out In Total 58' 761 134 0' 'i 01, 0 5_8, ,76 134 34' 18' 241, 0I 01 0' OI 0 3 14 6 24, 01 Right Thru Left Peds 1— i ► Peak Hour Data N M O' M' ID O fD. N N ..- a J 0 a� North p mom c 1° �o 2 F Peak Hour Begins at 11:15 AM S i o o m N 0 NON, 7 M A. R O� Cars N O Ri nJ a co -0 Bank1 �aor �tP tD O 000 to J J a V V m 4 /— Lett Thru Right__ Peds_ 4 21 6 0 0 0� 0 0 4 21. 8 0 24 31 55 0 0! 0 24 31' 1 55 Out In Total JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 RUPPLE PERSIMMON From North From East Start Time Right ' Thru Left Peds -�w T— RtFht_Thru Lef1._ Pats Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 02:45 PM 02:45 PM 16 19 10 0 45 4 7 14 0 03:00 PM 6 5 13 0 24 1, 5 16 6 0 03:15 PM 9 8 12 0 29 1 4 8 4 0 03:30PM ;. 13 4 6 1_ 24 3 30 3 _ 0 Total volume 44 36 41 1 122 16 61 27 0 % App. Total 36.1 29.5 33.6 0.8 _ 15.4 58.7 26 0 PHF .688 .474 .788 .250 .678 .800 _ .5_08 .482 _ .000 Cars 44 36 41 1 122 16 61 27 0 % Cars 100 100 100 100 100 1100 100 100 0 Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 File Name : Persimmon-Rupple Site Code :Count 1 Start Date : 10/8/2013 Page No :5 RUPPLE PERSIMMON From Sau_ th Frant Vvest ..m rw, Rig]n -rhni Left Pcd.S_ S,p iw Right Thnt Left. Pcds ." p..t.. 25 11 16 3 1 31 4 12 7 1 24 125 27 29 34 6 124 193 2 30 28 5 6S 309 16 12 16 2 50 80 0 17 13 0 30 155 36 , 6 10 1 2.. 19 _ _ l_ 20 12 0 33 _ 112 104 58 76 12 177 323 7 79 60 6 152 701 18 23.5 3.7 54.8 4.6 52 39.5 19 .722 _ .500 .559 .500 .357 _.418 _ .438 .658 .536 .300 .585 .567 104 58 76 12 177 323 7 79 60 6 152 701 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RUPPLE Out... _ ..1n._ Total 152 122. 274 0 0 0 152 122 274 44 36 41' 1 0 0_ a_ 4 44 36 41_ 1 Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data m o (oo � IDo� m ,:. A 6 N (V mom North Doom i7 v / Peak Hour Begins at 02:45 PM �' m CA a tiotiL v Cars .. Aw. _ i• o ev SC w 6a Rk 1..- - x o y 0 •- Q ,Dvt� N ..... .. R t^ o00 m w Left._ Thru ,_Right Peds 12. 76 58 177 0_ 0 0 0 12 76 58 177 70 323 393I 0 0 01 0, 3231 393, Out In Total Weddington-Rupple Count 2 JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 Groups Printed- Cars - Bank I File Name : WEDDIN-1 Site Code : Count 2 Start Date : 10/9/2013 Page No : 1 Rupple Rd Weddington Rupple Rd Weddington From North From East From South From Wcst Start Time Right Thru Lell Peds Right Left Peds Right Thru Uft Peds Right Thru Lcll Prds lay. -row 07:00 AM 10 21 40 0 15 _Thru 61 31 0 41 9 1 0 3 250 27 0 509 07:15 AM ! 10 27 49 0 21 49 64 0 32 22 3 0 6 261 43 1 588 07:30 AM I 10 32 41 0 25 56 51 0 44 25 2 0 7 231 65 0 589 07:45 AM - 15 27_ 52 0. -.. 21 73 26 0 44 18 8 0 9 257 37 t1 Total 45 107 182 0 82 239 172 0 161 74 14 0 25 999 172 _ 1 _587 2273 08:00 AM 9 13 47 0 22 88 20 0 46 8 0 0 7 198 24 0 482 08:15 AM 3 2 36 0 20 96 19 0 18 5 1 0 5 l43 17 0 365 08:30 AM 10 4 32 0 17 78 10 0 14 3 1 0 0 142 13 0 324 08:45 AM 8 i 3- 28 _ ... • . 16 68 --1_3 0 19 3 1 0 2 144 13 1 329 Total 30 32 143 0 75 330 62 0 W 19 3 0 14 627 67 _ 1 1500 *** BREAK *** 1 1:00 AM 10 6 23 0 14 88 24 0 19 5 2 0 2 91 7 0 291 1 1:15 AM 5 4 30 0 26 118 16 0 26 6 2 0 1 109 5 0 348 11:30 AM 12 2 40 0 20 102 23 0 24 4 0 0 1 121 9 0 358 1.1.:45.AM. .. 9 13 37 1 - 24 143 23 0 19 5 2 1 2 108 3 0 390 Total 36 25 130 1 84 451 86 0 88 20 6 1 6 429 24 _ 0 1387 12:00 PM 8 7 30 0 33 134 31 0 20 4 3 0 2 100 10 0 382 12:15 PM 12 5 44 1 24 127 20 1 20 9 2 0 1 127 10 i 1 404 12:30 PM 12 8 49 2 24 146 12 1 1 i 17 3 1 1 2 116 6 0 400 12:45.PM.. 9 7 41 2--- 22 132 18 1 18 4 2 0 2 109 12 0I 379 Total j 41 27 164 5 1 103 539 81 3 75 20 8 1 7 452 38 1 1565 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 12 10 39 5 38 211 30 1 21 7 3 1 1 120 16 7 j 522 04:15 PM 25 10 39 0 44 202 25 5 21 10 5 0 5 135 17 1 544 04:30 PM 23 6 48 0 24 218 32 0 19 6 7 0 4 130 11 0 528 _04:45 PM 36_ 24 38 0 34 200 61 0 25 8 4 0 1 126 12 0 1 569 Total 96 50 164 5 140 831 148 6 86 31 19 .. 1 11 511 56 8 2163 05:00 PM 31 20 43 0 41 182 48 0 35 15 9 0 5 129 11 1 570 05:15 PM 44 28 41 0 15 210 39 0 31 16 3 0 4 131 12 0 574 05:30 PM 47 29 32 2 20 243 46 0 30 7 4 0 3 141 1 fi 1 621 05:45 1'M .-. - 4 1 3 0 1 26 4 0_ 4 1 1 0 0 3 0 60 Total 126 78 119 2 77 661 137 0 100 39 17 0 12 _12 413 42 ? 1825 Grand Total li 374 319 902 13 561 3051 686 9 607 203 67 3 75 3431 399 13 10713 Apprch % 23.3 19.8 56.1 0.8 13 70.8 15-9 0.2 69 23.1 7-6 0.3 1.9 87.6 10.2 0.3 1 Tolal. d/n - 3.7 3 8.4 0.1 5.2 285 6.4 0.1 5.7 1.9 0.6 0 0.7 32 3.7 0.1 Cars 374 319 902 13 5.61 3051 686 9 ! 607 203 67 3 75 3431 399 13 10713 % Cars 100 100 100. 100 . 1.00 1.00- 100 100- _ 100 100 100 100 1 100 100 100 100 100 Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 % Bank 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 File Name : WEDDIN-1 Site Code : Count 2 Start Date : 10/9/2013 Page No : 2 Rupple Rd out in Total 1163 1608 2771 0 0 0 1163 1608 2771 374 319 902 13 0 ❑. ❑ ❑ 374 319 902 13 Right Thru Lert Peds f ► ioo�d ;g 6 CD ' M M J �. m Ln .� � .0 North o0 o MOM v- s ► f 3 Q Q °' `� 10/9/2013 072 AM c n M e M M a 10/9/2013 05:45 PM a 0 wo N U) nz r vov m a Cars '+ xmom No 7Bank r�i 2 M r O m m ) ® m a V O r l W A i ► Left Thru- .Right Peds 67 2❑1 607 3 0. 0 0 0 67 .2031 607 3 1080 880 1960 ❑ ❑ ❑ 1080 880 1%0 Out In 'r,"al JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Rupple Rd Weddington Rupple Rd Weddington .From North From East Fr_oln South Frotn West Start Time Right fhru—Left Peds .im tW.� . ltigllt _Illru [.eft Ped5 nry. T: Niyhl Thm Lell Pcds. - .in..T..w - RigM. - Thin. .Leff . l'cil�. Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 10 21 40 [} 71 15 61 31 0 107 41 9 1 0 51 1: 3 250 27 0 07:15 AM 10 27 49 0 86 21 49 64 0 134 32 22 3 0 57 6 261 43 1 07:30 AM 10 32 41 0 83 25 56 51 0 132 44 25 2 0 71 7 231 65 0 07:45 AM ., _15— 27 52 0 94 21 73 26 0 120 44 18 _ _ 8 0 70 9 257 37 0 Tolal Velunu 45 107 182 0 334 82 239 172 0 493 161 74 14 0 249 25 999 172 1 e _ 32 54.5 0 16.6 48-5 34.9 0 64.7 29.7 5.6 0 2A 83.5 14.4 0.1 PHF _13.5 .750 .836 .875 .000 .888 .820 .818 .672 .000 .920 1 .915 .740 .438 .000 .877 .694 .937 662 250 Cars 45 107 182 0 334 82 239 172 0 493 161 74 14 0 249 25 999 172 1 % Cars 100 100 100 0 100 1 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 100 Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rupple Rd Out In Total 328 334 6S2 0 1 0 0 328 `_33 W 45 1071 182 0 ❑ 0 0_ 0 45 107 162 0 Right Thru Left Peds + L► Peak Hour Data -ITN0W A AO c a North N C N s f+ C f w O+ W 1—? N N M c ° Q1 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM c o ry CarsF—CD w v w 8 mow Bank xNCN 7 m a w w w a 000 a+ocn— r 1 -Left Thru. - Right-_ Reds 14 741 181 0 0_ 01 0_ 0 14 741 1B1 0 304 249 553 Q _ ❑ 0 304 249 553 out In Total WEDDIN-1 Count 2 10/9/2013 3 n,Tw1 Im. Taal 280 509 311 588 303 589 303 587 1197 2273 .962 _ .965 1197 2273 100 100 0 0 0' 0 JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Rupple Rd Wcddington Rupple Rd Wcddington _From North From m East From South From West Start Ti.inic Right Thni _ Left. Peds s , w (tight Thru Left_ iWs _„w i— _ Riyhi Thru Left I'eds ,jr t.w Right 7 hru Lerl IwF' Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:45 AM 11:45 AM 9 13 37 1 60 1 24 143 23 0 190 19 5 2 1 27 2 108 3 0 12:00 PM j 8 7 30 0 45 j 33 134 31 0 198 20 4 3 0 27 2 100 10 0 12:15 PM 12 5 44 1 62 1 24 127 20 1 172 20 9 2 0 31 1 127 10 1 123OP M 12 8 49 2 71 _ 24 t46 12 _ 1 183 17 3 1 1 22 2 116 6 0 Totni Volume 41 33 160 4 238 105 550 86 2 _ 743 76 21 8 2 107 7 451 29 1 %App.Total 17.2 13.9 67.2 1.7 14.1 74 11.6 0.3 71 _19.6 7.5 1.9 1.4 92.4 5.9 0.2 PFIF _ .854_ .635 .S16 .500 .838 .795 .942 .694 .500 .938 .950 .583 .667 .500 .863 .875 .888 .725 .250 Cars 41 33 160 4 238 105 550 86 2 _ 743 76 21 8 2 107 7 45[ 29 1 % Cars 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Sank l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rupple Rd __QIJI ._ In. Total _ 155 238 393 o ._ a n_ 155 2�36, 393: 41 33 160 4 0 0 a 0 41 33 166 4 Right Thru Left Pods Peak Hour Data `m ❑d a �' J yUCU ❑ W Omo C o -- North .1 G V oeoo,o a v L ► 1 aN c � c. Peak Hour Begins at 11:45 AM o. p� Cars o,Prn IX Bank mom 0.10 u) —0— ,y � O_ a d m a Non, oco° y � i _.Left. Thru. _ Right_ Peds 8 21 76 2 0 0 0 0 8 21 76 2 107 233 o 0 A 107 233. Out in Tat -at WEDDIN-1 Count 2 10/9/2013 4 qr T-1 ho Tpinl 113 390 112 382 139 404 124 400 488 1576 .979 .975 488 1576 100 100 0 0 0 0 JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC. 10816 Executive Center Dr. Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 Rupple Rd Weddington Rupple Rd From North From East From South Slar[ Tlnic_ Right Thru Left Pws _ ..rp. r«,1 kigin 'Ihru Left Peds _ .47 r�..,� Mj;hr Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 36 24 38 0 98 34 200 61 0 295 25 8 4 0 05:00 PM ! 31 20 43 0 94 41 182 48 0 271 35 15 9 0 05:15 PM I 44 28 41 0 113 1 15 210 39 0 264 31 16 3 0 05 30 11.M _ 47 29 _ 32 2 110 20 243 46 0 309 30 7 4 0 Total volume 1 158 101 154 2 415 110 835 194 0 1139 121 46 20 0 App Taal 38.1 24.3 37.1 0.5 9.7 73.3 17 0 _ 64.7 24.6 10.7 0 PH .840 .871 .895 .250 .918 _ .671 A59 .795 .000_.9_22 ' .864 .719 .556 .000 Cars 158 101 154 2 415 110 835 194 0 1139 121 46 20 0 % Cars 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Bank 1- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 File Name : WEDDIN-1 Site Code : Count 2 Start Date : 10/9/2013 Page No : 5 �v�ddh,�fol, From Wcst .tiy, T. sl Rtiflii _rhly I.Cft 1 Peds 11 T.� Inf. Toal 37 1 126 59 5 129 50 4 131 41 3 141. 187 13 527 2.2 88.r1 792 .650 .934 187 13 527 100 100 100 01 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 11 1 12 0 IG _ 1 51 2 8.6 0.3 797 .500 51 2 100 100 0 0 0 0 Rupple Rd Out In Total 207 —4151 622 0 0'i 0, L 207 415 6221 158', 101', 1541 2 0. 00 0 158 101_ 154 2 Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data p m m. dl J rpm_ 0 ~ o 0 o p p - i� c ti N M 2 North c'n Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM C ,°°; Kars-- r cWo to _ non as - ¢ Bank1__ p,oa' a O N 4 o � �' o — 4-� -/ heft Thru Right Peds. 20 46 121 0 �_ 0 0 0 20 121 fl 308� —187' 495 0 0' _ 0 308: 187 495 Out In Total 139 569 146 570 147 574 161 621 593 2334 921 .940 593 2334 100 100 0 - 0 0 0 McCoy, Dee From: City -Clerk Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:39 PM To: Adams, Rhonda; Branson, Lisa; Broyles, Lana; Eads, Gail; Gray, Adella; Johnson, Kimberly; Mayor; Kinion, Mark; Long, Alan; Marr, Don; Marsh, Sarah; McCoy, Dee; Mulford, Patti; Pennington, Blake; Petty, Matthew; Roberts, Gina; Schoppmeyer, Martin; Smith, Lindsley; Smith, Sondra; Tennant, Justin; Williams, Kit Cc: Pate, Jeremy Subject: FW: Changes Needed/Less Spending to Rupple expansion From: Sarah Moore [mailto:mooresarah_bgm@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 12:27 PM To: City_Clerk Subject: Changes Needed/Less Spending to Rupple expansion Hello city council members. My name is Sarah Moore and I live close to Wilson park on Patricia lane. My family is one of the numerous soles that came to the university of arkansas as a transplant and never left after falling in love with the beauty of the city and the people of Fayetteville. We have been a bit dismayed in recent years as increased traffic and lack of safe pedestrian venues has hampered our attempts to go more places in the city by bicycle and by foot. The primary reason we picked where we live is to be able to not get in a vehicle for several days or more and venture to parks, trails, restaurants, & the grocery without fear of personal safety. Let me tell you, we have not been getting nearly as far as we would like and definetly feel that the safety of ourselves and our 2 year old daughter can be in jeopardy as we try to go out and do the above. With the Rupple proposal to 4 lane and spend almost 2 million, I believe there is an alternative to improve Rupple using less funds and then redirect funds to areas around town including college avenue. ( an area that we will NEVER venture on by foot the way it is) We are asking that the council consider some of the suggestions of Matthew Petty as well as the input of citizens on areas around town in the core of town that need improvements in order to further Fayetteville's mission to be green and promote alternate methods of transportation. --Do we really need 4 lanes in a highly residential area with a school? I live off of North st with a 25mph posted speed limit and 2 lanes and I feel my life in peril often as cars careen at 50mph easily. --Has a council member tried to leave from Dickson or even township and venture North on college by foot? I would be very interested in your experience on this. --Can we tighten our spending on Rupple and redirect funds towards a trail or sidewalks on College avenue to connect a corridor from the current bike trail and downtown? It is very hard for me to witness someone on foot on College avenue today where often times the sidewalk ends or is taken over by debris and the pedestrian is left to scurry dangerously on college avenue to continue their journey. Every citizen should count and those that use this corridor should matter and their journey should be made easier with continual sidewalks, wider sidewalks, no debris/utility poles in the way of the path. We are very proud of the current trail system and impressed with what has been done there and find it to be a jewel of our town. Unfortunately, most individuals use College more prevantly and I'm afraid of the message we are giving others about what we really care about? Let's send the right message 1 but more importantly let's be proactive and progressive like the town we know we are - let's not be content with what we have but improve our college corridor for better business prosperity on this path and improved quality of life for the citizens of Fayetteville. Thanks so much for your time & consideration. Our family will be following this discussion closely. Sarah Moore Branson, Lisa From: Long, Alan Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:11 AM To: City_Clerk Subject: Re: College Avenue Proposal Good morning, Chris. I will support college improvements in the future, but it would be wrong to change the bond plan at this point. West fayetteville deserves the same amount of attention as the remainder of Fayetteville, especially with the proximity to 540. This may very well be the new "spine" of the city with the area west of 540 now the fastest growing area of our city, but the area with the least infrastructure. I must support the current bond plan. 1.7 million (the last phase of a bond program passed in 2006) will not fix college, but I would be happy to look at a new bond proposal in the future to address that area. The current bond issue is almost over and these improvements were promised to the residents on that side of town when the 2030 plan was developed and the bond money was divided. I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Sincerely, Alan T Long City of Fayetteville, AR City Council, Alderman- Ward 4 ward4 pos2 ,fayetteville-ar.gou On Mar 17, 2014, at 7:48 AM, "City_Clerk" <city clerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> wrote: From: Chris Baribeau[mailto:chrisCcDmodusstudio.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:43 PM To: City_Clerk Subject: College Avenue Proposal Dear Members of the Fayetteville City Council, I am simply writing today to express my support for College Avenue Corridor improvements in lieu of a total expenditure on the far west side of town. The spine of this city is perceived as a wasteland in the eyes and ears of citizens and visitors alike. Aside from the beautification improvements near the downtown core, our major north -south connection is a victim of neglect and a scarred residual of poor zoning decisions from decades ago. I really do not have to detail the magnitude of neglect that exists along this predominately sidewalk -less corridor. Fayetteville must continue a progressive growth by recognizing what is most important. I would argue that revitalizing our spine is paramount to visionary growth rooted in smart research and good urban planning. I support the strategic locations and concepts behind Alderman Petty's College Avenue Proposal and see the potential of these targeted areas as catalysts for change and redevelopment. As a citizen in Ward 1, I purposefully choose to live near the spine of this city because of the clearly central ability to access all the important residential, cultural, and retail centers. I want this corridor to be a beautiful and safe priority moving forward. I understand the need for the Rupple Road extension and connection, but it does not need to be overly engineered at this point in time when funds can be so impactful along the major existing traffic corridor of the city. I ask you to also support the core of our city and send a positive message to all other major re- investments taking place in the center of our city such as the major renovation to Fayetteville High School, The University of Arkansas' ongoing commitment to our powerful downtown core, and the investments by all manner of private citizens and investors that are supporting infill redevelopment as opposed to sprawl. The Fayetteville 2030 Plan is backbone enough to support a comprehensive and strategical investment into the College Avenue Corridor. Thank you. Chris M. Baribeau, AIA Principal Architect, Modus Studio chris baribeau modus studio 479.530.6298 m 479.455.5577 o Branson, Lisa From: John Kester <jk3three@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:00 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: Road Improvement Comments Dear Fayetteville City Council, My name is John Kester III, resident of Ward 2 at Garden Park apartments, and I am currently a PhD student at the University of Arkansas in the Environmental Dynamics program. I have been living in Fayetteville for 3 years and have appreciated the welcoming nature of community from the start. After living in Flagstaff, Arizona for the 2 years prior to making the move to Fayetteville, I was hoping to find another home that had a similar vision for the future that supported forward -thinking policies. I commend the city and the current administration for its continued efforts to support these types of policies. I know one of the significant issues that is being addressed in current meetings are the next steps for transportation. As I see the trail improvements and extensions coming together and the connection to south Fayetteville growing, I am reassured of this city's commitment. I would like to voice my support for the revitalization of College Ave to complement the city's efforts to provide safe and high quality transportation, for both drivers and those taking public transportation. I believe this corridor is in significant need of improvements and whatever city funds are available to support this project should be utilized. Sometimes I feel like I am in a different city when I travel over to College Ave and with all of the great businesses over there, both old and new, there needs to be more attention to making the street inviting. I am all for a city having different districts with unique character, but Fayetteville has the opportunity to extend its vitality to a solid foundation of commerce in College Ave. I will be unable to attend the meeting this Tuesday evening because of coursework and I hope this note provides support for College Ave improvements from someone who is becoming more appreciative of Fayetteville the longer I stay. Have a great week and thank you for your time. Sincerely, John Kester John Kester III Branson, Lisa From: Smith, Sondra Sent: Monday, March 17, 201412:14 PM To: Adams, Rhonda; Branson, Lisa; Broyles, Lana; Eads, Gail; Gray, Adella; Johnson, Kimberly; Mayor, Kinion, Mark; Long, Alan; Marr, Don; Marsh, Sarah; McCoy, Dee; Mulford, Patti; Pennington, Blake; Petty, Matthew; Roberts, Gina; Schoppmeyer, Martin; Smith, Lindsley; Smith, Sondra; Tennant, Justin; Williams, Kit Subject: FW: Please support items on City Council agenda: Urban Ag and Rupple Rd. extension From: Long, Alan Sent: Monday, March 17, 201412:03 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Fwd: Please support items on City Council agenda: Urban Ag and Rupple Rd. extension Could you forward this letter to the council? Alan T Long City of Fayetteville, AR City Council, Alderman- Ward 4 Begin forwarded message: From: Robyn Metzger < > Date: March 17, 2014 at 11:27:26 AM CDT To: " < > 0 Subject. Please support items on City Council agenda: Urban Ag and Rupple Rd. extension Reply -To: Robyn Metzger < > Dear Ms. Adams and Mr. Long, I'm writing to express my support for the proposed changes to Fayetteville's "Urban Agriculture" ordinance to allow more chickens and ducks, pygmy or dwarf goats, and bees on properties that meet the size requirements. I also support the widening of Rupple Rd. to a four -lane boulevard. I understand that some citizens think four lanes are unnecessary at this time. However, I live in a neighborhood off of Wedington and I can tell you that an alternate route south to MLK is badly needed. The "sprawl" that people think will result from building a four -lane road in fact already exists. The amount of traffic headed east to the 540 exchange makes Wedington incredibly dangerous. I could go on about the attention that the Wedington area needs, but I'll stop myself. Thank you for representing Ward 4! Robyn Metzger Branson, Lisa From: Smith, Sondra Sent: Monday, March 17, 201412:35 PM To: Adams, Rhonda; Branson, Lisa; Broyles, Lana; Eads, Gail; Gray, Adella; Johnson, Kimberly, Mayor, Kinion, Mark; Long, Alan; Marr, Don; Marsh, Sarah; McCoy, Dee; Mulford, Patti; Pennington, Blake; Petty, Matthew; Roberts, Gina; Schoppmeyer, Martin; Smith, Lindsley; Smith, Sondra; Tennant, Justin; Williams, Kit Subject: FW: Rupple Road Extension From: Long, Alan Sent: Monday, March 17, 201412:25 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road Extension Can you forward this to the council? Alan T Long City of Fayetteville, AR City Council, Alderman- Ward 4 ��t�'t.l-� ��t,s? rt I�n�it�•�ill�_,�3'.�.�t�� Begin forwarded message: From: Jeremy Battjes<tl)�iItiL fr_�,mitiI-ct,iif> Date: March 17, 2014 at 12:22:33 PM CDT To: < ,:rd4 Loti 2 c i I'LiN iil"-:.Ir. << ��, Ct<<�r�l ! ;?4,N 1 .ri (i(NI-Itc-6111r-sir-; tl > Cc: ccit"coulicII (1 11-1t[i[I10�N1tt.tu' 7, Subject: Rupple Road Extension City Council Members- CI11.E0 1-11 E[C11 :1r.;'o%> I am unable to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday night, but wanted to take this opportunity to share my desire to see Rupple Road (MLK to Persimmon) to be built as a 4-lane boulevard. As a resident on the west side of Fayetteville I have continually watched many new businesses and subdivisions pop up, without much in terms of increased infrastructure. Additionally, as I understand it, making the extension of Rupple Road a 4- lane boulevard was part of the original proposed part of the Transportation Improvement Bond and voters voted on it as a 44ane project versus 2-lane. Understanding this project was coming was one reason I purchased my home where I did. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. Jeremy Battjes Ward 4 Resident Branson, Lisa From: Sarah Moore <mooresarah_bgm@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 201412:27 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Changes Needed/Less Spending to Rupple expansion Hello city council members. My name is Sarah Moore and I live close to Wilson park on Patricia lane. My family is one of the numerous soles that came to the university of arkansas as a transplant and never left after falling in love with the beauty of the city and the people of Fayetteville. We have been a bit dismayed in recent years as increased traffic and lack of safe pedestrian venues has hampered our attempts to go more places in the city by bicycle and by foot. The primary reason we picked where we live is to be able to not get in a vehicle for several days or more and venture to parks, trails, restaurants, & the grocery without fear of personal safety. Let me tell you, we have not been getting nearly as far as we would like and definetly feel that the safety of ourselves and our 2 year old daughter can be in jeopardy as we try to go out and do the above. With the Rupple proposal to 4 lane and spend almost 2 million, I believe there is an alternative to improve Rupple using less funds and then redirect funds to areas around town including college avenue. ( an area that we will NEVER venture on by foot the way it is) We are asking that the council consider some of the suggestions of Matthew Petty as well as the input of citizens on areas around town in the core of town that need improvements in order to further Fayetteville's mission to be green and promote alternate methods of transportation. --Do we really need 4 lanes in a highly residential area with a school? I live off of North st with a 25mph posted speed limit and 2 lanes and I feel my life in peril often as cars careen at 50mph easily. --Has a council member tried to leave from Dickson or even township and venture North on college by foot? I would be very interested in your experience on this. --Can we tighten our spending on Rupple and redirect funds towards a trail or sidewalks on College avenue to connect a corridor from the current bike trail and downtown? It is very hard for me to witness someone on foot on College avenue today where often times the sidewalk ends or is taken over by debris and the pedestrian is left to scurry dangerously on college avenue to continue their journey. Every citizen should count and those that use this corridor should matter and their journey should be made easier with continual sidewalks, wider sidewalks, no debris/utility poles in the way of the path. We are very proud of the current trail system and impressed with what has been done there and find it to be a jewel of our town. Unfortunately, most individuals use College more prevantly and I'm afraid of the message we are giving others about what we really care about? Let's send the right message but more importantly let's be proactive and progressive like the town we know we are - let's not be content with what we have but improve our college corridor for better business prosperity on this path and improved quality of life for the citizens of Fayetteville. Thanks so much for your time & consideration. Our family will be following this discussion closely. Sarah Moore Branson, Lisa From: Rebekah Wood <info@terra-tots.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 201411:36 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: To City Council - Good afternoon! I am a fayetteville resident who resides close to downtown, and have lived in the south part of town for over 10 years. I LOVE my town! I truly love how accessible things are becoming for me and my young family. I can walk to work, the library, Almost everywhere we want to. BUT... not anywhere near College Ave! I am writing to convey my support of possible improvements to College Ave as opposed to Rupple Road area. In my years in Fayetteville I have often walked - or rather tried to walk- to various locations along College. South Fayetteville is highly populated by young families that love to take advantage of bike trails and sidewalks to get where they are going. Many useful locations could be safely accessed if we were to invest in improvements along College Ave. As it currently is, its a very scary endeavor to try to bike or walk anywhere around College. I hope that you take these things into consideration as you prepare our town for its future! Thank you for your service to our wonderful town, Rebekah Rebekah Champagne Owner, Terra Tots Natural Parenting www.terra-tots com C`Cinnite raio5 Owner, Maxine's Tap Room f3�}�J4;Ii4V4•rw. icy{.'GI"1[)CJE4.('C]�'l+`iF13Y,lIle_'�. <<i�r::�r?ni Branson, Lisa From: Julia Kennefick <kennefick@mac.com> Sent Monday, March 17, 201412:53 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Rupple Rd. vs. College Hi, I'm Julia Kennefick. I work at the University and have several school aged children, including one currently at Owl Creek School and another who will go there eventually. I drive Wedington nearly every week day morning, from Sunset Dr. where I live, out to Rupple. The traffic flowing in that direction is ok at that time of day, and even getting back, I don't find the traffic too bothersome. I feel that 2 lanes vs. 4 lanes would be preferable on Rupple in that it could handle the traffic while keeping the area manageable in terms of confusion and safety. However, College Ave is a mess and I really feel that we need some big improvements to it in terms of safety and just the desirability to be on it, both with cars and as a pedestrian. I'll give you an example. I have a Kia and have it serviced near Fiesta Square on the west side of College. I wanted to wait for my car one morning and do some shopping across the street and maybe get some coffee at ABC. Nothing doing! I could not cross the street as a pedestrian. It's nuts. The service guys had to drive me across and come and get me. Another example - my husband and kids were at the mall and wanted to cross by foot to Barnes and Nobles. Again, entirely impossible. To see those old photos of College Ave with trees, etc. breaks my heart. I wish College was as inviting today as it was then. I'm all for progress, so let's make College Ave a place we want to travel. I say please spend the money on our main corridor. As a west side resident, I feel this is more of a pressing need than a very wide Rupple Road. Thank you, Julia Kennefick 920 N Sunset Dr. Fayetteville, AR 72701 1 Branson, Lisa From: Levi Pittenger <pittenger.levi@gmail.com> Sent Monday, March 17, 20141:01 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Sidewalks on College My name is Levi Pittenger, I have lived in Fayetteville for 10 years. The growth in this time has been amazing. I would like to ask the council to consider the proposition to upgrade the accessability for pedestrians along College Avenue. Building the current hike and bike trail systems has been a great start to being more commuter and pedestrian friendly. We can continue with our communities progress by making our main city thoroughfares more safe and accessible for all types of traffic. Thank you, Levi P. Branson, Lisa From: Jennifer Florence -Ward <jennifloward@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 20141:02 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Rupple Rd/College Ave To The Fayetteville City Council, My name is Jennifer Florence -Ward and I live on the northwest side of Fayetteville (just off Wedington near Sang). Although I think my area of town could use some help (more and better sidewalks, for one!), I'm writing to you today to express my support for Matthew Petty's proposal to reallocate some money from the Rupple Road extension project to bring desperately needed improvements to College Ave/71B. I studied Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington and one of the most important things I learned there was the importance of making a city accessible to pedestrians. Walkability can make or break a person's relationship with their place, as the ability to walk to school, work, shopping, the park, a restaurant, a friend's house, or just to enjoy a walk greatly influences his or her happiness, fitness, finances, and overall feeling of connection (or disconnection) to that place. Such factors as destination options, distance, safety, and aesthetic beauty all weigh heavily on our minds as we decide whether to walk, drive, bike, or take the bus to get where we need to go. I have lived in Fayetteville for almost two years now, but before coming here I had the opportunity to live all over the U.S.—I've lived in Tallahassee, Florida; a suburb of Indianapolis, Indiana; Salt Lake City, Utah; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; Washington, D.C.; and Seattle, Washington. I have loved living in some of these cities and hated others, and I can honestly say that it all comes down to accessibility. The ways in which we are able —or feel most able — to traverse our city have an incredibly large impact on our experience of that city, defming not just where we go but how we go, how long it takes us, and how much it costs us —financially, physically, emotionally. Accessibility determines how we feel as we move through our environment, as well as how we perceive our city to be. It can make us feel free and empowered... or trapped, scared, and overwhelmed. The simple fact is that most cities, Fayetteville included, are geared toward automobile traffic. Cities are large, and the farther away you move from the downtown core, the more the transportation options dwindle to... Drive. Some people are OK with this and will just drive everywhere they go. They'll say we should spend all our money making our cities better for cars. I think they're wrong. For a whole host of reasons, we as a city and a species need to rely less on cars. It's not good for the environment and it's not good for us. Walking provides exercise, fresh air, and helps build a sense of community. Driving is not physically good for us, creates harmful pollution, and makes us feel isolated in our tiny metal boxes. The thing I love most about Fayetteville --compared with all the other places I've lived —is its vibrant sense of community. There are great people here, great parks, a vibrant business core, lots of festivals, music, art, food, and fun. There are areas of town that are so good at fostering community —I'm thinking of Block Street, the Square, Dickson, and Wilson Park —and I think it's no coincidence that these places are the most pedestrian -friendly in town. They encourage people to walk to them and around them, to hang out and have fun. They're doing a fantastic job. But Fayetteville needs to broaden its pedestrian purview. As Mr. Petty has pointed out, a massive portion of our population lives very close to College Avenue. There are countless destinations along and just off this major artery — schools, churches, parks, grocery stores, restaurants, shops, etc., and thriving neighborhoods on both sides. But the extremely car -oriented nature of College/71B makes this strip more a source of community division than connection. The road (which feels more like a freeway) is constantly busy with car traffic, offers inadequate pedestrian crossings and sidewalks, is ugly with all its pavement and parking lots, is loud and stinky thanks to all the cars, and just feels busy, alienating, overwhelming, and, above all, dangerous. I have a baby and a dog, and I avoid walking along College with them at all costs. Which is a shame, considering how much there is to do over there. I believe Fayetteville's sense of community could grow by leaps and bounds if it spent some money making College/71B a more pedestrian -friendly place. So much of our city's business and residential population is already focused here —let's give it the attention it truly deserves. The Rupple Road extension is good -intentioned, but to spend funds creating a four - lane road that will not have traffic worthy of four lanes for quite some time feels not just wasteful and short-sighted. It's insulting to all the people who live, work, learn, worship, eat, and shop along College. These people are already there, and their needs have been ignored for what seems to be quite a long time. I think larger, safer crosswalks (how about some neon flags for daytime crossings, and for nighttime, maybe some of those in -street lights that are on Garland over by Maple?), more sidewalks, sidewalk setbacks, and some tree planting/landscaping will change the corridor's whole feel, encourage people to walk to their destinations more, and actually reduce some of that constant traffic. Most likely, more funds than are possible to reallocate from Rupple Road will be needed to do College justice, but this could be the first step. Let's see how people respond to just a few improvements, and try to find ways to make more in the coming years. I firmly believe that making College better for pedestrians will make Fayetteville as a whole a safer, healthier, happier, more connected and more vibrant place. Thank you for reading and considering my point of view. And thank you for all the hard work you do! Sincerely, Jennifer Florence -Ward Branson, Lisa From: Jeffrey Huber <jeffrey.e.huber@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 20141:09 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: FW: Rupple Road Extension Dear City Clerk Smith, I am forwarding you my note to my aldermen in Ward 4 so it may be distributed to the rest of council for their informatinn Kind regards, Jeff Huber, Ward 4 From: Jeffrey Huber [mailto:jeffrey.e.huber@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 12:33 PM To: 'ward4_posl@fayetteville-ar.gov'; 'ward4--pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov' Subject: Rupple Road Extension Dear Aldermen Adams and Long, It is with deep regret I find us, Fayetteville, yet again talking about building oversized roads. My residence, 3691 Tower Circle, currently backs up to Rupple Road north of Mt Comfort Road. In this four -lane segment of road built about seven years ago I have had nothing but concern. Over the last few years I have seen cars from surrounding residences use it as a personal parking lot, solicitation of nonpublic activities (drugs, drinking, sex), and drag racing becoming a major issue, not to mention the four DUI accidents I have personally witnessed. Not great things to explain to my five-year old whose second -floor bedroom window overlooks Rupple Road. Of course I know that this section of road dead ends currently and is not planned to be a connector road in the near future like the segment being planned from Wedington to MLK, but these points still remain. This segment of road as currently designed will have the same inherent faults and deficiencies, especially where pedestrians are concerned. Currently I, with my two young daughters, have to dodge traffic going on average 45mph along a street designated 30mph just to get to Clabber Creek Trail (the only trail on our side of town). This street is designed as a traffic sewer with no crosswalks! As an urban designer and architect I would suggest greater traffic -calming facilities, like tree -lined medians, tree -lined buffers between the sidewalk and curb edge, pedestrian tables, and most importantly good urban frontage. Consider that ASHTO in their ironically called, "green book", refers to urban street trees as FHO's (Fixed and Hazardous Objects), our street designs don't bode well for pedestrians. Evidence shows the ASHTO may be changing though, are we? When I state good urban frontage what I mean is, buildings should front Rupple Road and have porches, stoops, terraces, etc. The reason I think my area of Rupple Road is a huge failure is that development has turned its back to the street. It's ironic that not a single house or even Holt Middle School from Mt. Comfort Road north along Rupple Road face the street or even address it. This is true between Wedington and Mt. Comfort also with the exception of a few older homes built 30 years ago. That's why no one respects a 30mph speed limit sign when all you have are fences, golf courses and backs of houses along the road. Of course this is slightly different south of Wedington along Rupple, but that was due to a developer trying to do different practices than was typically occurring, however that developer created a superblock which creates another issue that brings me to one last point which I think ties all the other points together. We need to ask ourselves; are we building a city for cars, or a city for people? There is absolutely no reason immediately for Rupple to be built as four lanes. In fact I am for what Alderman Petty is proposing and hope that you are receiving numerous emails and phone calls to that point, but I would like to add my own idea to that debate. Why don't we utilize the extra money to provide greater connections around Ward 4, like connecting Salem between Wedington and Mt. Comfort roads? This will provide needed and essential connectivity to the west side of town that is desperately needed. Since the money has already been allocated for Ward 4 let's keep it there and create a fabric of streets, not just one traffic sewer like the east side of town I will be at the council meeting tomorrow night speaking on behalf of the Urban Agricultural Ordinance and hope to stay around for the discussion on Rupple Road, but if for some reason I am not able to stay I at least wanted you to have my opinion of the issue. Thank you for your time and sorry for the long email, but in the words of Mark Twain, "I didn't have time to write you a short one." Sincerely, Jeffrey Huber, Ward 4 3691 Tower Cir. Branson, Lisa From: Smith, Sondra Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:41 PM To: Adams, Rhonda; Branson, Lisa; Broyles, Lana; Eads, Gail; Gray, Adella; Johnson, Kimberly; Mayor, Kinion, Mark; Long, Alan; Marr, Don; Marsh, Sarah; McCoy, Dee; Mulford, Patti; Pennington, Blake; Petty, Matthew; Roberts, Gina; Schoppmeyer, Martin; Smith, Lindsley; Smith, Sondra; Tennant, Justin; Williams, Kit Subject: FW: Rupple Road Extension Office of the City Clerk Treasurer Sondra E. Smith CAMC, CMC City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 ssmith@fayetteville-ar.gov TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (479) 521-1316 From: Long, Alan Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:40 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road Extension Can you forward this to the council. Alan T Long City of Fayetteville, AR City Council, Alderman- Ward 4 479.304.0585 Begin forwarded message: From: "Barbara G. Taylor" <- . - > Date: March 17, 2014 at 2:38:22 PM CDT Subject: Rupple Road Extension Alan, I agree with you that we should make Rupple Road four lanes wide now, building it right the first time. Thank you for your sound, common-sense approach to this issues. Barbara 1 Barbara G. Taylor 1599 West Hafsell Road Fayetteville, AR 72701-3902 479-530-1098 (cell) 479-521-6925 Branson, Lisa From: Carlos Ochoa <carlos.g.ochoa@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:48 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: College avenue and Rupple road Hello, City Clerk. I would like to voice my support for City Council Member Matthew Petty's proposal to invest in college avenue in lieu of a full expansion of Rupple Road. An investment in College far outweighs the benefits of a four lane Rupple Road. Thank you very much, Carlos Ochoa carlos ochoa(cygmail.com 625 W. llth Street Fayetteville, AR 501-208-8440 McCoy, Dee From: Zach Holland<holland@ferstivaluationservices.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:55 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Fayetteville citizen's opinion I live at 301 N Fletcher, Ave. I do not know Mr. Petty or his politics, but I support his decision to spend our road development $ on College Ave rather than Rupple Rd. Thank you for your service. Zach Holland, AR CG 2911 Northwest Arkansas Office: Ferstl Valuation Services 101 W. Mountain St. Suite 210 A&B Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)799-9153 Direct/Mobile - Recommended (479) 595-0245 Office - General Questions and Quotes Home Office: Ferstl Valuation Services 621 E. Capitol Ave Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 375-1439 Little Rock Main Office - Ferstl Valuation Services was formerly Affiliated Appraisers of Arkansas. 1 McCoy, Dee From: Jennifer Worth <jennifermworth@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:12 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Improvements to College Ave. City Council Members, "This Tuesday, I'm proposing we dedicate $1.7 million to improvements for our main traffic corridor. Let's bring meaningful revitalization to College Ave!" support this proposal. As a resident of the Rolling Hills area, improving the safety, walkability, and bike -ability of College Ave. is of extreme interest to me and my quality of life. After listening to testimonials at a presentation regarding area transit at the public library, it would seem that I am not the only one. Furthermore, keeping commute times reasonable by providing the necessary infrastructure not only improves wellbeing but also ensures that residents continue to see Fayettiville as a viable community in which we can invest in property, work, live, and play. In addition to fostering a healthy and happy community, I feel revitalization and beautification of our main corridor will expand Fayetteville's signature atmosphere from Dickson St. and the Square. This would be beneficial to existing businesses and foster the establishment of new venues. It would also sustain Fayetteville's attraction as a destination city for events like Bikes, Blues,and BBQ. Thank you for considering my opinions. With much admiration and thanks for your dedication to our city, Jennifer M. Worth Phone: 479-713-9662 Email: jennifermworth a,gmail.com McCoy, Dee From: Anthony Clark <anthony@clarkpartnersrealty.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:30 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Citizen input on Fayetteville road expansion plans Categories: Responded, Forwarded Dear City Council, As a resident and small business owner in Fayetteville I'd like to chat with you all just a bit on the proposed Rupple Road expansion as well as Mr. Petty's recommendation on College Avenue improvements. I'd venture to say that College Avenue is the heaviest traffic street in our City. It's my opinion that it's also one of the most neglected. A day doesn't pass that I don't drive on College Avenue. Seldom does a day pass that I don't drive on College Avenue without seeing a pedestrian or cyclist navigating this street with its partial sidewalk connections, lack of crosswalks and speeding motorists. I'd love to see funds diverted away from plans like the Rupple Road expansion to go towards some very thoughtful improvements on College Avenue. These improvements might include sidewalks, bike lanes, safer crosswalks, boulevards and even trees or decorative brick work. Yes, it's true that a better north -south route may be needed someday on the west side of town, but it's also true that College Avenue has some much needed improvements today for a number of reason including the safety of citizens. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my thoughts and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Anthony Clark 479-935-6080 Anthony Clark, CRS Clark Partners Realty Group 479.935.6080 [direct] 479.445.6767 [office] http://clarkpartnersrealty.com/ McCo , Dee From: Phillip Mcknigh <jpmckni@cox.net> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 4:22 PM To: Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; citycouncil@matthewpetty.org; Mayor; Tennant, Justin; Schoppmeyer, Martin; Adams, Rhonda; Long, Alan Cc: City -Clerk Subject: 2006 bond money re -distribution Importance: High To: City Council - City of Fayetteville Arkansas RE: Re -distribution of 2006 bond monies I will unable to attend tomorrow's city council meeting. I wanted to express my thoughts on the current proposal of re-ditributing the 2006 bond money that was approved for the Rupple Road project. These monies were approved by voters to have a 4-lane road from Wedington to MLK. The city needs to consider where we will be if the current population and developement continues out the MLK and the Wedington corridor. This developement is going to continue to put pressure on the infrastructure of these two corrridors. We need to have this 4-LANE connector to relieve the current traffic on 540 as well as the access street next to 540. The connection should remain as it was planned and VOTED for by the people of the city. I believe that the if these funds are diverted, it will impact future bond issues for the city of Fayetteville. This will destroy the integrity of the city in relation to future bond issues. How could the citizens vote for the next bond issue if the monies can be diverted to another ward or anther project? We need to keep these funds in place for Ward 4 infrastructure. We actually have a chance to get AHEAD of our future infrastructure needs. Let's not destroy voter confidence and ruin our chance to get ahead of our infrastructure needs in Ward 4. Phillip Mcknight i McCo , Dee From: Joshua Aldridge <joshaldridge@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 4:33 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: College Ave Safety Council Members, I moved away from Fayetteville over a decade ago and have recently returned to a city blockaded by road construction and even squeezed for our last change by pay parking and per bag waste disposal. Normally, I believe that the city government needs to back off a little. However, in the case of College Ave, I see a need for intervention. As a main artery of a growing city, College is woefully under developed, lacking consistent sidewalks, bus stops, and even a hint of crosswalks. The purpose of public roads projects is to ensure the safety and efficiency of travel for citizens and, though College has done that for many years, it's time to breathe new life into that essential part of our city. I would encourage our representatives in the city council to vote for Mr. Petty's proposal to build these essential components along College Ave as a means of protecting the safety of Fayetteville's citizens and visitors, encouraging commercial growth along that corridor, and providing increased access to goods and services for those members of our community using public transportation. Thank you, Josh Aldridge McCo , Dee From: Michele Halsell <MHalsell@walton.uark.edu> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 4:34 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: College Avenue Proposal - 3/18/14 Dear City Council Members, am writing to encourage you to consider Matthew Petty's proposal to invest in our city's busiest thoroughfare: 71 Business or College Avenue. It is easy to see what is possible on College Avenue by visiting the intersection of College Avenue and Township. There, pavement and parking lots have given way to swaths of green grass, trees, and spacious sidewalks. Instead of looking tired and dilapidated, that corner looks revitalized and like a place where you want to stop and patronize the businesses located there. Imagine if the length of 71 Business was similarly designed! Visitors and residents alike would be attracted to this corridor as a thriving place for commerce, dining, and entertainment. With proper planning, College Avenue could be enhanced with pull-outs for Ozark Transit buses and attractive bus shelters to make the bus routes obvious and encourage increased ridership. Anticipating a fixed rail corridor in the next 10-20 years, we could invest in College Avenue in a way that brings customers to businesses by rail, as well as by bus and by car. The more we invest in the core of our city, the more we become a city where cars are optional. This promotes cleaner air and enhances health and well-being. College Avenue speaks volumes about our city. Let's make sure that visitors to Crystal Bridges who venture south to Fayetteville see a city where they want to linger and spend time. Let's make sure that College Avenue leaves a strong, positive impression on our visitors. Let's enhance quality of life for the many residents who live along this corridor and who use it every day. Such a project can have a positive impact on the many neighborhoods that border College Avenue and help to maintain property values (and tax revenues). Thank you for your service to our great city. Michele Halsell 230 W. Cleburn Fayetteville, AR 72701 Branson. Lisa From: Frank and Denise Mulliken <40paws@att.net> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:24 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: To our City County; Re: Improvements to College Avenue Categories: Forwarded, Responded Dear City Council: I live in East Fayetteville and work at the Washington County Courthouse. I travel on College Avenue every day. Every weekend my husband and I travel up and down College Avenue our weekly errands. College Avenue is THE main street of Fayetteville, but it sure doesn't look like it. College Avenue needs an update, an upgrade, and general sprucing up. I support Mr. Petty's proposal to dedicate $1.7 million to improvements for our main traffic corridor. I believe his three-part plan to revitizalize College Avenue will be very good for businesses located on College and will make travel safer and more pleasant for every citizens who travels on College by car, foot or otherwise. Thank your for your consideration. Denise Mulliken 1573 S. Tallgrass Dr. Branson, Lisa From: City -Clerk To: Aldermen Cc: Pate, Jeremy Subject: FW: Message for City Council on Rupple Rd. Extension and College Ave. Improvements From: Nick Cerra [mailto:nc.nickcerra@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:25 PM To: City_Clerk Subject: Message for City Council on Rupple Rd. Extension and College Ave. Improvements Hello Council, I am a long-time resident of Fayetteville Arkansas, and I want to let you know that I care about the future of College avenue, and our City. I am a designer with a degree in Architecture from The University of Arkansas, and I live and work in Downtown Fayetteville. I was excited when I heard Matthew Petty's proposal for improvements to College Avenue and also the possibility of keeping Rupple a two lane road. Every day I am reminded how lucky I am to live and work in this beautiful city. I am an avid walker and cyclist for both transportation and recreation. Because of the location of my home and my proximity to work I could live without a car entirely! I know, lucky me, but I want to see this benefit of good urban design extended to more residents in Fayetteville. Sidewalks mean health, safety, transportation, recreation and customers for local businesses! Our main street is incomplete without quality sidewalks; the lack of which will stymie the investment our city needs to move forward. Turn College Avenue into a real Mainstreet with safe and efficient pedestrian access and watch our city grow from within. The redesign of the three key intersections listed in Matthew Petty's proposal would help to bring quality urban design to Midtown, Downtown and Southtown all while allowing for an increase in private investment in these areas. I recently learned that one third of our city's population lives within one mile of College Avenue. Lets work to build a quality economic corridor to serve this huge (and growing) population and focus our city's growth! Thank you for considering my comments, Nick Cerra nc.nickcerra(cv,gmail.com 870-416-2854 Branson, Lisa From: Long, Alan Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:34 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road Expansion Can you please forward this to the council? Alan T Long City of Fayetteville, AR City Council, Alderman- Ward 4 ward4 post u,favetteville-ar..i,,ov Begin forwarded message: From: Scott Shackelford <scotts 1979 r hotmai 1.com> Date: March 17, 2014 at 5:01:32 PM CDT To: "ward4 posl cLfavetteville-ar.�-)ov" <ward4 posl cr f�ivctteville-ar.,ov>, "ward4 pos2,�favettcville-ar. ov" <ward4 pos2,ci fayettevillc-ar.slov> Subject: Rupple Road Expansion Good afternoon, My wife and I are Ward 4 residents. I am sure you have both received several comments regarding Rupple Road's future: should it be 2 lanes/should it be 4 lanes, etc. I only wished to add our two cents that we should follow Mayor Jordan's wise advice and proceed with creating a 4-lane extension at this time. A 2-lane expansion seems inadequate to the western corridor vision of Rupple Road that has previously been expounded upon by city leaders. The Northwest Arkansas Times reported last week that the approximately $1.7 million to finish the project already exists via the bond city voters approved in 2006. These dedicated funding dollars should not be allocated for other (admittedly worthy) purposes. An expansion from 2 to 4 lanes would create an unnecessary expense in some future budget cycle. Expanding to 4lanes now, before homes and businesses begin to crowd around a 2-lane avenue, would create a greater ease of traffic flowing to and from MLK Boulevard and help to ensure that this busy road adequate attention for years to come. Thank you both for your service to our wonderful city. Best wishes, Scott Shackelford Fayetteville, Ark. Branson, Lisa From: Long, Alan Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:55 PM To: City_Clerk; Smith, Sondra Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road project Could you please forward this to the mayor and council? Alan T Long City of Fayetteville, AR City Council, Alderman- Ward 4 479.304.0585 Begin forwarded message: From: Christina Catsavis Date: March 17, 2014 at 5:51:28 PM CDT To: " It < Subject: Rupple Road Project Hello, My name is Christina Catsavis. My husband and I are residents of Ward 4 and we have concerns about the funds for the Rupple Road project being diverted to Ward 2. We feel the bond issue was carefully thought out and the funding should be left in place. As residents of Ward 4 we feel there is already a need for 4 lanes, the decision to go with 2 lanes would leave the road very congested and in immediate need of expansion to 4lanes as our district is growing very quickly. The City of Fayetteville needs to be thoughtful and deliberate with planning. Thank you, Christina Catsavis & Jonathan Bechtel Branson, Lisa From: Joseph Reagan <wellspringpt@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 6:05 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: College Ave. Fix instead of Rupple Road improvements Dear City Council, I am Joseph Reagan living at 326 E. Prospect with my own business at 509 N. College Ave. (Wellspring Physical Therapy). I was raised in Fayetteville and returned in 1997. 1 have witnessed the downtown/Dickson St. area improvements and think that they create civic pride (just had a guest visiting from Boulder, CO who loved the look), usability for bicyclists/pedestrians and anchor for our community. Proposed improvements at 3 locations along College can multiply our anchors and distribute the theme of Fayetteville as not just the central aspects but the whole of Fayetteville as a unique, viable community. College can be viewed as one long strip of businesses, that isn't interrupted by anything of esthetic value. It could be anywhere USA dotted with fast food, auto shops etc. This proposal of not putting monies to Rupple Road changes which, if my information is correct, wouldn't change drive time by much and instead, put that money toward improvements on college I personally, and I think our visitors, and those seeking business relocation, would see a striking value. Please consider and vote for this improvement. Sincerely, Joseph Reagan, PT, MS Wellspring Physical Therapy 509 N. College Ave. Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.444.6060 we.i sorinentiSsocL,iooai.nei Branson, Lisa From: Christina Hann <alessi22@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 6:50 PM To: City_Clerk Subject: Proposed Traffic Improvements Greetings City Council Members, Fayetteville is my home. I love living here and cannot imagine myself in any other city. My love for Fayetteville is why I am always happy and willing to support needed improvements. I currently reside on the eastern side of town. Each day I drive on Highway 265 to work. I've driven my route both before and after the widening of 265.1 absolutely love the improvements. I especially love that I no longer see long lines of cars. I feel much safer driving Highway 265 knowing that bicyclists have their own lanes. I also feel much safer now that there are sidewalks. Before the sidewalks, dog walkers and joggers were in the ditches, grass and shoulders of the road. I can only imagine how much happier and safer they feel now that they have proper sidewalks. The city did a great job planning, beautifying and executing the changes to Highway 265. Now that Highway 265 is amazingly improved, why not make similar changes to parts or all of College Avenue? After all, College is a primary traffic corridor. Every resident of Fayetteville is undoubtedly on College Avenue at some point during their day. It would be great to have either more or improved sidewalks, bike lanes, cross walks, bus stops as well as more "streetscaping." Recently, I've read news articles about adding traffic lights and widening or extending roads in other parts of town. While I'm sure those things are needed too, I ask that money towards improving College Avenue be considered as well. Thank you, Christina Alessi Hann 3115 N Warwick Drive, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 March 17, 2014 Dear Fayetteville City Council, Strategic Planning and Mayor Jordan, Like all of you, I want to see Fayetteville continue to become the best city it can be. To that end, I am concerned about a proposed allocation of funds to be spent turning Rupple Rd. into a four lane. Urban trends across the country show that it would be a mistake to plan for "growth" as experienced in past decades. Today's young families are choosing walkable cities with small shops and parks as their preferred destinations to raise children and interact with friends. Suburbia is seen as blight. Furthermore reliance on the automobile, I suspect, will prove misguided as our future fuel troubles and environmental concerns cause people to want sustainable urban transport like light rail or alternative fueled buses. Many people want these things now. Personally, I would like to see a much larger infrastructure of bicycle lanes designed to enable bicycle commuters to travel safely throughout the area as a means of transportation. As it is now, our bicycle lanes, albeit beautiful, are obviously designed for the pursuit of leisure rather than commuting. I think Councilman Matt Perry has the right idea when he suggests using a $1.7 million allocation on enhancing the heart of our city, the corridor along College Ave, with sidewalks, crossing lights, bicycle lanes and I would suggest, even pocket parks. Let's maintain and enhance the vision we've begun on the Square, on Dickson St and on Block St, by spreading that same esthetic of intimacy, walkability, and connectedness up and down College Ave. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, Quinn Montana Ward 1, Fayetteville Branson, Lisa From: City -Clerk To: Aldermen Cc: Pate, Jeremy Subject: FW: Improve College Ave. From: Shelley buonaiuto [mailto:goodhelp@cybermesa.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 7:36 PM To: City_Clerk Subject: Improve College Ave. Dear Aldermen, I'm Shelley Buonaiuto and although I live out of town, my three children all live in South Fayetteville, and my grandchildren attend Washington Elementary. My husband and I also have a small home in South Fayetteville where we plan to live when we retire.. My children often walk downtown, enjoying the walk and living as sustainably as possible. I plan to do the same when we move to town. For the safety of my family I'm concerned about sidewalks and crosswalks. For sustainability the city must encourage rapid transit by developing safe and convenient bus stops. I also plan to be using the buses. I believe that the $1.7 million being considered for Rupple Road would be better spent improving College Ave. It will benefit more people and encourage a sustainable city center. I am sorry I will be at another meeting and unable to attend to support this important measure. In so many ways the mayor and council have exhibited great sensitivity and care to the well being of our beautiful Fayetteville. know you will consider this matter carefully also Thank you, Shelley Buonaiuto F Branson, Lisa From: City -Clerk To: Aldermen Cc: Pate, Jeremy Subject: FW: In support of Petty's proposal From: Erika Wilhite [mailto:erikawilhite@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 7:43 PM To: City_Clerk Subject: In support of Petty's proposal Hello, I hope that the Council decides to improve the pedestrian and bike paths along College. I wish I didn't have to drive so short distance from downtown for things I need daily from the shops along the corridor. Biking is terrifying, and walking is nerve wracking since one must walk through all the parking lots while the cars are coming and going. Please help Fayetteville become a REAL walking city. The trails are lovely, but out of the way from daily errands. We need a pedestrian and biking path. Respectfully, Erika Wilhite Branson, Lisa From: Long, Alan Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 8:42 PM To: Smith, Sondra; City -Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road Expansion Please forward to the council. Alan T Long City of Fayetteville, AR City Council, Alderman- Ward 4 ��1!-il•� }�[�5-'rl. i�lltltt•,'Ilt'—Ohl—.��c�� Begin forwarded message: From: <hlochhaas a,gniail.com> Date: March 17, 2014 at 8:24:41 PM CDT '[Y1> Subject: Rupple Road Expansion I am amazed that someone would want to divert money from our Ward (4) to another Ward. The problem with many in government is they look at the immediate rewards rather then planning for the future. A perfect example is the expansion of 1540. How much is that costing taxpayers? Citizens all over the country are losing faith in our elected officials because of their pet projects and wasteful spending of our hard earned tax dollars. Please, don't waste our money, do the expansion right the first time, rather than having to go back and do it over again for considerably more in both money and added inconvenience to the residents of the neighborhoods involved. Hazel Lochhaas Resident Ward 4 Sent from Windows Mail Branson, Lisa From: Long, Alan Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 8:44 PM To: Smith, Sondra; City_Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple Rd project Categories: Forwarded Please forward to the council. Alan T Long City of Fayetteville, AR City Council, Alderman- Ward 4 1a CI[v. JI Ic -"II-, [V1 479.304.0585 Begin forwarded message: From: Debra Stendel <,i c iidi -I -I 11 Ltnil 1-111 E7 Date: March 17, 2014 at 7:52:41 PM CDT To: <\\itrd-4 jl[1•;1 11 + ll�ilt'1I��i :iE-?'V11�J� <ll f t11 IiII'i [! 1:11 .'[Itl 111L'- 11.:!f[1�, <I ,I(liMAN.cJ 1.1 A) l III' 4 11 I Subject: Rupple Rd project Dear Sirs and Madame, I would like a minute of your time to hear my concerns. I have attended many of the meetings in the past year or so regarding the Wedington Rd Development as I am a home owner in the area. My safety and my home investment is affected directly by your decisions. We were led to believe that the city is aware of and also concerned about the traffic problems that growth in this section of the city has caused in recent years. We were led to believe that the city wants to develop a pedestrian friendly neighborhood but we still have no sidewalks along Salem Rd. The recent influx of construction projects along Wedington has already added to the congestion in this area and will continue to add greatly to congestion as these businesses open and bring more people to our side of town. We need some relief! I believe that the Rupple Rd extension can ease some of the traffic by giving drivers another path if it is done right. I believe it was first presented as a 4 lane project and the community supported that. The planning meeting last month left me wondering if the city is now seriously going to do only part of the project. I urge you to vote in favor of doing the project as 4 lanes now. I urge you to vote against doing this as a 2 lane road.. If the city only does 2 lanes now it will cost more in the near future to add the other 2 lanes so there is no savings by cutting corners. Thank you, Debra Stendel Branson. Lisa From: City -Clerk To: Aldermen Cc: Pate, Jeremy Subject: FW: Rupple Road Citizen Comments - Please Forward to Council Members From: Keaton Smith [mailto:kwsmithl200@gmaii.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:42 PM To: City_Clerk Subject: Rupple Road Citizen Comments - Please Forward to Council Members Council Members, You may be familiar with the concept of Net Present Value. Finance professionals will tell you that today's dollars are often exponentially more valuable than the same dollars will be 15 years from today. Inflation plays a role in this, but opportunily costs are a larger factor. $1.7MM invested in College Ave will generate returns for the City, its businesses and its residents immediately. $1.7MM invested in 2 extra lanes on Rupple Road will generate returns for the City .... at some point in the future. We can invest our money improving existing infrastructure and supporting existing businesses in the heart of our City, OR we can build extra infrastructure before it is necessary and encourage sprawl while we're at it. There are better ways to fix traffic problems on Wedington. Thank you for reading this note and considering this important issue. ......... I... ....... Keaton Smith 479-879-7922 Branson, Lisa From: John Coleman <jtcolem@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:58 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: College Avenue vs Rupple Road Good evening City Council Members, I am writing to express my opinion about the Rupple Road widening project and the possibility of diverting some of these funds to invest in College Avenue. Unfortunately, I will be traveling for work tomorrow night so I won't be able to attend the Council meeting. Since moving here in 2007 my wife and I have been thrilled with the overall direction of the City. We have a tremendous amount of respect for Mayor Jordan and support initiatives like preserving Mt Kessler, leading the investment in bike trails, and generally focusing on improving quality of life for residents and visitors alike. It is my opinion that widening Rupple Road to four lanes is counter to these efforts. In short, it subsidizes low density, auto -dependent growth for potential future residents of Fayetteville. Historically, this type of growth (sprawl) in cities across the U.S. has shown that it is not economically sound. These costs include future infrastructure maintenance such as water & sewer as well as the increase of fire and police service to maintain or improve insurance ratings. These costs are not fully covered by development fees. With the recent engineering study showing that four lanes may only be needed in ten years, I think it is more responsible to invest the additional funds in streets such as College Avenue that demonstrate immediate need. By making this investment you will encourage growth and the full utilization of existing infrastructure (streets, water, sewer, fire, police) while limiting the long-term increase of maintenance costs to the City and its taxpayers. At the same time you will encourage greater private investment in infill development instead of greenfield investment on the edge of town. Fayetteville is going to grow in population because it is an amazing place to live. As a Council, I hope you will continue to follow the tenants set by City Plan 2030 and vote for smart infrastructure investments that help us best absorb these population increases while improving quality of life. Sincerely, John Coleman Branson, Lisa From: faytownrocks <faytownrocks@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 201411:03 PM To: Smith, Sondra; City_Clerk Subject Rupple Road extension Please forward this email to all members of the City Council and Mayor Jordan for the 18 March Council meeting. I am Tim Kring, 1777 W. Halsell Rd (Ward 4). I was perplexed and disappointed in reading (in Fayetteville Flyer) Mr. Petty's suggestion to reapportion funds that were designated by a vote of the people city wide. This bond program was clearly engineered to address needs across all wards. Mr. Petty's attempt to negate the will of the people is at least unethical. Furthermore, the notion that the Rupple Road extension is unneeded or beyond what is necessary represents a behavior that had handcuffed our city's economic and cultural development for many years. A major North - South corridor is essential in that area, and will aid commercial and residential interests, both which are sorely needed on the west side of town (instead of driving even more of that development to the northern towns). Our city is full of roads with single lanes, or no shoulders, or no sidewalks, many of which need widening to allow these missing features. However, because none of these was considered of immediate need at the time the roads were built, expansion now is either impossible due to construction in the space, or is astronomically expensive. We, as voters, decided to build a beautiful, functional and efficient 4 lane boulevard for the Rupple Road extension. Please do not take a step backward in helping to intelligently develop our entire city in order to appear the narrow vision as proposed by Mr. Petty. Sincerely, Tim Kring Branson, Lisa From: City -Clerk Subject: FW: Extension of Rupple to MLK From: Alan Long [mailto:longward4@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:28 AM To: Smith, Sondra; City_Clerk Subject: Fwd: Extension of Rupple to MLK Can you please forward this to the council? Thanks, Alan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patricia Lucas Date: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:36 PM Subject: Extension of Rupple to MLK To: Alan Long Hi Alan, As a long term resident of west Fayetteville, I wanted to weigh in on this issue. I believe it is critical to get a 4 lane road in place between Wedington and MLK. Anyone who lives on this side of town can see the explosive growth and the congestion around the 540/Wedington area. Having that road in place would significantly improve traffic flow by diverting a large part of south bound traffic. We utilize Rupple all the time between Mt. Comfort and Wedington to avoid 540 area of Wedington and it would be a huge improvement to have that flow on through to MLK. Not to mention the foolishness of having to come back at later time and essentially double dip at a much higher cost both from a financial and time perspective. Because revisiting would be inevitable almost immediately upon completion of the road as utilization will be significant. The need to move forward with 4lanes seems like the obvious and only solution when you live in the area and see the need on a daily basis. Thank you for representing this for Ward 4 Thomas & Patricia Lucas and Kat Richardson McCoy, Dee From: Courtney Montgomery <cemontgo@email.uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:46 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: College Ave Improvements To the Fayetteville City Council: My name is Courtney Burnett. I have been a citizen of Fayetteville since 2007. My husband and children made our home here because we love this town! I care about the future of Fayetteville because I intend to keep my home and raise my children here. I am a full time student at the university and transportation in Fayetteville is very important to me. I am writing about the upcoming vote today regarding a Rupple Road extension. I have been following this discussion with interest. I live off both College Avenue and Old Wire Road. My oldest child goes to Woodland Junior High and my next oldest will attend next year. We travel through the Rolling Hills area daily. We also travel in the Rupple Road/Wedington area fairly often. It is my experience that improvements are very much needed in many areas surrounding College Avenue, including the areas I travel daily. It is also my understanding that there is reason to assume that a two-lane Rupple Road extension would be sufficient at this time. It makes sense to me to use funds to make improvements to an area that needs those improvements now rather than to tie them up in overkill on the Rupple Road extension. Thank you for your time and for the great work you do for the city! -Courtney Burnett McC 1, Dee From: Sage Billig <sagellah@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:10 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: Sidewalks on College Hi, My name is Sage Billig, I live in south Fayetteville. I am writing in support of Matthew Petty"s proposal to re- direct funding towards improvements on College Ave. Walking or biking on College is currently dangerous for large stretches. As a mother, I would like to be able to teach my child the value of alternative transportation without putting his life at risk. Please consider improvements to College Ave that would increase our safety and our access to alternative modes of transport. Thanks! -Sage McCoy, Dee From: Long, Alan Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:11 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road Widening and Extension Can you please forward this to the council? Alan Begin forwarded message: From: " J. Laurence Hare" Date: March 17, 2014 at 10:53:02 PM CDT To: <ssmithkfayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: "Long, Alan" <<vard4 post a,fa„yretteville-ar.gov>, <ward4 osl nfa ettevil{c-ar. ov> Subject: Rupple Road Widening and Extension Dear City Council Members: I am writing in response to the planned presentation by Matthew Petty regarding the reallocation of funds for the N. Rupple Rd. widening and extension project. At the recent meeting of the City Transportation Committee, Mr. Petty made some valid points when he claimed first that the housing density south of Persimmon does not immediately require a 4-lane highway and second when he suggested that 1.7 million of the planned project costs could be put to good use elsewhere in Fayetteville. But ... I have two objections to the premises of his alternative proposal. First, where Mr. Petty claims that the development along the Rupple Road extension cannot through its property taxes support the repayment of the expansion costs, he seems to assume that the road is being built solely for the purpose of introducing development between Persimmon and MLK. In fact, the extension of Rupple Rd is intended to facilitate a citywide transportation initiative. It is planned as a four -lane highway because it is a major artery designed to support traffic moving from north to south. Above all, it will relieve the traffic pressure on Wedington, MLK, and I-540, which will benefit thousands of commuters each day. For this reason, Mr. Petty should not look at future Rupple development as the sole base of financial support for the Rupple project; rather, he should see view it as a benefit, and a responsibility, for all of Fayetteville. Second, I understand that the money which he would see moved to an alternative project on N. College Ave. has already been earmarked for the Rupple extension as part of a four -lane highway promised to Fayetteville voters. To alter the plan now in the interests of another project strikes me as a breach of faith with citizens. I thus disagree with Mr. Petty's assumption that the City Council can lightly move the funds to an unrelated project. Therefore ... I would respectfully ask the members of the City Council to support the full expansion of Rupple Road as recommended by the traffic study, and would submit the following three reasons why members should seek the full four -lane plan: 1) If the Council expects the citizens of Fayetteville to support future bond issues, they should adhere wherever possible to the existing parameters of approved projects. At the same time, if the City Council wishes to enjoy continued citizen support for the Fayetteville Master Plan, then the members would be well advised to stick closely wherever practical to its fundamental elements. 2) All parties seems to agree with the conclusion of the project study that adding additional lanes to Rupple Rd. in the future will be much more expensive than building them today. Those of us who live along Rupple are thus concerned about whether the funds will be available to us in the future when the traffic patterns warrant the additional two lanes. 3) I would argue that the city should take every opportunity to provide west Fayetteville with a full and carefully -planned infrastructure to ensure that it develops as a interconnected and flourishing part of the city. We can agree that there is, in general, a substantial income differential between east and west Fayetteville, with the citizens on the west side being generally poorer and more mobile (i.e. with more renters than owners) than their fellow citizens to the east, and we should agree that this imbalance is not ideal. One important way of attaining greater income diversity and achieving more community stability is to encourage the growth of business and residential investment in the area, all of which naturally depends on a well -constructed transportation network. In forwarding this argument, I do not mean to dispute Mr. Petty's point that we need to address infrastructure problems along N. College Ave. Indeed, I feel that he is right to seek future improvements to this area. Yet I hope the City Council will ultimately agree with me that the full Rupple Road plan represents an important element in our city's broader transportation plan and one that is particularly indispensable to the future of west Fayetteville. Sincerely, Laurence Hare z McCo , Dee From: Sarah E. King <sellenking@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:41 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: Letter to City Council regarding street improvements Dear City Council, I live on Skelton Street on the far south side (Ward 1), and I am writing in support of Matthew Petty's proposal to make the most of street improvement funds by both extending Rupple Road and also improving three major intersections on Hwy 71. In particular, I'd like to draw your attention to the intersection of 15th and 71. If one were to look at this intersection in isolation, you would never guess that it was in Fayetteville. Improvements to this intersection would contribute to public safety, support existing businesses, and encourage private investment. I encourage you to vote in support of a plan to maximize the impact of our tax dollars by establishing a new north -south connector on the west side while also improving our city's Main Street. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your service to our city. Sincerely, Sarah King 1 McCoy, Dee From: Long, Alan Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:45 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple / Urban Ag Attachments: pastedGraphic.tiff Categories: Forwarded Please forward to the council Alan Begin forwarded message: From: Stacey Park Date: March 18, 2014 at 9:39:03 AM CDT To: "Long, Alan" <ward4 pos2@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Re: Rupple / Urban Ag If anyone questions the green-ness of choosing to follow through with the Rupple extension/widening, it's worth considering the gasoline wasted and auto emissions created from the standstill of traffic that is the Wedington/540 area during any rush hour. Good luck tonight. Stacey Park Park Company Architects 10 www.parkco.net I } McCoy, Dee From: Long Ward 4 <longward4@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:47 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road. How should we build this? Please forward to the council. Alan Begin forwarded message: From: "Paul J. Morstad" <pmorstad _,UARK.EDU> Date: March 18, 2014 at 9:32:25 AM CDT Subject: Re: Rupple Road. How should we build this? When weighing a 2 lane vs 4 lane Rupple Road extension, just contemplate/observe/drive through the (long overdue) work currently underway on N Garland. Hard to think of a better object lesson for getting the Rupple Road extension right from the outset. IN i McCoy, Dee From: Jessica Taylor <jessica.Taylor@fayar.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:21 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: Revitalize College My name is Jessica Taylor and I live on West Ave in downtown Fayetteville. I have two small children and we enjoy the convenience and local living downtown Fayetteville provides. I also work one block off of College Ave and weather permitting I bike to work as often as I can. My family often tries to walk everywhere as it doesn't seem necessary to drive considering our location. However I don't feel safe walking with my family to many destinations. As we get closer to College Ave the sidewalks get less functional, having to walk around poles and buildings. The walk -ability of many of our sidewalks makes it feel unsafe and unrealistic to commute on foot with my family. I also would like to see a widening of the road to pave the way for some double bike lanes. I hope we can invest in a more green sustainable travel experience downtown for family commuters. Jessica Taylor Fayetteville Adult Education Center 479.444.3041 www.fayar. net/adulted McCoy, Dee From: matt@matthewpetty.org on behalf of Matthew Petty - Fayetteville Ward 2 <citycouncil@matthewpetty.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:48 AM To: City -Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road Good morning, would you please forward this message from a ward 4 resident? Thanks, M ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Point Oak <pointoak@ mail.com> Date: Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:15 AM Subject: Rupple Road To: citycouncilgmatthewpetty.org I saw on the news that this was coming up for discussion this week. I live on the west side of Fayetteville, I do not see an immediate need for 4 lanes and do not understand why the following could not be implemented; the road completely designed as a 4 lane road with a center planter in the middle, but only completing ONE 2 lane side of it at this time for the vast majority of the length. If so many have strong desires to force 4 lanes now, why can't we settle on a completed center planter section with 2 completed lanes on one side of the center planter (bi-directional for the moment), graded and compacted to an additional +1 foot in the non -completed portion, future, 2 lane addition area. Whatever intersections are to exist can have their turn -outs in place with clear delineation striping that can be removed later, etc. Future completion would barely impact whatever traffic would be using the road at that time. When whatever pre -planned intersections become used by future developments, before the final additional 2 lane portion is completed, asphalt curb and sidewalks can be installed, which will remove easily and is recyclable at that later date. I see far better uses for the money. Just a thought? McCoy, Dee From: David Franks <david.franks@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:10 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Street Improvements: 71B v. Rupple Road Please convey the following to the members of the City Council. Thank you. »»»> Good Day: I have been poking my nose into Fayetteville and its affairs as an on -again -off -again resident since 1979. I live outside of town at present, though I have a Fayetteville address. Over the years, I have lived in various locations in the core of town, and as Fayetteville has grown, I have come to appreciate the core of the city more and more. As one who comes into town, as one who believes that the center of a city is the life of a city, and as one who prefers to spend my time and money in the middle of Fayetteville, I see great value to the city in continuing to improve South School and College Avenue. In particular, revamping the intersection of South School and 15th Street could be made to tie in nicely, or even integrate with, with the trail crossing north of the intersection. It is my understanding that it will be some years before traffic counts on Rupple Road will justify providing four lanes. I believe that while there are complaints about traffic on Rupple Road, many of them would be addressed by extending Rupple to MLK as a two-lane road. As the extension of Rupple Road is to be a landscaped four -lane boulevard with a median, it seems a relatively simple matter to build two lanes now and build the additional two lanes later, with minimal disruption of traffic. Further, I believe that it would be wise to delay any widening of Rupple Road until the issue of infrastructure impact fees is revisited. Proper guidance-- well, okay: control-- of growth in Fayetteville cannot be achieved only with incentives for infill; developers must also take responsibility for some of the excess milk they squeeze from the public teat when they impose inappropriate growth on the city-- even if they claim that impact fees are a disincentive. (They aren't; impact fees would be simply another cost of doing business in a fine place to live.) I hope to see Fayetteville move forward with projects that restore and improve the long - neglected core. It is this approach that will best resolve issues that affect all citizens, and correct the errors of the past. Thank you for your consideration. 1 David Franks 11033 Tony Mountain Road Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 McCo , Dee From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Fayetteville City Council, Sally Baker Williams<sbw@simplybeautifulweddings.net> Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:56 PM City -Clerk Regarding proposal by Councilman Petty for College Ave My name is Sally Baker Williams and I know several of you. I am writing today regarding the proposal from Coucilman Matthew Petty for revitalization along College Ave. While I no longer live within the city limits, I do work in Fayetteville and most of my shopping is in Fayetteville. Since moving my family here in 1988, I have considered Fayetteville my adopted hometown and am passionate about it. I am also involved with promoting independent business in Fayetteville. I began the Fayetteville Cash Mob group and worked with them for 2 years promoting local Fayetteville Business. I also served on the board of Fayetteville Independent Business Alliance in 2013. Currently I am the office manager for Humane Society of the Ozarks in Fayetteville. I am very firmly convinced that revitalization of the College Avenue corridor should be a priority in Fayetteville now, before the area deteriorates any further. While we have seen some work in locations such as the intersection of College and Township, there are far too many stretches that give the appearance of a town that does not care about business or the citizens. As we all know, a picture paints a thousand words and this is not the image we want to promote to people considering moving to our community or starting a business here. Several people I know have attempted to start small businesses in these areas and for a variety of reasons, have moved elsewhere. That strikes me as telling. If there were more public transit stops along this main corridor, it would positively impact foot traffic for businesses in locations such as the shopping plazas adjacent to Rolling Hills Drive extending towards the center of town, including Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. Our neighborhoods in south Fayetteville are enjoying a renaissance of sorts with clean up and new homes being built. Surely improvements near 15th street and College would spur this movement along. In closing, I would like to encourage the entire council to please give Councilman Petty's proposal the careful consideration it deserves. Let us move all of Fayetteville forward, not just the west side. Best Regards, Sally Baker Williams Simply Beautiful Weddings 479.601.7393 www.simolvbeautifulweddinqs.net McCoy, Dee From: William B. Putman V <wputman@uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:00 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Revitalize College Avenue Please forward to the City Council. Thank you. Hello Council Members! My name is Ben Putman and I am a lifelong resident of Fayetteville, Arkansas. My family has lived here for several generations and they have been successful lawyers, university employees, grant writers and non-profit directors. We all love Fayetteville very much and have done what we can to leave a positive impact. The Inn of Court even bares by grandfather's name. I am currently a master's student in biological engineering, as well as the cofounder and president of the Cow Paddy Foundation; a 501(C)3 dedicated to promoting and enabling physical activity and healthy lifestyles in our community and in our schools. I find healthy and active lifestyles to be important and have made great strides to ensure that our community has the opportunity to experience such a way of life. Our annual event has put over 1600 community members across the finish line of a race, many of them for the first time, and many of them in elementary school. Our monetary contributions directly to schools and to the Fayetteville Public Education Foundation number in the tens of thousands, all in the name of physical education. All of this is to say that I really care about our city, our community, and the direction we are headed. My friend, and your fellow council member, Matthew Petty is proposing something great and I hope you all will listen intently. College Avenue is the central vein of our city and should not be overlooked. I spent a majority of my late teens and early twenties without a car. I walked and biked to all my odd jobs during undergrad. I walked in the ditches along college avenue, road my bike in heavy traffic, and was once even hit by a truck so hard it caused my bicycle pedal to go through my frame. Luckily I walked away relatively unscathed. I am so appreciative of the trail system and the progress our city has made towards being friendly for alternative transportation. But I encourage you to carefully make decisions about what is best for our city, to think about the other residents of our city who have been hit by cars, who scramble across streets that have no cross walks, and who make up all the happy smiling faces you see at all your favorite places in this great town. What Matthew is proposing makes our city safer. Near our schools, near where we shop, and where we go to relax. Nearly every single visitor to this town sees College Avenue. The proposed places for improvement are ugly, unsafe, and over utilized compared to their current conditions. I ask that you all think about what a one minute reduction in traffic is worth to you, to your community, and to your economy. It is 2014. It is time we start making better decisions. I hope this is one you all will make. Thank you, Ben Putman Research Associate Biological and Agricultural Engineering University of Arkansas Engineering Hall 207 C: 479-790-0700 i McCoy, Dee From: Long, Alan Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:15 PM To: City_Clerk; Smith, Sondra Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road Expansion Can you please forward this to the council? Alan Begin forwarded message: From: Will Watson Date: March 18, 2014 at 1:13:23 PM CDT Subject: Rupple Road Expansion I am writing to voice my support for expanding Rupple Road to four lanes and being visionaries instead of reactionaries. I believe that we should be forward -thinking in our planning for the future needs of western Fayetteville, a high -growth area of our city. I do not believe that reallocating money from one part of our city to another is prudent in this instance, given the development needed to ease north -south congestion to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. hope the city council will do the right thing and prevent future disruption to a part of our city that, like it or not, is growing tremendously. Through my work, I have gotten to know the neighborhoods going west on Wedington and I know that they are growing, thriving, and will only continue to increase in size in the coming decade. Let's be positive, forward -thinking, and continue to support the vitality of our city. Let's get this right the first time and build four lanes. Thank you for your consideration, Will Watson Ward 3 Denise Garner 3390 E. Mission Blvd. Fayetteville, AR 72703 Dear City Council Members, 1 am a 25 year resident of Fayetteville and now live in Ward 4. 1 am interested in Federal, State, and City policy. 1 not only vote in every election but encourage others to inform themselves of the issues and vote as well. 1 understand the magnitude of the decisions you must make daily and appreciate your willingness to do so. 1 work with a variety of non- profits in dealing with hunger/obesity/health & poverty issues and am especially interested in improving the quality of life for all members of our community. I own several Fayetteville businesses and am a member of the Chamber of Commerce. 1 am writing in support of looking more closely at a proposal being submitted by Councilman Matthew Petty to allocate city funds for sidewalks along College Avenue, our city's main traffic corridor. Not only is it unsafe for the 14,000 workers, FPS and UofA students, and the rest of the 1/3 of our population who live within one mile of 7113, it is an eyesore to our city's visitors as well as to those of us who travel the corridor from 15th to Joyce on a daily basis. It's difficult to believe anyone would want to move to our city if their first impression is driving from the interstate up College Avenue. As a South School property owner, it's frustrating to know that money would be spent on a the 4-lane Rupple Rd project (which according to our own study would save less that one minute on the average west side commute and is not necessary for another 10 years). College Avenue is the heart of our city and it's rehabilitation cannot wait 10 years. Many of the nonprofit participants with which 1 work live close to 71 B and depend on public transportation or walking to get to work, eat, shop, etc. I've seen firsthand the truth of "if you build it they will come" in regards to the sidewalks built on our Hwy 45 property. It's amazing to see the increased number of families walking to the nearby schools and businesses as well as those recreational and or health -minded walkers & bike riders using these sidewalks. 1 am all for the north -south connection on the west side of town (my parents and sister live there and we work with the Boys and Girls club, Owl Creek, Cobblestone Farm, and many other west end organizations). It seems to me that 2 lanes, with the sidewalks and trail already planned on Rupple, would be enough for now. Money spent on revitalizing 71 B would increase the city's economic value as well as improve the quality of life for the almost 50% of the population who live, work learn, and shop there. This seems like a "win/win" to me. Thank you so much for consideration of this opinion. And thank you for all you do to make Fayetteville the wonderful community it is! Sincerely, Denise Garner 479•283.5050 Smith, Sondra From: Lexi Acello <lexi.raynel@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:43 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: To Council Members Regarding Rupple Road Expansion Hello! I'm Lexi Acello. I've been a Fayetteville resident for three years and this town has done nothing but surprise me with it's personality, culture, and relaxed environment. I love that the local politicians actually seem invested in this town and are motivated by more than profit and prestige. This city has a vision of a constantly improving, evolving Fayetteville and I'd like to share some ways in which I think that vision could be accomplished. The Rupple expansion to MLK is by no doubt a great idea and a necessary investment, especially considering how quickly the West side of town is growing. I live on the West side, very close to Rupple, off of Mount Comfort. I will certainly use the expansion once it's finished. However, I feel it's excessive to build the road with 4 lanes when both the future predictions and current numbers make it clear that won't be necessary for several years down the road. If the $1.7 million saved by only building a two lane expansion could go to areas with higher need, I feel the city would see more benefit all around and appreciate the efforts more. Alderman Petty has some suggestions that I solidly support, such as spending the money saved on expanding the Rolling Hills area and the intersection at 15th and 71B (Tanglewood and IGA). In the recent Mayoral election, spending money to improve College Avenue was a major topic, but we've yet to see commitment to that. It's such a large part of this town. It's the location of so many jobs and businesses. Its need is greater and more obvious than the Rupple area. Instead of overspending on Rupple, I think it would be better to put the money and energy into supporting and bettering a road that we already have that could really use the attention. I can see the strengths in the opposing argument, and I understand that the town is only growing in size, but I truly feel the people of this city would see the most benefit from spending the money on the College Avenue area. Thank you for your time and I hope you all have a wonderful day! Lexi Acello 3538 W. Clabber Creek Blvd. Fayetteville, AR 72704 n McCo , Dee From: Long, Alan Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:54 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road - 4 lanes Attachments: image001.png; image002jpg; image003 jpg; image004.png; image005.png; image006.png Please forward to the council. Thank you, Alan Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Clark <SClark@favettevillear.com> Date: March 18, 2014 at 1:45:51 PM CDT To: Alan Long "ward4 post@cLfavettevilie.ar.us" <ward4 post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> Cc: Steve Clark <SClark@favettevillear.com> Subject: Rupple Road - 4 lanes I am contacting you to encourage you to vote to approve 4 lane construction on Rupple Road during your meeting this evening. As the City's economic developer, I want to recommend 4 lane construction for Rupple Road. The simple explanation for this recommendation is the current economic development that is occurring on the West side of our City between MLK and Wedington. It is my opinion that this development is going to continue and actually increase. It is my further opinion that Rupple Road is part and parcel of that economic development. One only has to drive Rupple, as I did Saturday, to see that growth is continuing and that growth is occurring around or adjacent to Rupple Road. Clearly, our city planners have embraced the fact that this growth will occur, which is why they have hosted planning charrettes for the Wedington corridor, which included a 4 lane Rupple Road. You are more aware than I, this area of Fayetteville is the fastest growing area of our community. In the last 20 months more than 10 new businesses have opened in this area. There are at least 4 more that are scheduled to open in this area in the next 6 to 8 months. Included in these businesses is a new Hilton Garden Inn hotel with a conference center and the other new amenities include a Walgreen's, health club, Walmart Neighborhood Market, a bank and a church. There are several new restaurants that have opened in this area as well. There are at least 3 more restaurants planned for that area. Additionally, an expansion is planned for our Boys and Girls Club and development of residential housing continues throughout the area. I believe that adequate street infrastructure is necessary for the existing businesses to grow and to thrive. Adequate street infrastructure is essential for new growth to continue. The best businesses that Fayetteville has are those already located here. I believe a 4 lane Rupple Road is the best infrastructure you can provide to support our existing businesses. Our city recognizes that economic development and investment cycles exist. Our city recognizes that businesses local, regional and national plan on 12, 24 and 36 month cycles to create or expand a business. To that end, our city's ability to attract economic investment and growth, which includes new jobs, is based on the fact that City government plans for growth, presents those plans to our citizens for input and then implements those plans. Would be investors and developers monitor our city's proposed plans and our city's growth to determine where they most likely want to locate development. The decisions to locate many of the new businesses that are in this area were actually made 12 to 18 months ago based on the plans developed and presented by the city then as means to support economic growth. In fact, our city this Thursday evening will be holding a public meeting to get citizen input while showcasing, along with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation department, plans for growth that include the new Crossover exchange at 1 540 and Wedington. The plan to be presented includes a roundabout for traffic calming, easier access on and off 1 540 for those traveling that stretch of interstate highway and trails connecting the East and West sides of our trail system in our city. This planning is being done to decide and inform our citizens and investors/economic developers how this area will look and what infrastructure will be involved for the years beginning 2015 and 2016. The ability of investors and economic developers to rely upon those plans is essential for our city to attract new investment, jobs and growth. A 4 lane road was planned and presented for investors and economic developers approximately 2 year ago. I urge that our city follow that plan. Steve Steve Clark, IOM President/CEO Click below to learn about the 2014 Leadership Conference: March 13, 2014 Smith, Sondra From: Smith, Sondra Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:24 PM To: 'Adams, Rhonda'; Branson, Lisa; Broyles, Lana; Eads, Gail; 'Gray, Adella'; Johnson, Kimberly; 'Jordan, Lioneld'; Kinion, Mark; 'Long, Alan'; Marr, Don; 'Marsh, Sarah'; 'McCoy, Dee'; Mulford, Patti; Pennington, Blake; 'Petty, Matthew'; Roberts, Gina; Schoppmeyer, Martin; Smith, Lindsley; Smith, Sondra; Tennant, Justin; Williams, Kit Subject: FW: Rupple Road Office of the City Clerk Treasurer Sondra E. Smith CAMC, CMC City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 ssmith@fayetteville-ar.gov TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (479) 521-1316 From: Long, Alan Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:23 PM To: Smith, Sondra; City_Clerk Subject: Fwd: Rupple Road Please forward to the council. Thank you, Alan Begin forwarded message: From: Teresa Turk Date: March 18, 2014 at 1:57:30 PM CDT Subject: Rupple Road I think Rupple Rd plans should remain as a 4 lane hwy. That's what the people voted for and it does not seem that need for the 4 lane road has changed. Thanks a bunch, Teresa Turk Smith, Sondra From: Maurice Rankin <WMauriceR@cox.net> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 7:27 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Expansion of Rupple Road Rupple Road expansion was widely discussed by voters prior to passage of the sales tax. Voters knew 4 lanes were proposed. If council thinks reducing the immediate cost so as to shift money to another project is essential I suggest a hybrid approach ... the one the state is using to build the Bella Vista Bypass. Buy ROW, relocate utilities, and create a base for 4 lanes plus sidewalks/trails. Pave only the 1st 2 lanes, sidewalks & trails at this time. It will still cost more in the end to expand the street piece -meal but not as much as it will if sidewalks are ripped out to expand the road later. Paying 4-5 times as much in the future doesn't sound like good money management. The fact that sections of the road built relatively recently are already planned for widening to 4 lanes suggests the rest of the road will also need to be 4 lanes relatively soon. Wilbur Maurice Rankin 105 N. Double Springs Rd. Ward 4. 1 i Smith, Sondra From: Marilyn Heifner <mheifner@twncenter.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:53 AM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road Since it is the purpose of a road to carry traffic, it makes the most sense to build Rupple Road four lanes now. The City Council has a great opportunity to lead in the future development of the west side of Fayetteville and plan for future growth now. Marilyn Heifner Fayetteville A & P Commission P. 0. Box 4157 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-4157 479.521.5776 800.766.4626 www.experiencefayetteville.com �= www.experiencefayette-ville.cem Now mobile optimized[ r Please consider the environment before printing this email. Follow us on facebook @ Fayetteville, AR Follow us on Twitter @ ExpFayetteville 1 Smith, Sondra ' From: Jim Hazen <jimhazen2@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:43 AM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road construction Dear City Council: I am a property owner on the north end of Rupple Road at Mt. Comfort. Everyone has an opinion about one lane or two, but the voters approved the tax specifically to improve Rupple Road and the movement of cars in the city. A one time, correct construction of Rupple saves money, citizen headaches, and criticism of never doing the job right. Doing the job twice means tearing up previous work, inconveniencing citizens, buying more land at higher prices. Do it right and complete in the first place. This will also encourage progress because people will know what they will be dealing with for the future. This corridor will relieve the traffic flow at Wedington and Rupple which is suppose to be a central point of westward expansion. The two lane Rupple at my location going north from Wedington has had numerous accidents and is often non-stop traffic. As they say, build it and they will come. Jim Hazen 2160 Rupple Road Smith, Sondra From: Beverly Schaffer <bschaffer@arkansas.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:40 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road Expansion Dear Mayor and Aldermen, We hope you will decide to honor the results of the 2006 bond election by moving forward with plans to widen Rupple Road to four lanes. We and our daughter own a home located off of Salem Road. Our daughter has lived in this neighborhood for the last three years. It is an understatement to say that the residents of Ward 4 west of 1-540 suffer from a lack of connectivity to the rest of Fayetteville. This growing area is isolated to a large degree from the rest of Fayetteville due to the lack of thoughtful planning in the past. Improvements in the infrastructure necessary to support this growth are overdue. We believe west Fayetteville is a wonderful place to live and will continue to grow at a rapid rate. Thankfully, it offers some of the most affordable housing in the city for families and has excellent neighborhood schools. In recent years, a lot of private dollars have been invested in the area to bring grocery stores, pharmacies, banks, restaurants and other amenities to serve the growing residential population. Unfortunately, all of this activity has created a traffic nightmare with so many residents trying to access those amenities with only a few ways "in and out". We very much support the widening of Rupple Road to four lanes from Wedington to MLK and also strongly encourage the city to follow up with the widening of Rupple Road to Mount Comfort Road. This will provide excellent connectivity for residents of this area who now have to weave through busy side roads and navigate dangerously congested areas of Wedington just to visit a grocery store or home improvement center. Looking even further down the road, we support the plan to extend this connectivity to Howard Nickell Road. Once the planned improvements are made connecting Gregg Street to Highway 112, this will enable residents of west Fayetteville to access businesses and amenities in both north and south Fayetteville that largely are cut off to them now. This is a thoughtful plan for fully integrating this area of Ward 4 into the city. One other factor is worth noting. There has been a rapid development of student housing projects south of the UA. Just today, the newspaper reported another 1,000+ beds are planned for another student housing project on MLK. While we know the developers like to say the students will be walking or biking rather than driving, most of us realize they will be driving to and from grocery stores, sports bars, pharmacies and restaurants on Wedington. A four lane connection from Rupple Road to Wedington would take a lot of pressure off of the Wedington/1-540 interchange. It might also encourage student residents to travel further west on MLK to access their favorite location on Wedington rather than use the soon -to -be four lane Razorback Road and cut through University Heights neighborhood to get to Wedington. A widened Rupple Road would provide a more direct route. We wholeheartedly agree with Alderman Petty that College Avenue begs for improvements. We would support finding, or creating, another revenue source for improvements to College Avenue. We think both projects are worthy. But with the recent Wedington Corridor long-range plan in place, and A.. - improvements planned for the Wedington/1-540 interchange, it would be shortsighted to slice the Rupple Road project in half. The money saved would not make a dent in the funds needed to make meaningful improvements to College Avenue. We support Alderman Petty's efforts to transform College Avenue, we just don't want one vision to be sacrificed for another. Ward 4 is counting on you to help get us a little bit closer to realizing our vision of bringing the neighborhoods west of 1-540 closer, in more ways than one, to the rest of the city. Thank you for your hard work and consideration, Beverly and Archie Schaffer Smith,.Sondra From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Sondra, Please forward to the Council. Council Members,: Marsh, Sarah Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:34 PM Smith, Sondra Environmental Action Committee Recommendations for Rupple Road Extension EAC Rupple Road Recommendations.pdf The proposed Rupple Road Extension bisects our Enduring Green Network. As such, the Environmental Action Committee discussed the potential impact at our meeting last night and developed some recommendations for optimizing the outcome of developing the corridor. Please find the attached memo summarizing our recommendations. We did not take a position on the number of lanes for the roadway, but instead focused on developing best management practices applicable to both scenarios. Thank you, -Sarah Marsh Environmental Action Committee Chair 1 City of Fayetteville Environmental Action Committee March 18, 2014 Recommendations for Environmental Best Practices for Rupple Road Extension WHEREAS, Goal 5 of the City Plan 2030 states the "We will assemble an enduring green network"; and WHEREAS, the majority of the Rupple Road Extension (RRE) and associated development will be constructed within the enduring Green Network (see attached map); and WHEREAS, the Environmental Action Committee (EAC) shall make recommendations to other city committees and to the City Council on matters concerning the environment, to address environmental concerns, promote a safe and healthy environment, and maintain the natural beauty of the environment within the city. WHEREAS, a primary goal of the Environmental Action Committee has for many years been "Speak up at meetings related to projects that affect the Enduring Green Network". WHEREAS, the EAC elected to add a presentation on and discussion of the RRE to the agenda of their March 17, 2014 meeting and identified several areas for concern including: • Multimodal Transportation that prioritizes alternatives to Single -Occupancy Vehicles • Sprawl Prevention • Wildlife Corridors • Viewshed Protection (Millsap Mtn and Mt. Kessler) • Watershed Protection WHEREAS, the EAC opted focus on making recommendations for optimizing the success of the road expansion and not to take a position on the number of lanes constructed at this time, WHEREAS, the EAC looked to the City Plan 2030 and the Wedington Corridor Master Plan to inform many of the recommendations provided, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE DOES RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL BEST PRACTICES FOR OPTIMIZING THE OUTCOME OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG RUPPLE ROAD EXTENSION CORRIDOR: Section 1: Transportation • Design for Multimodal Transportation that prioritizes alternatives to Single -Occupancy Vehicles. • Employ a strategy of pedestrian friendly Nodal development designed to embody the concept of "Park Once". • Build it "Transit -Ready": Include bus pull -offs, crosswalks, and trail crossings in the initial construction of the roadway. Plan and allocate space for future transit shelters, bus benches, and associated signage. • Implement physical road design strategies to encourage lower traffic speeds. • The committee endorsed the components of the proposed roadway section including the multi -use trail, sidewalks, vegetated buffers, and median swale with trees. • Recognize the importance of the corridor for cyclists and pedestrians to access Mt Kessler and cultivate a safe and inviting pedestrian and cycling experience/connection. Section 2: Sprawl Prevention • Develop a Complete Neighborhood Plan for the corridor consistent with the goals set forth in the City Plan 2030 and appropriately rezone all affected land prior to construction. • Prescribe a development pattern that makes traditional town form the standard, that is walkable and urban, and follows our form -based codes. • Employ a strategy of pedestrian friendly Nodal development designed to embody the concept of "Park Once". • Establish a greenway to the west of the RRE to reinforce the corridor as the urban growth boundary for the City. • Use Conservation Subdivisions to establish or expand the greenway while concentrating development along the corridor. Section 3: Wildlife Corridors • Establish wildlife corridors to protect the safety and vitality of wildlife and prevent car/wildlife collisions and road kill. Implement the Wedington Corridor Master Plan to designate natural areas, with emphasis on wetlands, forested slopes, streams, and valuable agricultural land. Implement the Wedington Corridor Master Plan recommendation to designate a North -South oriented "Greenway" connecting the Hamestring and Owl Creek Watersheds. The EAC recommends that the greenway extend beyond the scope of the Wedington Master Plan and extend south to MLK to reinforce the corridor as the edge of the urban growth boundary for the City. Provide trail connections through the conservation spaced allowing the neighborhood to access and appreciate the greenspace. A land management plan with maintenance responsibilities must be established to ensure the long term viability of the conservation space. Establish and maintain a perpetual viewshed of Millsap's Mountain and Mount Kessler. Landscape with native plants and trees to reduce water and maintenance demands, provide habitat and food for wildlife, and enhance the aesthetic appeal of the corridor. Section 4: Watershed Protection • Require all development within the Enduring Green Network to use Low Impact Development (LID) guidelines. • Employ LID strategies in construction of the roadway to enhance filtration and pre-treatment of stormwater runoff. • Designate natural areas along streamsides to protect the health and viability of the watershed. This memo was drafted from notes from the March 17, 2014 Environmental Action Committee. By. - Sarah Marsh, Environmental Action Committee Chair 1 '.c ar.'"f"-'• r •` �' 'ai . .� Jg� i � Sly a�i � r .� .; ,� it r. ��r,. u�, � r�l,••. � ` _r.�•: �' ;.: ir!',� '�jK•.l _Sr ...r1. ,y�= ' _••;:'�:L'r is it ` ��`' t may.:• `' I,. � �� . oc • �, '.'fir , �;;�11?� ' ' a{,., � _ •'� ,+ : i•.' Y � rr� ir'" '� t. `'i:'' ;L. ,�,]��` �4''r's r�=�• - :' .:'<'+ _ �'` F • e3y �• '�T, -_ , : ' - . � ; • ' �.. f ;y+r�+�8: 71: ��,,aC�' ''. �. ..�-s> ''j...` Y �'•n �. ,ww 4i� -: . t•:wFi, - • r c 1, S�C- ,:1�_• � �p •. �:. _ � .c i _ . TSI; s ~4'.']r' IMF" •.?�• .f •yy�..�' �� •.i•� '_�" �•I'': •".'- '•,• 7. Smith, Sondrai- From: JODY COBERLY <tcoberly@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:26 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road It will never be less expensive to extend and widen Rupple Road than it is right now. Stick with plans and do it now. Terry Coberly 1 Smith, Sondra I l f From: cbduty@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 201412:23 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road Alan Long told me I could add my opinion via E mail since I cannot drive at night to the meeting .... I live on Sunset Drive. My daughter lives near Rupple Road. I agree that it should be 4 lanes from the start. We drove it last Saturday and it definitely needs to be finished, and soon. Carolyn Banks Smith, Sondra From: tedbelden@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:44 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road -Ted Belden Comments Dear City Council Members I would respectfully ask the members of the City Council to support the full expansion of Rupple Road as recommended by the traffic study, and would submit the following three reasons why members should seek the full four -lane plan: 1) If the Council expects the citizens of Fayetteville to support future bond issues, they should adhere wherever possible to the existing parameters of approved projects. At the same time, if the City Council wishes to enjoy continued citizen support for the Fayetteville Master Plan, then the members would be well advised to stick closely wherever practical to its fundamental elements. 2) All parties seems to agree with the conclusion of the project study that adding additional lanes to Rupple Rd. in the future will be much more expensive than building them today. Those of us who live and own land along Rupple are thus concerned about whether the funds will be available to us in the future when the traffic patterns warrant the additional two lanes. 3) 1 would argue that the city should take every opportunity to provide west Fayetteville with a full and carefully -planned infrastructure to ensure that it develops as a interconnected and flourishing part of the city. We can agree that there is, in general, a substantial income differential between east and west Fayetteville, with the citizens on the west side being generally poorer and more mobile (i.e. with more renters than owners) than their fellow citizens to the east, and we should agree that this imbalance is not ideal. One important way of attaining greater income diversity and achieving more community stability is to encourage the growth of business and residential investment in the area, all of which naturally depends on a well -constructed transportation network. I hope the City Council will ultimately agree with me that the full Rupple Road plan represents an important element in our city's broader transportation plan and one that is particularly indispensable to the future of west Fayetteville. Sincerely, Ted Belden Smith, Sondra From: Garry Vernon McDonald <gmcdonal@uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:37 AM To: Adams, Rhonda; Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road Extension Dear Council: This note is to express my support for the full design plan for the Rupple Road extension project. I'm not going to argue all the fine points of the Rupple Road extension project since you are much more familiar with the intricacies than I ever will be. However, it is my understanding that bonds were voted on and passed to fund specific projects including Rupple Road. As such, our property owners association (Rupple Row POA)has worked closely with city planners and engineers over the past year or so to understand the impact of this road extension on our neighborhood including on -street parking, mailbox replacement, tree canopy and pedestrian flow. We've attended planning meetings, design charrettes, and had individual contacts with staff. I must say at first I was leery, but was convinced by city staff that this was an important part of a larger infrastructure plan to alleviate traffic congestion along the Wedington corridor and improve flow for further development. I'm not excited about increased traffic along Rupple Road, but even less excited about increased traffic congestion west of 1-540. As a "good faith" gesture, Rupple Row POA just spent about $16,000 replacing trees along the west side of Rupple with the idea they would visibly and ecologically enhance the fully -designed Rupple Row project. I feel this shows our neighborhood's commitment to the project. While needs are great throughout the city, my main concern is a diversion of funds would be an act of bad faith on the part of the Council. I certainly don't know all the details, but it seems the voters of Fayetteville approved bonds for specific infrastructure projects. If so, the funds should be used as intended by the voters. It will be hard to pass future desperately needed bond issues if the citizens feel they can't trust the city to implement projects as proposed and voted on. Projects should be fully funded, built and then move on to the next project. Fits and starts and dispersal of effort does not seem a good way to achieve the long term goals of the city master plan. It's like that promised family trip "next year". Next year never comes. Respectfully yours. Garry McDonald 530 N Tennyson Ln Fayetteville, AR 72704 Smith, Sondra From: Smith, Sondra Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:16 PM To: 'Adams, Rhonda'; Branson, Lisa; Broyles, Lana; Eads, Gail; 'Gray, Adella'; Johnson, Kimberly; 'Jordan, Lioneld'; Kinion, Mark; 'Long, Alan'; Marr, Don; 'Marsh, Sarah'; 'McCoy, Dee'; Mulford, Patti; Pennington, Blake; 'Petty, Matthew'; Roberts, Gina; Schoppmeyer, Martin; Smith, Lindsley; Smith, Sondra; Tennant, Justin; Williams, Kit Subject: FW: Rupple Road Office of the City Clerk Treasurer Sondra E. Smith CAMC, CMC City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 s smith@fayetteville-ar. gov TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (479) 521-1316 From: Naomi L [mailto:naomil46@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:45 AM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road I am sorry I just got the message pertaining to Rupple Road. My name is Naomi Laubler, I live off Rupple Road in the Clabber Creek sub -division. I just want the court to know that the hill coming up from rupple and connecting to Mt. Comfort is very dangereous. The snow storm we got in February cars could not go up or down on that hill. I nearly got slammed into by a truck coming down the hill making me stop half way up the hill. Needless to say I had to have someone to back it back down the hill and I had to go back to Weddington road and go up 540 and get off at exit 65 to get home. So I would like to voice my opinion on strightening out the road to cross over Mt. Comfort. I also, do not feel it is necessary to continue the road up to W Howard Nickell Rd. The trucks can use West Salem they do not need to come thru by the middle school. Thank you, Naomi Laubler Smith, Sondra l From: Sent: To: Subject: City Council members, Sarah E. Spiegel <sspiegel@uark.edu> Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:23 AM Smith, Sondra Rupple expansion I am unable to make the meeting so I don't if my opinion really matters here, but I think that limiting the Rupple expansion to two lanes is very short-sighted. Given how heavy traffic currently is in west Fayetteville, I'd much rather have the infrastructure in place now, rather than later. Look at the mess that is Garland. Construction once, done right, should be the aim of the city. Extended Rupple to MILK will help relieve the stress on the smaller roads we currently have to use to get to MLK and will help redistribute traffic. The opinion of the city planner that there isn't enough traffic to justify four lanes is preposterous. Has he driven in west Fayetteville during peak traffic? We have more than enough traffic to justify the full four lanes. And given the seemingly endless construction on 540 (at Porter Rd.) and on 112, we don't have any easy options to get to MILK without backtracking to Farmington via Broyles. Let's do it right, the first time and not be caught unprepared for the traffic to become so congested, yet again, that we need those two lanes people are arguing about Thanks, Sarah Spiegel 1 Smith, Sondra From: James McCartney <james@uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:07 AM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road Expansion I am writing to express my support for widening Rupple road from MLK to Wedington at 4 lanes. This should be done at the beginning to save money and prepare for future expansion. The 2006 bond issue was passed with this expansion in mind and the Ward 4 funds are allocated already. These North/South (as well as East/West) corridors are essential for traffic flows in our growing city. Regards James McCartney 1523 W Hotz Dr, Fayetteville AR Smith, Sondra From: Courtney Madden Ogden <courtneymogden@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:34 PM To: Smith, Sondra Cc: longward4@gmail.com Subject: Rupple Road Project Dear Mayor, As a resident of Ward 4 for the past 5 years I write you about the Rupple Road Project. I understand that Alderman Petty would like for this project to be 2 lanes instead of the 4 lanes that was projected in 2006. Our Ward is one of the fastest growing areas of Fayetteville with continued NEW construction daily. Currently we do not have easy access from Mt Comfort Road to Martin Luther King Blvd without getting onto 540. I understand that Alderman Petty feels like it is a waste at this money, but I believe that once it is complete all 4 lanes will be utilized. If you drive on Wedington Drive at any time you will find it busy at all times of the day and normally backed up with getting on and off of 540. If you could relieve some of this traffic with a way to by-pass 540 that would help the West side of Fayetteville. There is continued growth on Wedington Drive that will only make the Rupple Road project more useful to this area. If it's known that Rupple will need to be 4 lanes in the next few years then why wait and put this area through another construction zone twice and just do it once and save the city some money. Thanks, Courtney Madden Ogden Ward 4 Resident �- Smith, Sondra E From: Smith, Sondra Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:29 PM To: Adams, Rhonda; Branson, Lisa; Broyles, Lana; Eads, Gail; Gray, Adella; Johnson, Kimberly; Mayor; Kinion, Mark; Long, Alan; Marr, Don; Marsh, Sarah; McCoy, Dee; Mulford, Patti; Pennington, Blake; Petty, Matthew; Roberts, Gina; Schoppmeyer, Martin; Smith, Lindsley; Smith, Sondra; Tennant, Justin; Williams, Kit Subject: FW: Rupple Road Widening and Extension Office of the City Clerk Treasurer Sondra E. Smith CAMC, CMC City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 s s mith@fayetteville- ar. gov TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (479) 521-1316 From: J. Laurence Hare [mailto:rupplerowpoa@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:53 PM To: Smith, Sondra Cc: Long, Alan; Adams, Rhonda Subject: Rupple Road Widening and Extension Dear City Council Members: I am writing in response to the planned presentation by Matthew Petty regarding the reallocation of funds for the N. Rupple Rd. widening and extension project. At the recent meeting of the City Transportation Committee, Mr. Petty made some valid points when he claimed first that the housing density south of Persimmon does not immediately require a 4-lane highway and second when he suggested that 1.7 million of the planned project costs could be put to good use elsewhere in Fayetteville. But ... I have two objections to the premises of his alternative proposal. First, where Mr. Petty claims that the development along the Rupple Road extension cannot through its property taxes support the repayment of the expansion costs, he seems to assume that the road is being built solely for the purpose of introducing development between Persimmon and MLK. In fact, the extension of Rupple Rd is intended to facilitate a citywide transportation initiative. It is planned as a four -lane highway because it is a major artery designed to support traffic moving from north to south. Above all, it will relieve the traffic pressure on Wedington, MLK, and I-540, which will benefit thousands of commuters each day. For this reason, Mr. Petty should not look at future Rupple development as the sole base of financial support for the Rupple project; rather, he should see view it as a benefit, and a responsibility, for all of Fayetteville. Second, I understand that the money which he would see moved to an alternative project on N. College Ave. has already been earmarked for the Rupple extension as part of a four -lane highway promised to Fayetteville voters. Tb alter the plan now in the interests of another project strikes me as a breach of faith with citizens. I thus disagree with Mr. Petty's assumption that the City Council can lightly move the funds to an unrelated proj ect. Therefore ... I would respectfully ask the members of the City Council to support the full expansion of Rupple Road as recommended by the traffic study, and would submit the following three reasons why members should seek the full four -lane plan: 1) If the Council expects the citizens of Fayetteville to support future bond issues, they should adhere wherever possible to the existing parameters of approved projects. At the same time, if the City Council wishes to enjoy continued citizen support for the Fayetteville Master Plan, then the members would be well advised to stick closely wherever practical to its fundamental elements. 2) All parties seems to agree with the conclusion of the project study that adding additional lanes to Rupple Rd. in the future will be much more expensive than building them today. Those of us who live along Rupple are thus concerned about whether the funds will be available to us in the future when the traffic patterns warrant the additional two lanes. 3) I would argue that the city should take every opportunity to provide west Fayetteville with a full and carefully -planned infrastructure to ensure that it develops as a interconnected and flourishing part of the city. We can agree that there is, in general, a substantial income differential between east and west Fayetteville, with the citizens on the west side being generally poorer and more mobile (i.e. with more renters than owners) than their fellow citizens to the east, and we should agree that this imbalance is not ideal. One important way of attaining greater income diversity and achieving more community stability is to encourage the growth of business and residential investment in the area, all of which naturally depends on a well -constructed transportation network. In forwarding this argument, I do not mean to dispute Mr. Petty's point that we need to address infrastructure problems along N. College Ave. Indeed, I feel that he is right to seek future improvements to this area. Yet I hope the City Council will ultimately agree with me that the full Rupple Road plan represents an important element in our city's broader transportation plan and one that is particularly indispensable to the future of west Fayetteville. Sincerely, Laurence Hare 705 N Rupple Rd. Fayetteville, AR (479) 301-1610 Smith, Sondra From: Robert James Harrington <rharring@uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:30 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road Expansion This email is to express my support for expanding Rupple Road to a 4 lane road from Weddington to MLK. This is critical to improving the quality of life of the 25% of Fayetteville residents that live on the West side of Fayetteville. Traffic congestion will only increase and this thoroughfare will provide relief and enhanced property values for this area of the city. The 4 lane version makes sense for several reasons: 1) having only one construction project of our lanes will be more cost effective (rather than 2 lanes now and 2 lanes in a few years), 2) the one time construction with alleviate frustrations and issues associated with continual construction decreasing quality of life during the second construction time and due to the waiting process of 2 lane to 4 lane of construction approval, 3) the more immediate and longer term investment in 4 lanes will enhance the quality of life of residents and visual beauty of the area. Thanks and best regards, Bob Harrington 4752 W Trail Dust St Fayetteville McCoy,Dee I From: Ryan Billingsley <ryan.billingsley@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:56 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: City Council Meeting 3/18 Hello Ms. Smith, I was hoping you could pass along this message to the city council this evening. Thanks very much. My name is Ryan Billingsley and my wife and I live in Ward 3 now. I just wanted to take a moment to write after I heard about the discussion about Rupple Rd. I've heard that Mr. Petty's opinion is to make the road 2 lanes instead of 4, because the need for 4 lanes is based on the potential need in 10-15 years, and the money saved could be better spent on College Ave. right now. I know you have lots of things to consider in matters like this, but I just wanted you to know that if it were as simple as "make Rupple Rd. 4 lanes or begin to restore College Ave" then I would very quickly vote for the latter with my personal vote. I certainly see the benefit of connecting west Fayetteville in a better way, but I think Mr. Petty's suggestion is a strong one with good compromise that addresses two projects at once focusing more on current and overdue needs. And, for what it's worth, I think in 15 years we could hopefully come up with a better solution for growth than widening all of our streets. Thanks for your time, Ryan Billingsley McCoy. Dee From: Kathleen Deaton <kathleenhdeaton@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:16 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: March 18th City Council road improvements Hello, My name is Katy Ochoa and I am a resident of Fayetteville, Ward 3. I agree with Council member Matthew Petty that funds from the Rupple road project should be used to help improve College Ave. Driving on College is dangerous and crowded. Thank you, Katy Ochoa McCoy, Dee From: Terry Michaels <terry.michaels530@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:30 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: College Ave. and plans for city streets Dear Council Members, I live on the southeast side of Fayetteville. I own two lots on Willow Street and am hoping to soon be an owner of a duplex, also in the south of town. I plan on living in Fayetteville for the rest of my life. One reason I like living here is because you, the decision makers of the city, have been doing a great job of keeping the walking and bike riding friendly avenues open and coming. I am a frequent visitor to two cities Fayetteville is often compared to, in these cities' earlier histories - Asheville, North Carolina and Austin, Texas. The beauty and cultural offerings of these cities are equal (on a larger scale for them of course) to the beauty and cultural opportunities of our region. What I see as a problem with these two large cities is the lack of sidewalks, bike trails/lanes, and public transportation systems. They are not easy places to get around in using alternative transportation methods. The winding freeways are an eye sore in Austin and not friendly for walking or riding a bike, even though somewhere you are heading might be less than a quarter mile away! I am proud and pleased to be able to tell my friends in these cities about our lovely city and how our city planners and council women and men are making careful, intentional decisions to create an example for other cities on how to keep urban sprawl to a minimum and maintain the safe and diverse ways of travel a city has to offer. We are a city with possibilities and foresight to be sustainable and environmentally conscious for years to come. I find it very challenging at this time to stop along College Ave. to check out the many community owned businesses. I am curious about them, but find it difficult to slow down to even check the signs to ensure it is a place I want to go! The city of Austin has this same problem. There are many interesting shops and stores along main streets, but it is close to impossible to find your way to them with traffic speeding around you and pushing behind you. I believe the businesses of College Ave. would gain in customers if College Ave. were improved upon. Families in our city would benefit from more crosswalks and sidewalks on College Ave. because they would feel more safe and able to get around on foot. Parking would not be as big of an issue if people were able to safely walk or ride a bike from the east side to the west side of College. Don't we want to keep our energy use to a minimum? I believe that Matt Petty's proposal is a wise one and I hope that you will support it. Thank you for your time in reading my email. Sincerely, Terry Michaels Branson, Lisa From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Categories: Hi Sondra, Nierengarten, Peter Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:10 PM City -Clerk Marsh, Sarah; Marr, Don; aubreyshepherd@hotmail.com; Connie; dana.smith@fayar.net; Garnett Wise; James Barton; Mike Emery; Nierengarten, Peter, Pollock, Joanna B.; Richard Russell; Robert Moore; Wisely, Angela FW: EAC Rupple Road Recommendations EAC Rupple Road Recommendations.pdf Responded, Forwarded Would you please forward the attached recommendations from the Environmental Action Committee to the City Council? Peter Nierengarten City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Sustainability & Resilience Department Director Direct Phone: 479-575-8272 NOTE my now e-mail address: pnierengarten@fayetteviile-ar.gov I Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Marsh, Sarah Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:47 PM To: Nierengarten, Peter Cc: Robert Moore Subject: EAC Rupple Road Recommendations Peter, I drafted the EAC recommendations to submit to the Council. Will you give it a once over and ensure that it is an accurate representation of our discussion? If so, please forward it to the Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to tonight's meeting. Also, please forward it to our EAC members in the event they would like to use it to help craft any comments they have for the Council. Thanks, -Sarah City of Fayetteville Environmental Action Committee March 18, 2014 Recommendations for Environmental Best Practices for Rupple Road Extension Council Members: WHEREAS, Goal 5 of the City Plan 2030 states the "We will assemble an enduring green network"; and WHEREAS, the majority of the Rupple Road Extension (RRE) and associated development will be constructed within the enduring Green Network (see attached map); and WHEREAS, the Environmental Action Committee (EAC) shall make recommendations to other city committees and to the City Council on matters concerning the environment, to address environmental concerns, promote a safe and healthy environment, and maintain the natural beauty of the environment within the city. WHEREAS, a primary goal of the Environmental Action Committee has for many years been "Speak up at meetings related to projects that affect the Enduring Green Network". WHEREAS, the EAC elected to add a presentation on and discussion of the RRE to the agenda of their March 17, 2014 meeting and identified several areas for concern including: • Multimodal Transportation that prioritizes alternatives to Single -Occupancy Vehicles • Sprawl Prevention • Wildlife Corridors • Viewshed Protection (Millsap Mtn and Mt. Kessler) • Watershed Protection WHEREAS, the EAC opted focus on making recommendations for optimizing the success of the road expansion and not to take a position on the number of lanes constructed at this time, WHEREAS, the EAC looked to the City Plan 2030 and the Wedington Corridor Master Plan to inform many of the recommendations provided, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE DOES RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENTAL BEST PRACTICES FOR OPTIMIZING THE OUTCOME OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG RUPPLE ROAD EXTENSION CORRIDOR: Section 1: Transportation 0 Design for Multimodal Transportation that prioritizes alternatives to Single -Occupancy Vehicles. • Employ a strategy of pedestrian friendly Nodal development designed to embody the concept of "Park Once". • Build it "Transit -Ready": Include bus pull -offs, crosswalks, and trail crossings in the initial construction of the roadway. Plan and allocate space for future transit shelters, bus benches, and associated signage. • Implement physical road design strategies to encourage lower traffic speeds. • The committee endorsed the components of the proposed roadway section including the multi -use trail, sidewalks, vegetated buffers, and median swale with trees. • Recognize the importance of the corridor for cyclists and pedestrians to access Mt Kessler and cultivate a safe and inviting pedestrian and cycling experience/connection. Section 2: Sprawl Prevention • Develop a Complete Neighborhood Plan for the corridor consistent with the goals set forth in the City Plan 2030 and appropriately rezone all affected land prior to construction. • Prescribe a development pattern that makes traditional town form the standard, that is walkable and urban, and follows our form -based codes. • Employ a strategy of pedestrian friendly Nodal development designed to embody the concept of "Park Once". • Establish a greenway to the west of the RRE to reinforce the corridor as the urban growth boundary for the City. • Use Conservation Subdivisions to establish or expand the greenway while concentrating development along the corridor. Section 3: Wildlife Corridors • Establish wildlife corridors to protect the safety and vitality of wildlife and prevent car/wildlife collisions and road kill. • Implement the Wedington Corridor Master Plan to designate natural areas, with emphasis on wetlands, forested slopes, streams, and valuable agricultural land. • Implement the Wedington Corridor Master Plan recommendation to designate a North -South oriented "Greenway" connecting the Hamestring and Owl Creek Watersheds. The EAC recommends that the greenway extend beyond the scope of the Wedington Master Plan and extend south to MLK to reinforce the corridor as the edge of the urban growth boundary for the City. Provide trail connections through the conservation spaced allowing the neighborhood to access and appreciate the greenspace. A land management plan with maintenance responsibilities must be established to ensure the long term viability of the conservation space. • Establish and maintain a perpetual viewshed of Millsap's Mountain and Mount Kessler. • Landscape with native plants and trees to reduce water and maintenance demands, provide habitat and food for wildlife, and enhancing the aesthetic appeal of the corridor. Section 4: Watershed Protection • Require all development within the Enduring Green Network to use Low Impact Development (LID) guidelines. • Employ LID strategies in construction of the roadway to enhance filtration and pre-treatment of stormwater runoff. • Designate natural areas along streamsides to protect the health and viability of the watershed. This memo was drafted from notes from the March 17, 2014 Environmental Action Committee. By: Sarah Marsh, Environmental Action Committee Chair OVA McCoy, Dee From: Linda <leichmann@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:17 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Ripple road Please forward this to the mayor and council members: We are in favor of keeping the current plan for Rupple Road. The west side of Fayetteville is growing rapidly and it will be much more economical to build it properly now rather than try to expand it later on. We do not need more disruption like Garland. Thank you, Raymond and Linda Eichmann Sent from my iPh McCoy, Dee From: Ron Cox <0907rc@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:19 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road project Categories: Completed The proposed changes to the Rupple Road project remind me of a similar project years ago when Township was extended from Old Wire Rd to Crossover. The project was to be a four lane east/west connector. However, there was not funding for four lanes. It was decided to do two lanes now and then widen the road in the near future. That was many years ago and as you know Township is still two lanes. The same will happen to Rupple Road if the project is changed. Changing the project is a bad idea in the long term. Ronald Cox. Sent from my iPhone McCoy, Dee From: Jackson Lafargue <jdlafarg@email.uark.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:36 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Regarding the debate on road projects Categories: Responded, Forwarded Hi there. My name is Jackson Lafargue. I'm a University of Arkansas student, Fayetteville native, and a regular pedestrian. I live approximately a mile east of College nearest to the College/Sycamore intersection and routinely walk to class if I'm not able to find a ride. This means I must cross College at least several times a week. While I am able to do it by watching the traffic signals and paying attention to cars on all four ways of the intersection, I find that it is sometimes difficult due to the lack of pedestrian walk signals and crosswalks. Not only that, but I find that this situation exists at many other intersections and crucial areas in town. Many may not realize this since we live in such a car -based society, but there are serious flaws concerning walkability in the city, especially when it comes to crossing into different areas of town, which usually means having to cross a major highway or traffic artery where the crosswalks and signals are very few. The most glaring example of this problem is on College, especially in the Midtown area between roughly Maple and Poplar streets. With your help, this area of College could be greatly improved to accommodate those who live in the area that regularly walk and/or bike to their destinations. I am urging you, the council, to carefully weigh your options tonight as you decide which road projects to allocate money to. Having lived in Farmington a couple of years ago, I understand the need for a north -south connection between MLK and Wedington, However, having Interstate 540 a few miles away, plus having the Boys and Girls Club and Owl Creek Elementary on the same street, I do not believe four lanes are necessary at this point. Furthermore, the extra lanes would draw more traffic to Rupple and potentially pose a danger to children who attend the facilities stated above. In closing, I believe that both of these projects are needed for Fayetteville. However, I don't believe that College avenue improvements should get the short end of the stick in favor of a four lane west -side connection that would only save people around 50 seconds of travel time. In my opinion, a two lane Rupple connection and important improvements on College can coexist on the same transportation budget. Thank you for your time! -Jackson D. Lafargue McCoy, Dee ' From: Chung Tan <chungtan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:58 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Extension from Boys & Girls Club to MLK Hi Sondra: I am writing this e-mail as a resident of Ward 4. I vote to make the Rupple Road extension a 4 Lane extension for these reasons: 1) It's a trust issue --if the city tells us what the tax money is going to be used for, it should be used for that. If the City Council can change their minds, this will lose the trust of the people and in the future, if the City wants to count on the people to vote for some issue, the people will think twice and rightly so. 2) I believe in doing it right the first time. It is more cost efficient and less bothersome compared to building 2 lane now and expanding it to 4 lane later. 3) Ward 4 funding should stay in Ward 4. We should not be transferring funds from one ward to another ward, unless for a very good reason. 4) The extension will help to ease traffic on the west side of town and I believe that this road will be well used once it is constructed. Please share this feedback with the Council tonight. Thanks for all you do for Fayetteville. Chung Tan Resident 4774 New Bridge Rd Fayetteville, AR 72704 McCoy, Dee From: Molly Carman <mollymcarman@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:11 PM To: City -Clerk Subject: Ripple Road extension plan Dear City Council Members, My name is Molly Carman, and I am a high school teacher and frequent pedestrian here in Fayetteville. I am writing because I wanted to share my thoughts about the proposed extension of Rupple Road to make a north - south connection on the west side of town. First of all, I am extremely pleased that we are finally making this connection. The west side is difficult to navigate, and this will make things easier for drivers, bikers, and walkers. However, I do not believe that a 4- lane road is necessary. I agree with Mr. Petty and many other Fayettevillians that some of the project's budget could be better spent improving midtown-- specifically, College Ave. One of the main reasons that I live where I do (just south of Archibald Yell on Locust) is that this is one of the few areas of town where a person can walk or bike to shops, restaurants, entertainment, and even a grocery store. It's not the most pleasant walk in the world, but the sidewalks on MLK even make it possible for me to walk to work every day, instead of driving. Walking has become an important part of my lifestyle, and has influenced my family's transportation -related decisions. I sincerely hope that we can extend this walkability beyond the downtown area, and I think that College Ave is an excellent place to start. The Rupple extension is important, but 4 lanes are unnecessary, and would not be the best use of the allocated funds. Let's use some of that money to make a long -overdue change to one of our city's most important arteries. This is a golden opportunity to revitalize our midtown area, and make the businesses along College Ave more accessible and attractive to those of us who prefer (or need) to get around on foot and on bikes! Sincerely, Molly M. Carman Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad Smith, Sondra From: Angela <ascmcknight@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:55 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road Expansion I live in Ward 4. 1 believe that the money allocated for the 4 lane Rupple Road expansion should be spent as voted for during the bond issue. Angela McKnight 1969 W. Archer Sent from my Phone z Smith, Sondra 444,4z It From: Claire Kolberg <claire@centuriaventures.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:56 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road expansion Hi there, I am a homeowner in Ward 4 and would like to see the funds appropriated for Ward 4 used for the construction of Rupple Rd from MLK to Wedington to a 4 lane highway. Please do not divert funds from Ward 4 to Ward 2. Thank you, Claire Kolberg • Project Specialist claire@centuriaventures.com Smith, Sondra From: Thelma Tarver <ttarver0@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 4:33 PM To: Smith, Sondra Subject: Rupple Road expansion opinion I support the 4-lane expansion of Rupple road from MILK to Wedington to provide traffic relief west of 540. Thelma Tarver 1701 West Center Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 phone:5213667 ttarverOngmail.com DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE ()FFtc'F of THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: Mayor Jordan City Council CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Paul Becker, Finance Director Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director Chris Brown, City Engineer FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney' DATE: March 18, 2014 RE: Further caution in use of bond funds TRADITIONAL ILLEGAL EXACTION TEST — BALLOT LANGUAGE CONTROLS Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Assistant City Attorney Patti Mulford Paralegal The illegal exaction law pursuant to Article 16 § 11 of the Arkansas Constitution has continued to be developed by interpretations of the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking to prevent the government from misleading voters on tax issues. Article 16 § 11 states: "No tax shall be levied except in pursuance of law, and every law imposing a tax shall state distinctly the object of the same; and no monies arising from a tax levied for one purpose shall be used for any other purpose." For decades in order to determine the required purpose of a proposed tax, the Supreme Court looked almost exclusively to the ballot wording which was termed the "last word" and by far the most important communication to voters about what the purpose of the tax was. TEST EXPANDED TO ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IN 1999 This changed somewhat in 1999 when the Arkansas Supreme Court elevated the importance of the language in the sales tax bond election ordinance which set forth the purposes of the tax. "The instant case presents us with the new question of whether specific, exclusive purposes stated within the levying ordinance are sufficient to prohibit contrary uses in the absence of any specific limitation stated on the ballot. We hold... that the voter is entitled to rely upon both the levying ordinance and the ballot title. Publication of the ordinance in its entirety informed the city,$ electorate about each and every provision contained within it. In circumstances such as here, where the city's citizens voted approving a levying ordinance containing specific, exclusive purposes, the absence of those exclusive purposes from the ballot did not transform the levying ordinance into a general- purpose sales tax. The ballot is the "final word" to the voters only in the sense that it is the last source of information, not in the sense that it is conclusive of the measure's effects. It must be read in conjunction with the levying ordinance." Maas v. City of Mountain Home, 338 Ark. 202, 992 S.W.2d 105, 108 (1999) (emphasis added). Soon after I became Fayetteville City Attorney, I reviewed and commented upon the City's briefs in defense of the Town Center bonds. Our retained counsel, Woody Bassett, kindly allowed me to argue to the Arkansas Supreme Court the issue of the wording of the ballot and election ordinance while he handled the illegal exaction arguments related to using the City's 1993 one cent sales tax for part of the construction costs of the Town Center. We were relieved when the City broke our two illegal exaction case losing streak (which had cost our citizens several million dollars in attorneys' fees in the early 90's) by prevailing in the Town Center case. By then the Arkansas Supreme Court clearly held that purposes for the tax should be looked for both on the ballot and in the ordinance calling for the election. 2 "An illegal exaction also occurs where tax revenues are shifted to a use different than the use authorized.... However, if a purpose for the tax is stated either in the ordinance or in the ballot title, use of the funds for another purpose constitutes an illegal exaction." Williams v. City of Fayetteville, 348 Ark. 768, 76 S.W.3d 235,239 (2002). PUBLIC EXPLANATIONS FOR USE OF ROAD BOND FUNDS As you know, the Mayor almost always reads the title of the ordinance out loud at the beginning of the agenda item concerning the ordinance during the City Council meeting. Clearly the Arkansas Supreme Court would consider this as something "the voter is entitled to rely upon" when determining the purpose of the ordinance and the proposed tax. When introducing the 2006 Sale Tax Bond Election Ordinance, the minutes show that Mayor Coody read the agenda item title rather than just the Sales Tax Bond Election Ordinance title. I have reviewed the CD of June 20, 2006 meeting to confirm that Mayor Coody, when introducing the Sales Tax Bond Election Ordinance, read the agenda item title as shown below: "'Special Election Ca ital Sales Tax Extension: An ordinance calling for a Special Election on September 12, 2006 to extend the current three quarter (3/4) cent Capital Sales Tax and authorize a one quarter (1/4) cent Capital Sales Tax for a Total Sales Tax of one (1) cent, issue bonds and short-term debt to pay for additional cost of the Waste Water System Improvement Program and for Phase I of the Transportation Improvement Program as recommended by the Street Committee and the Water and Sewer Committee." City Council Meeting Minutes, June 20, 2006, page 8 (emphasis added). I have attached Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Plan (sometimes referred to as "Program") to this memo. 3 Therefore, the Fayetteville Citizens were expressly informed by the Mayor at the City Council meeting which enacted the Sale Tax Bond Election Ordinance that one of the purposes for the bonds was "to pay ... for Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Program...." Interestingly, the proposed road project that was planned to use the largest amount of the City Sales Tax Bond revenue in Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Plan was "Rupple Road (6th to Persimmon), New -Minor Arterial, $8,155,000.00." COMPELLING FACTS CAN RESULT IN NEW SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS Although the Engineering Department has informed the City Council that we can build Rupple Road as the proposed four lane boulevard (arterial) within the $8,158,000.00 estimated budget, some recommend that the City Council not build this arterial connection and use the money elsewhere. That is what the City Council of Mountain Home did in reliance on the "Ballot Language Controls" theory. Those Aldermen serving on the Mountain Home City Council six years after the election obviously believed there were more deserving projects for the bond money than those spelled out in the tax election ordinance, and so voted to divert the money to their favored alternative projects. "The voters approved the tax on May 5, 1981. Following the election, the city council spent the tax proceeds in accordance with Section 7 in succeeding years until 1987. Beginning that year and each subsequent year, the council voted to amend section 7 of the ordinance and use the proceeds for purposes other than originally designated." Maas v. City of Mountain Home, supra. The City Council of Mountain Home thought they could ignore the restrictive purposes stated in the levying ordinance as long as the ballot itself had no such restrictive purposes. The Circuit Judge agreed with Mountain Home and granted the City summary judgment, but the taxpayers appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court obviously did not approve of Mountain Home's "bait and switch" and stated: "The instant case presents us with the new question' of whether ordinance language can limit purposes for sales tax bond revenue even if the ballot's language does not. The Supreme Court answered its "new question" with a finding that the new Mountain Home n City Council had committed an illegal exaction. Thus, a lot of the money that was supposed to go to the original purposes explained to the voters instead went into the pockets of the lawyer who successfully sued Mountain Home for a taxpayer. We do not want that to happen in Fayetteville ever again. As you see, the Arkansas Supreme Court can and has altered or modified its old tests when considering illegal exaction issues. I said in my History of Rupple Road memo of February 24, 2014 that "it is unlikely that the City could be found to have committed an illegal exaction if Rupple Road is not built to arterial standards," and I still believe that is correct. However, the Mountain Home City Attorney might also have thought it unlikely that the Arkansas Supreme Court would vary from the "Ballot Language Controls" theory, hold this was a "new question" and then determine the Mountain Home City Council had committed an illegal exaction. I believe that the Supreme Court modified its illegal exaction test in the Mountain Home case because of strong facts showing that the voters might have been misled by the City. It sought to protect the voters and taxpayers of Mountain Home from its City Council which six years after the election decided to alter the publicly stated purposes of the sales tax bond revenues. PUBLICATION OF PURPOSE TO PAY FOR PHASE 1 OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN In the Mountain Home decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court placed significance upon the publication of the ordinance. "(P)ublication of the ordinance in its entirety informed the city's electorate about each and every provision contained within it." Supra. On June 19, 2006 (the day before the City Council meeting and its vote to enact the Special Sales Tax Bond Election Ordinance), the Final Agenda was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times. It referred to this ordinance's purposes as "to pay for additional cost of the Waste Water System Improvement Program and for Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Program as recommended by the Street Committee and the Water and Sewer Committee." (copy attached). I continue to believe that under current Arkansas Supreme Court interpretations, the more general wording of the ordinance and ballot would prevent a successful illegal exaction case against the City of Fayetteville if the City Council fails to build Rupple Road as an arterial boulevard even though �1 the voters were repeatedly informed that the bond money would be used for the Rupple arterial. However, I am concerned that there is some chance that the Arkansas Supreme Court might be inclined to treat this as a "new question' and revise the test to further protect voters' reliance on the City's official, published statements of the purposes of the sales tax bond revenue. FACTORS THAT SUPREME COURT COULD CONSIDER TO PREVENT "BAIT AND SWITCH" These are factors that I am concerned might lead to a "new question" decision and even possibly to an illegal exaction ruling by the Supreme Court: (1) The purpose of the bonds were publicly and explicitly stated to pay "for Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Program." (a) in the public memo from City Staff to the Aldermen; (b) in the newspaper publication of the City Council Agenda; (c) by Mayor Coody to introduce the ordinance; and (d) in the official City Council Meeting Minutes. A four lane Rupple Road was also described as proposed arterial connection during the campaign for the bond election. (2) The Transportation Improvement Plan Phase 1 was in the Agenda Packet and was available to the public prior to the City Council's adoption of the Special Sale Tax Election Bond Ordinance and prior to the sales tax election. (3) The new arterial of Rupple Road was the single most expensive bond funded project in Phase 1 of the Transportation Improvement Plan. (4) Most troubling to me is that the proposed diversion of $1.7 million from Rupple to College Avenue or elsewhere is a large, enough "pie" to interest an attorney who might wish to sue the City for an illegal exaction. Often a Court will award up to a third of a successful C:7 illegal exaction suit as an attorneys fee. Thus, even though an illegal exaction suit would be a long shot, the potential payoff of $500,000 to $600,000 if the taxpayer prevailed could inspire a suit. If a lawsuit was filed, the Bond Trustee would probably refuse to release the funds for the newly proposed project (and maybe even a modified Rupple Road project) until the case had journeyed through the Courts to a final decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court (2 to 3 years). Even if the City wholly succeeded (which I think we would), we would be out as a minimum attorney's fees for the Bond Trustee's lawyer as well as my office's costs to defend the case. The last programmed bond funded road project {the extension of Rupple Road to Martin Luther King (Highway 62)} might face another two or three year delay which could cause an increase in its overall cost and threaten the City's compliance with federal laws which require prompt expenditure of tax exempt bond funds. CONCLUSION The current Supreme Court interpretation of the Arkansas Constitution would probably mean that the City Council will not have committed an illegal exaction even if it fails to build the Rupple Road arterial as described in the Transportation Improvement Plan, Phase 1. There is a slight chance that the Arkansas Supreme Court would devise a new test if it believed it necessary to protect the reasonable reliance of Fayetteville's voters upon published and public descriptions of how the bond funds would be used. Even if an illegal exaction taxpayer suit failed (which is likely), there could be delays and expenses caused by such suit and possibly federal tax issues if bond funds could not be expended promptly enough. 7 0 • FINAL AGENDA. CITY OF FAYErMVILL.E ARKANSAS CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE�r2 a e eel e A meeting of the Feyenevlle City Council will be held on June 20. 2006 at 8:00 PM in Room 219 of the City A R K A N S A S Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain StraK Fayetteville, Arkansas. Can to Ordw Ron Cell Pledge of Atleplatce Pollee Deparbnent Presentatlon RecognlixhM 12 n.srttbers of the Cttb mft Police Academy - Sergeant Shannon Gabbard NomMating Cornnilm" Reports Kyle Cook. Chalrrran A. CONSENT!, 1. ApproYa('if iM gene 0. 2006 City Cotatoll Meeting Mbtutes. 2. Reacted Res. 02-M - McClelland Conautting Enstneen Task Order f 131 A resolu- tion rasdridilg,the budgo 4dp9wrA appmvod by Resolution No. 82-06 of May Z 2006. 7: Prafesilensl Turf Products -of Tulsa - ' f Oa4Bt- A resolution awarding Bid N 06-38 and approving the•p�ol=wm 0 M16d¢Ck'61d rnoware from Professional Turf Products of ip Tulsa. in Wna "of mbeno for use by dio'Pa" b R4cratt on i]Malan. 4}, adls*on Natal P.arlding Space Liasa AgiyeernsrHr A resolution approving a lease agreement with RadlssortHotel FayenevAle for the vsa of 17e panting spaces on Level One and Thwe of,theduleadow Street Municipal Perking Garage. S. UNFINISNEO OUSINES51 1. Crystalrlprinps IV Appeilr Appeal the approval of the'PPLO&1977 Preliminary Plat Crystal :Springs-!!! for propedylocated north of MC Comfort Road, at the and of Raven Lena. This item Was Cob W.at dinUdita 6. 20M Chy C 4MU meahgto the Jtne 20. =6 City Council meau'rf� 2- RZN Oa20= Marints16 Ranch RMF•tat An ordinance rezoning drat progeny dtiacribed In rezoning vatitton RZN 06.2028 kx-appmdmatuly 9.16 acres. located vo:sl of 1.540 end s"h of Betty Jo Delve, frorn C-[,•Neighborhood Convnerclal and R-A, Residential-AgricWlural to RMF7e, Residential MuWfemiiA le units per acre. This ordinance was lei on the first reading at the June S. 2D06 City.CaurteT rrreet- - . 7. West Fayetternle AThmitatlod lleetlotu An ordinance Calling an election to determine whether apprpximerafy 2.t><]0 apes contiguous to the western ciy limits should be annexed Into Fayetteville. This ordinance wag amended and left on the first reeding at the June 6, 2006 City Council insetting. C. NSW ■USIN5551 1. ARartd Chapter 72 - Parking Garage Rate AdJustumarll An ordinance amending § (1); dity Parking Garage on Meadow Street, to adjust per visit ratea. 2-Otit"n Aaaoctat":Road InnImiat Fii•Siudyr A resolution to accept and adopt the May 2006 Road Ipipact Fee Study by Duncan Associates. S. Duncan •AsseNaket Water A Wastewater InWeat Fee Updstsl A resolution accept- Ing a propossi from Duncan Associates in the amount of $110,000.00 to update the existing Water 4nd Wastewater Impact Fees, to calculate fees for the collection system, and negotiate contracts withi the cities of Elkins, Farrnirigton and Greenland to pay for and provide potential Water and Wasrlewater Impact Fees Within their corporate boundaries. S. ADM 062093 - SpAnowtoede C-FZD Arneodrnenh An ordtnance to amend ate approved Commercial Planned Z"-itj District deed C-PZD 03-8.00. Spnngwoods, located at 1-540 and Hwy 11Z containing approximately 260.26 acres. S Special! -910 then Ca p#A Salsa Tax "nslone Art ordinance callkV for a Special Eloctfot on September i!A 2006 to extend iba'clutrant MUM cluiaitar (7) cent Capital Sales Tax and ad 1lortro 6 one quarfer M cant Capita[ Sein lax (v a tote[ Saks ]bit of ave (1) Cent issue bonds and ~-term debt to pay for add'dicnal cost of the waste water'System Improverneri Program and for Phase 1 of the Transponation Improvement Program as recommended by the Street Cownittea and the Water and Sewer Cormrttee. S. Plaming Camentselai Corllpanaatlanl An wdharm to amend § 33,108 Gmponzatilatt of Article VII Planning Ccmrttkslon of the Fayetteville Code to pnMda chat Pfaradng Carrrrisslonere. shall be compensated. RECEIVED C(TY QF FAYE•T rEV)LLE CInr CL EWS OFRce City Council Meeting Minutes June 20.2006 Page 8 of 10 Alderman Cook moved to table the resolution to the July 6, 2006 City Council meeting. Alderman Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Reynolds was absent. This resolution was tabled to the July 6, 2006 City Council meeting. ADM 06-2093 - SarinZ%voods C-PZD Amendment: An ordinance to amend the approved Commercial Planned Zoning District titled C-PZD 03-8.00, Springwoods, located at I-540 and Hwy 112, containing approximately 289.26 acres. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Jeremy Pate: The staff and the Planning Commission are recommending this amendment. This would allow for three uses within the Use Unit 4, elder care, hospital and donnitory. lot 6 was planned as a commercial type development lot and all of the use units for typical commercial developments have already been approved. Use Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities was not one of those and the applicant is indicating they would like to develop something that would fall within that specific use unit. Alderman Cook moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Reynolds was absent. I* City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Lucas seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. Alderman Reynolds was absent. City Attorney Kit Williams read the ordinance. Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. Alderman Reynolds was absent. Ordinance 4890 Recorded in the Office of the City Clerk special Election Capital Sales Tax Extension. An ordinance calling for a Special Election on September 12, 2006 to extend the current three quarter ('/) cent Capital Sales Tax and authorize a one quarter (/) cent Capital Sales Tax for a Total Sales Tax of one (1) cent, issue bonds and short -terra debt to pay for additional cost of the Waste Water System Improvement Program and for Phase I of the Transportation Improvement Program as recommended by the Street Committee and the Water and Sewer Committee_ City Attorney Kit Williams: The draft that we handed out had some blanks in it so we fine tuned it. We handed one out tonight that says final on the top of it. I would like a motion to amend the draft ordinance. 113 Wcst Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accacs fayeiucvi 11c.org