The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About31-17 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 31-17 File Number: 2016-0667 PRELIMINARY PLAT 16-5642 (PARK MEADOWS) GRANT APPEAL: A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ADELLA GRAY AND TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT 16-5642 (PARK MEADOWS) AS AMENDED PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLANNING AND THE APPLICANT TO EXTEND THE LEFT TURN LANE ON HUNTSVILLE. WHEREAS, the proposed Park Meadow Subdivision shown on Preliminary Plat 16-5642 was approved by the Planning Commission on a split vote; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission required the developer to improve all of Morningside Drive adjoining the Park Meadows development, to provide new street accesses to Huntsville Road and 15th Street (Highway 16 East) as well as to Morningside Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also required the developer to pay the 290 home development's estimated share of a possible traffic light at the intersection of Huntsville and Morningside and to create a fairly short left turn lane on Huntsville Road for that intersection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant now has agreed to widen Huntsville Road with a left turn lane further to the east of Morningside Drive for enhanced traffic safety. 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 grants the appeal of City Council Member Adella Gray, but approves Preliminary Plat 16-5642 (Park Meadows) pursuant to the conditions approved by the Planning Commission except that Condition # 2 will require that an extended turn lane shall be constructed by the applicant along Huntsville Road from the intersection with Morningside Drive toward the east as depicted on the attached exhibit and as described in the most recent Page 1 Printed on 1/18/17 Resolution: 31-17 File Number 2016-0667 staff memo attached to this agenda item, and amends Condition # 3 to require that the traffic signal assessment of $18,000.00 shall not be due until the Final Plat is approved for the final phase of the project. PASSED and APPROVED on 1/17/2017 Attest: • r ., . 1.7AYETTEVILLE • frr�N,i0N,iap,,��3 Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer Page 2 Printed on 1/18/17 C:rcfton TO PARK MEADOWS :AYETTIVI,L�, AR PRELIMINARY iw ""W PLANS %, == A City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street / Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2016-0667 Agenda Date: 1/17/2017 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: B. 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT 16-5642 (PARK MEADOWS) GRANT APPEAL: A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ADELLA GRAY AND TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT 16-5642 (PARK MEADOWS) AS AMENDED PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLANNING AND THE APPLICANT TO EXTEND THE LEFT TURN LANE ON HUNTSVILLE WHEREAS, the proposed Park Meadow Subdivision shown on Preliminary Plat 16-5642 was approved by the Planning Commission on a split vote; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission required the developer to improve all of Morningside Drive adjoining the Park Meadows development, to provide new street accesses to Huntsville Road and 15th Street (Highway 16 East) as well as to Morningside Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also required the developer to pay the 290 home development's estimated share of a possible traffic light at the intersection of Huntsville and Morningside and to create a fairly short left turn lane on Huntsville Road for that intersection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant now has agreed to widen Huntsville Road with a left turn lane further to the east of Morningside Drive for enhanced traffic safety. 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 grants the appeal of City Council Member Adella Gray, but approves Preliminary Plat 16-5642 (Park Meadows) pursuant to the conditions approved by the Planning Commission except that Condition # 2 will require that an extended turn lane shall be constructed by the applicant along Huntsville Road from the intersection with Morningside Drive toward the east as depicted on the attached exhibit and as described in the most recent staff memo attached to this agenda item, and amends Condition # 3 to require that the traffic signal assessment of $18,000.00 shall not be due until the Final Plat is approved for the final phase of the project. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 111812017 Legistar ID No.: cl?-�Pl. - p46 ? AGENDA REQUEST FORM FOR: Council Meeting of January 3, 2017 FROM: City Council Member Adella Gray ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ADELLA GRAY AND TO DENY PRELIMINARY PLAT 16-5642 (PARK MEADOWS) BECAUSE SUCH DEVELOPMENT WOULD CREATE OR COMPOUND A DANGEROUS TRAFFIC CONDITION IN VIOLATION OF § 166.02 (C)(2) (a)(iv) OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE APPROVED FOR AGENDA: rty Council Member Adella 6hy Date c rL City Attorney Kit Williams Date (as to form) EXHIBIT901 N 47th Street. Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756 Crafton Tu I i 479.636.4838 (ph) W arehlWure I engineering I surveying 479.631.6224 (fax) December 15, 2016 City of Fayetteville Engineering Department 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Park Meadows Subdivision Traffic Study Attn: Chris Brown, PE Mr. Brown, On behalf of our client, Rausch Coleman Homes, we are submitting the final traffic study related to a 290 lot residential subdivision, which was recently approved by Planning Commission, called Park Meadows. The project is located on a 62.62 -acre parcel of land in south Fayetteville, bounded by Huntsville Road on the north, Morningside Road on the west, and 15th street to the south. In the estimation of the traffic engineer, Peters and Associates, the anticipated traffic distribution from the proposed development, coupled with existing traffic counts during the PM peak hour, warrant the installation of a left hand turn lane at the intersection of Huntsville and Morningside. However, while the warrant for turn lane was met based on projected traffic counts, the level of service (LOS) along Huntsville Road remains at LOS A without the construction of the turn lane. LOS A is the highest and best level of service that AASHTO recognizes. In spite of the exceptional level of service, post development, we are proposing to construct a left hand turn lane at the intersection of Morningside and Huntsville to help mitigate the concerns of the public regarding the perceived detrimental effect of the development. It's worth noting that the traffic study is based on a full build out and occupation of the development, meaning that the reported values assume an immediate infusion of 290 residential lots to the existing traffic flows and street conditions. The study does not assume, or address, the more likely scenario of a multi-year build out of phases, nor does it take into account the impact of future street improvements in the area. Specifically, the currently planned and funded widening of 15th Street. The improvements to 15th street are expected to reduce the trip generation from the development traveling north. We appreciate the dialog and provided by the City Engineering staff during this process. Sincerely, Thomas A. Hennelly, PE Vice President Crafton Tull EXHIBIT CITY OF Fays ARKANSAS TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director CC: Andrew Garner, Planning Director FROM: Chris Brown, P.E., City Engineer Cz DATE: 12/15/2016 STAFF MEMO SUBJECT: Park Meadows Subdivision -Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Traffic Study Review and Staff Recommendations This memo provides a review of the traffic study completed by Peters and Associates on behalf of the developer of the proposed Park Meadows subdivision located at the southeast corner of Morningside Drive and Huntsville Road. A summary of Staff recommendations for improvements to be made on Huntsville Road in accordance with the traffic study is also provided. Just prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the city received a preliminary traffic study from Peters & Associates addressing, among other things, the warrants for left turn lanes along Huntsville Road. The findings in the preliminary traffic study were that NO left turn lanes were warranted at any of the three intersections with Huntsville Road (Morningside Drive, plus two additional proposed intersections). After a brief review of the report, Engineering staff disagreed with the findings, made the determination that turn lanes were warranted at all three locations and recommended left turn lanes at each of the three intersections as a condition of approval by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission ultimately voted to only require a turn lane at Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive, and not at the two proposed new street intersections. After the Planning Commission meeting, Peters & Associates was able to respond to staff comments and provide a final traffic report which stated that the warrants for a left turn lane were met, but only at the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive. City Engineering staff met with Peters & Associates and discussed their methodology and findings in Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 EXHIBIT The length of this turn lane should be designed by the applicant's traffic engineer and include adequate length for ALL left turn movements from Huntsville Road into this subdivision. This will provide future capacity at the intersection should the city need to restrict left -turns into the subdivision at the proposed new street intersections at some later date. The street section shall incorporate on -street bike lanes as appropriate, and not create a break in the existing on -street bicycle facility along Huntsville Road. It must be noted that increasing traffic and turning movements due to the development could result in increased rear -end collisions and congestion along Huntsville Road. However, this increase will not create or exacerbate a dangerous traffic condition to the extent that turn lanes are warranted at these new intersections. DEC 12 2016 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1a 1,5 prn December 12, 2016 Mrs. Sondra Smith. City Clerk City of Fayetteville Room 308 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Mrs. Smith, Please consider this letter an official appeal of the NovemVr 28th, 2016 decision of the Fayetteville Y Planning Commission to approve to PPL 16-5642 Preliminary Plat, Park Meadows Subdivision (NE of East 15th Street and Morningside Drive). This appeal is based upon my view that a dangerous traffic condition exists in the Huntsville Road/Morningside Drive area which will be compounded by the addition of 300+ vehicles driven onto these and neighboring streets by property owners within the Park Meadows development. I would like to give the City Planning staff more time to review and comment on the official traffic study of the area completed by Peters Engineering. Such a review may result in recommendations of traffic abatement strategies which in the end will save lives and prevent vehicular congestion and damage. Sincerely yours, 41 DEPAR'TMEN'TAL CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: Mayor Jordan City Council CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director Andrew Garner, Planning Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: December 13, 2016 Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Assistant City Attorney Patti Mulford Paralegal RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Preliminary Plat 1675642 (Park Meadows) On a split vote, the Planning Commission approved Preliminary Plat 16- 5642 (Park Meadows) with many, but not all, street improvements recommended by the Planning Department. This was appealed on the same ground as the Macey Drive Apartments had originally been denied by the Planning Commission: an allegation that "the proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition." This is the only issue the City Council may consider in this appeal. The Unified Development Code further defines what a "dangerous traffic condition' means. "(A) dangerous traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern." Id. Although the developer agreed (and was required by the Planning Commission) to pay its share of a proposed future traffic light at Huntsville and Morningside with intersection improvements including a left turn lane on Huntsville, major improvements to Morningside, two streets intersecting Huntsville east of Morningside and one street intersecting Highway 16 East (15th Street) east of Morningside, the Planning Department had also recommended widening Huntsville for a continuous left turn lane for about 800 feet east of Morningside. Such widening would destroy 800 feet of the new sidewalk just finished by our Transportation Department along Huntsville Road and require moving the existing bike lane from Huntsville to be replaced by a multiuse trail along the northern border of Park Meadows subdivision. Planning recommended that all of this widening and the new multiuse trail not only be dedicated on the developer's land, but be built and paid for by the developer. These costs could exceed One Million Dollars for this 290 home subdivision which I believe is significantly more than what has been required of any similarly sized housing development. These required improvements are called an exaction. We need to ensure this exaction does not exceed the rough proportionality of the impact of these new homes on the city infrastructure, in this case, adjoining streets. A traffic study had been conducted by the developer at the last moment upon request by the Planning staff or the Planning Commission. What this study establishes or even means was a matter of discussion by City Engineering staff or the developer's engineer. With this appeal, this traffic study can be more closely analyzed by these engineers. Please listen to the engineers as the experts in this field as part of the basis of your decision. Attached is a copy of my February 9, 2007 memo on approval/ rejection criteria for preliminary plats by the City Council. This outlines the legal tests you must use which have remained unchanged for at least 14 years. The key requirement that you must keep in mind is this rule decreed by the Arkansas Supreme Court: "When a subdivision ordinance specifies minimum standards to which a preliminary plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat that meets those standards." Richardson v. City of Little Rock Planning Commission, 295 Ark. 189, 747 S.W. 2d 116,117 (1988) (emphasis added). OA FA "VE 1"T E V 11, 1, -E THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council CC: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning Planning Commissioners FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: February 9, 2007 RE: Approval/Rejection of Large Scale Developments and Preliminary Plats and Downzoing Residential Property APPROVAL OF LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS The Planning Commission and (on appeal) the City Council can be faced with strong neighborhood opposition to a Large Scale Development (LSD) or Preliminary Plat with compelling arguments that the proposal is incompatible with the existing neighborhood, too dense, likely to devalue adjoining homes, etc. At least as early as June 11, 2002, I have had to inform you that these type of arguments may not be considered when determining whether to approve or reject a Preliminary Plat or LSD. Attached are my memos of June 22, 2002; October 22, 2002; November 5, 2002; May 11, 2004; and November 10, 2005. All these memos state the same legal requirement. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council must follow the dictates of the Unified Development Code (enacted by the City Council). We elected officials all took the oath of office promising to abide by the Arkansas Constitution and faithfully fulfill the duties of our offices (which I understand to mean to obey the law as determined by our highest authority, the Arkansas Supreme Court). The Arkansas Supreme Court has clearly held: "When a subdivision ordinance specifies minimum standards to which a preliminary plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat that meets those standards." Richardson v. City of Little Rock Planning Commission, 295 Ark. 189, 747 S.W. 2d 116, 117 (1988). The six factors you have enacted into the UDC that can be considered are found in § 166.05 C.7.d. "d. The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may refuse to approve a large scale development or preliminary plat for any of the following reasons: (1). The preliminary plat or development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements of this section. (2). The proposed development would violate a City- ordinance, ityordinance, a State statute, or a Federal statute. (3). The developer refuses to dedicate the street right-of-way, utility easements or drainage easements required by this chapter. (4). The proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose of this section, a "dangerous" traffic condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern. (5). City water and sewer is not readily available to the property within the large scale development or preliminary plat and the developer has made no provision for extending such service to the development. F (6). The developer refuses to comply with subsection 7.b. and c. pertaining to required on-site and off-site improvements." Any objection or reason to deny a Large Scale Development or Preliminary Plat must be included within those six stated reasons to be valid. If a proposed Large Scale Development or Preliminary Plat meets the minimum standards of the Unified Development Code, it must be approved even if every Commissioner . or every Alderman believes it is a terrible development unanimously opposed by the neighbors. Although the City Council has clear authority to amend the UDC and change the factors that could be considered beyond the six currently enacted by the City Council, until such an amendment occurs you must obey your current Code of Ordinances. "A city simply cannot pass procedural ordinances they expect to be followed by their residents and then conveniently ignore them themselves. A legislative body must substantially comply with its own procedural policies." Potocki v. City of Fort Smith, 279 Ark. 19, 648 S.W. 2d 462, 464 (1983). (emphasis added) Similarly, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the Pulaski County Chancery Court that the Little Rock Board of Directors had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably in a rezoning case. "(N)or does a city have to create a zoning ordinance or a land use plan or adopt planned use districts or planned commercial districts, but once it has done so it must follow the ordinance until it is repealed or altered." City of Little Rock v. Pfeifer, 318 Ark. 679, 887 S.W. 2d 296, 298 (1994). (emphasis added) 3 CITY OF T, �� CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ARKANSAS MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2016 TO: Mayor, Fayetteville City Council FROM: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Chris Brown, City Engineer DATE: December 13, 2016 SUBJECT: PPL 16-5642: Preliminary, Plat (NE OF 15TH & 'MORNINGSIDE DR./PARK MEADOWS SD, 564): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NE OF 15TH & MORNINGSIDE DR. The property is zoned with a mixture of NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, and RA, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 68.00 acres. The request is for 290 single-family lots. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission approved this proposed subdivision without a turn lane on Huntsville Road as recommended by staff at the Planning Commission meeting. Adella Gray has appealed this decision to City Council on behalf of a citizen. BACKGROUND: The subject property contains 68 acres located on the east side of Morningside Drive between Huntsville Road and 1511 Street. A small portion of the parcel extends to the south side of 15th Street. The property is undeveloped pasture, and remains in agricultural use. The site contains flood plain, and a string of ponds that become a protected stream immediately to the south. These valuable natural resources are classified as Natural Area on the 2030 Future Land Use Plan. The property was recently rezoned to CS, Community Services, NC, Neighborhood Conservation, and R -A, Residential Agricultural. The property is subject to a Bill of Assurance to protect and limit disturbance to the riparian corridor that flows north -south through the site. Request: The proposal is to develop the site with a 290 residential lot subdivision. Public Comments: At the November 17, 2016 Subdivision Committee and November 28, 2016 Planning Commission meeting several members of the public spoke about a number of issues, primarily centered around traffic safety. A copy of the meeting minutes from Planning Commission meeting are attached. DISCUSSION: At the November 28, 2016 Planning Commission, discussion centered around street improvements and traffic safety. After approximately two hours of discussion and two motions, Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 the project was approved by a vote of 6-3-0 (Commissioners Cook, Hoffman, and Quinlan voted `no'). The following street improvements were required with the approval: Street improvements required by Planning Commission: 1. Improve Morningside Drive as recommended by staff. 2. No improvements to Huntsville Road except for a turn lane at the intersection of Morningside Drive. 3. Payment of assessment for proportional contribution to a traffic signal at Huntsville/Morningside with payment by project phase as recommended by staff. 4. No multi -use trail improvements are required to be constructed by the applicant. Dedication of land to the city for the planned multi -use trail internal to the site to be provided to the city in a fee simple transaction prior to final plat. The applicant shall be given parkland credit for the dedication of land for this trail. Turn lane recommended by City staff: After a brief review of the draft traffic study provided just prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended that a center turn lane be provided into the site's two access points on Huntsville Road. At the time of the Planning Commission meeting, staff had concerns that a potentially dangerous traffic condition could be created by this subdivision without a turn lane. The applicant opposed this recommendation and the Planning Commission agreed with the applicant. After the Planning Commission, the applicant's traffic engineer finalized the traffic study and met with staff to discuss the findings. The City Engineering Division has provided a technical memo (attached) evaluating the final traffic study. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A - - Attachments: ■ City Engineering Memo ■ Applicant's Letter ■ Proposed Morningside/Huntsville Intersection Turn Lane ■ Traffic Study ■ Planning Commission Staff Report ■ November 28, 2016 Planning Commission minutes CITY OF Oray11V ARKAN TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director CC: Andrew Garner, Planning Director FROM: Chris Brown, P.E., City Engineer DATE: 12/15/2016 STAFF MEMO SUBJECT: Park Meadows Subdivision -Appeal of Planning Commission Approval - Traffic Study Review and Staff Recommendations This memo provides a review -of the traffic study completed by Peters and Associates on behalf of the developer of the proposed Park Meadows subdivision located at the southeast corner of Morningside Drive and Huntsville Road. A summary of Staff recommendations for improvements to be made on Huntsville Road in accordance with the traffic study is also provided. Just prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the city received a preliminary traffic study from Peters & Associates addressing, among other things, the warrants for left turn lanes along Huntsville Road. The findings in the preliminary traffic study were that NO left turn lanes were warranted at any of the three intersections with Huntsville Road (Morningside Drive, plus two additional proposed intersections). After a brief review of the report, Engineering staff disagreed with the findings, made the determination that turn lanes were warranted at all three locations and recommended left turn lanes at each of the three intersections as a condition of approval by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission ultimately voted to only require a turn lane at Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive, and not at the two proposed new street intersections. After the Planning Commission meeting, Peters & Associates was able to respond to staff comments and provide a final traffic report which stated that the warrants for a left turn lane were met, but only at the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive. City Engineering staff met with Peters & Associates and discussed their methodology and findings in further detail. Based on this meeting, and the explanation provided by Peters and Associates the single turn lane provided at the intersection of Huntsville and Morningside has been deemed to be adequate (if constructed per specifications that follow), and the Engineering Division recommends upholding the Planning Commission's determination of necessary street improvements. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 The length of this turn lane should be designed by the applicant's traffic engineer and include adequate length for ALL left turn movements from Huntsville Road into this subdivision. This will provide future capacity at the intersection should the city need to restrict left -turns into the subdivision at the proposed new street intersections at some later date. The street section shall incorporate on -street bike lanes as appropriate, and not create a break in the existing on -street bicycle facility along Huntsville Road. It must be noted that increasing traffic and turning movements due to the development could result in increased rear -end collisions and congestion along Huntsville Road. However, this increase will not create or exacerbate a dangerous traffic condition to the extent that turn lanes are warranted at these new intersections. December 15, 2016 City of Fayetteville Engineering Department 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Park Meadows Subdivision Traffic Study Attn: Chris Brown, PE Mr. Brown, On behalf of our client, Rausch Coleman Homes, we are submitting the final traffic study related to a 290 lot residential subdivision, which was recently approved by Planning Commission, called Park Meadows. The project is located on a 62.62 -acre parcel of land in south Fayetteville, bounded by Huntsville Road on the north, Morningside Road on the west, and 15th street to the south. In the estimation of the traffic engineer, Peters and Associates, the anticipated traffic distribution from the proposed development, coupled with existing traffic counts during the PM peak hour, warrant the installation of a left hand turn lane at the intersection of Huntsville and Morningside. However, while the warrant for turn lane was met based on projected traffic counts, the level of service (LOS) along Huntsville Road remains at LOS A without the construction of the turn lane. LOS A is the highest and best level of service that AASHTO recognizes. In spite of the exceptional level of service, post development, we are proposing to construct a left hand turn lane at the intersection of Morningside and Huntsville to help mitigate the concerns of the public regarding the perceived detrimental effect of the development. It's worth noting that the traffic study is based on a full build out and occupation of the development, meaning that the reported values assume an immediate infusion of 290 residential lots to the existing traffic flows and street conditions. The study does not assume, or address, the more likely scenario of a multi-year build out of phases, nor does it take into account the impact of future street improvements in the area. Specifically, the currently planned and funded widening of 15th Street. The improvements to 15th street are expected to reduce the trip generation from the development traveling north. We appreciate the dialog and provided by the City Engineering staff during this process. Sincerely, Thomas A. Hennelly, PE Vice President Crafton Tull 901 N 47th Street, Suite 200 AR 72756 100Rogers, C4iiCrafton Tu I I 479.636.4838 (ph) architecture I engineering I surveying 479.631.6224 (fax) December 15, 2016 City of Fayetteville Engineering Department 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Park Meadows Subdivision Traffic Study Attn: Chris Brown, PE Mr. Brown, On behalf of our client, Rausch Coleman Homes, we are submitting the final traffic study related to a 290 lot residential subdivision, which was recently approved by Planning Commission, called Park Meadows. The project is located on a 62.62 -acre parcel of land in south Fayetteville, bounded by Huntsville Road on the north, Morningside Road on the west, and 15th street to the south. In the estimation of the traffic engineer, Peters and Associates, the anticipated traffic distribution from the proposed development, coupled with existing traffic counts during the PM peak hour, warrant the installation of a left hand turn lane at the intersection of Huntsville and Morningside. However, while the warrant for turn lane was met based on projected traffic counts, the level of service (LOS) along Huntsville Road remains at LOS A without the construction of the turn lane. LOS A is the highest and best level of service that AASHTO recognizes. In spite of the exceptional level of service, post development, we are proposing to construct a left hand turn lane at the intersection of Morningside and Huntsville to help mitigate the concerns of the public regarding the perceived detrimental effect of the development. It's worth noting that the traffic study is based on a full build out and occupation of the development, meaning that the reported values assume an immediate infusion of 290 residential lots to the existing traffic flows and street conditions. The study does not assume, or address, the more likely scenario of a multi-year build out of phases, nor does it take into account the impact of future street improvements in the area. Specifically, the currently planned and funded widening of 15th Street. The improvements to 15th street are expected to reduce the trip generation from the development traveling north. We appreciate the dialog and provided by the City Engineering staff during this process. Sincerely, Thomas A. Hennelly, PE Vice President Crafton Tull qrqffon Tull PARK MEADOWS %AYFTIVIRJ,AR •u1 -1I -1 IN PRELIMINARY 11 I I A N1 I 1OI 1 PLANS 1 TraffIc Study Park Meadows Residential Development prepared for: Grafton, Tull & Assoc iates, Inc. %jo PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. • CIVIL& TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • 5507 Ranch Drive - Suite 205 (501) 868-3999 1J Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Fax (501) 868-9710 Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas ,11/ARK SAS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ERNEST J. PETERS e No. 4682 i0 Project No.: P-1846 REVISED: December 15, 2016 L TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Executive Summary Introduction 4 The Site 6 Existing Traffic Conditions 9 Trip Generation & Site Traffic Projections 12 Traffic Volume Assignments 14 Capacity and Level of Service 19 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis 24 Left -Turn Lane Analysis 26 Summary of Findings 30 APPENDIX Site Plan Trip Generation Data Vehicle Turning Movement Count Data Capacity and Level of Service Calculations Traffic Signal Warrants Results Left -Turn Lane Analysis PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc., has conducted a traffic engineering study relating to a proposed single-family resi- dential development (Park Meadows) in Fayetteville, Arkan- sas. The development is proposed to consist of an approxi- mate 290 lot single-family residential subdivision to be lo- cated on the south side of Huntsville Road and on the east side of Morningside Drive. E. 15th Street is along the south side of the site. Access to the site is proposed via two new streets to intersect Huntsville Road (Street "F" and Street "L") and four new streets to intersect Morningside Drive (Street "K", Street "E", Street "Y' and Street `B"). The pri- mary focus of this report is to assess traffic operational char- acteristics of the nearby intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive and the proposed new street intersections along Huntsville Road and along Morningside Drive. Existing 24-hour traffic counts were made in the vicinity of the development at the approaches to the intersection of Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive. Existing vehicle turn- ing movement counts were also gathered by this consultant for the intersection of Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive during the AM and PM peak hours. Projected vehicle traffic volumes were calculated for the pro- posed residential development. These projected site - generated vehicle trips were added to the existing traffic vol- umes. Existing and projected traffic volumes at the study in- tersections were calculated and traffic operations were ana- lyzed. Findings of this study are summarized as follows: • Approximately 2,761 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday are projected to be generated by the proposed residential subdivision at full build. Of this to- tal, approximately 218 vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour and approxi- mately 290 vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM peak hour. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 1 11 • All vehicle movements for existing traffic conditions at the study intersection of Huntsville Road and Morning- side Drive presently operate at what calculates as an ac- ceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours. • All vehicle movements for the projected traffic condi- tions at the study intersections are expected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for - the AM and PM peak hours except for the northbound vehicle movements on Morningside Drive at Huntsville Road during the AM peak hour (LOS "E"). The 95th percentile calculated vehicle queue length for the northbound Morningside Drive approach to Huntsville Road is only 90 feet, and the average vehicle delay for that vehicle movement is only 49 seconds per vehicle. Furthermore, the average seconds per vehicle delay and intersection capacity utilization are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels with existing lane geome- try and "Stop" sign control for the intersection of Hunts- ville Road and Morningside Drive during the AM and PM peak hours for these projected traffic conditions. • It was found that traffic signal warrants are not projected to be met for the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive with projected traffic volumes asso- ciated with the Park Meadows development as proposed. Traffic signal warrants analysis for this intersection indi- cates volumes are not expected to be sufficient to satisfy any warrants at the completion of the development. • It was found that a westbound left -turn lane on Hunts- ville Road at Morningside Drive is not warranted for the AM peak hour. AM peak hour westbound left -turn vol- ume is only 1.5 percent of the westbound approach vol- ume. Furthermore, this projected left -turn volume is only 14 vehicles during the AM peak hour. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 2 I • It was found that the PM peak hour westbound left -turn volume on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive is 5.8 percent of the westbound approach volume. With the eastbound approaching volume of 833 vehicles during the PM peak hour, the 444 advancing volume is greater than the threshold volume of 136 vehicles posted on Ta- ble 4-27 referenced in this report. This result indicates a westbound left -turn lane on Huntsville Road approach to Morningside Drive projected to be warranted. The Table 4-27 values are based on 40 miles per hour. However, the table does not provide data for the much lower posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The projected left -turn volume is only 23 vehicles during the PM peak hour and the westbound vehicle movements are expected to operate acceptably with or without the addition of a westbound left -turn lane at this location. All westbound thru / left -turn vehicle movements for the projected traf- fic conditions on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive are expected to continue to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "A" for the AM and PM peak hours as indicated by the capacity and level of service calcula- tions conducted as a part oft his study. A westbound left -turn lane on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive is found to be warranted but not be necessary for accept- able traffic operations with full build -out of the proposed Park Meadows development. Also, with left -turn vol- umes even lower on Huntsville Road at Street "L" and at Street "I"' than at Morningside Drive, left -turn lanes are not expected to be warranted or necessary at these loca- tions with maximum left -turn volumes of only 7 and 9 vehicles respectively during the PM peak hour. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 3 12 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc., has conducted a traffic engineering study relating to a proposed single-family resi- dential development (Park Meadows) in Fayetteville, Arkan- sas. The development is proposed to consist of an approxi- mate 290 lot single-family residential subdivision to be lo- cated on the south side of Huntsville Road and on the east side of Morningside Drive. E. 15th Street is along the south side of the site. Access to the site is proposed via two new streets to intersect Huntsville Road (Street "F" and Street "L") and four new streets to intersect Morningside Drive (Street "K", Street "E", Street "J" and Street `B"). The pri- mary focus of this report is to assess traffic operational char- acteristics of the nearby intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive and the proposed new street intersections along Huntsville Road and along Morningside Drive. A re- duced copy of the subdivision plat is included in the Appen- dix for reference. This is a report of methodology and findings relating to a traffic engineering study undertaken to: • Evaluate existing traffic conditions at the study intersec- tion of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive. • Determine projected vehicular traffic volumes entering and exiting the proposed development at the nearby study intersections in the vicinity of the site. • Identify the effects on traffic operations for existing traf- fic in combination with site -generated traffic associated with the development as proposed. • Evaluate traffic operations for the study intersections in the vicinity of the site and make recommendations for mitigative improvements which may be necessary and appropriate for acceptable traffic operations. Page 4 In the following sections of this traffic study report are traf- fic data, study methods, findings and recommendations. The study is technical in nature. Analysis techniques employed are those most commonly used in the traffic engineering pro- fession for traffic impact analysis. Certain data and calcula- tions relative to traffic operational analysis are referenced in the report. Complete calculations and data are included in the Appendix of the report. PETERS & ASSOCIATES. ENGINEERS. INC. Page 5 The proposed development is within the city limits of Fa- yetteville in Washington County, Arkansas. The develop- ment is proposed to be located on the south side of Hunts- ville Road and on the east side of Morningside Drive. E. 15th Street is along the south side of the site. The proposed development site location and vicinity are shown on Figures 1 and 2, which follow. Access to the site is proposed via two new streets to intersect Huntsville Road (Street "F" and Street "L") and four new streets to intersect Morningside Drive (Street "K", Street "E", Street "J" and Street `B"). This development, as shown on the attached site plan, calls for the construction of 290 single-family residential lots plus new streets proposed to serve the site. Huntsville Road, in the vicinity of Morningside Drive, is a two-lane roadway. On the north and south side of Huntsville Road, east of Morningside Drive, there is a bike lane in the roadway (plus a separate sidewalk along the south side). i ite ENGINEERS. INC. 1: PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. The speed limit on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive is 25 miles per hour and increases to 35 miles per hour approximately 1,000 feet east of Morningside Road. Huntsville Road is classi- fied as a Collector Street on the Fayetteville Master Street Plan (MSP). Morningside Drive, in the vicinity of Huntsville Road, is a two- lane roadway. The speed limit on Morningside Drive at the site is 25 miles per hour. Morningside Drive is classified as a Collec- tor Street on the Fayetteville Master Street Plan. The following photos show the general layout of the study intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive. Photos were taken at locations as indicated on the captions. Page 7 i - TP Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive On, 'M I Looking north on Morningside Drive toward Huntsville Road. R Morningside Drive t2' a .Site On, 'M I Looking north on Morningside Drive toward Huntsville Road. Hourly, 24-hour traffic counts were made at the following locations in the vicinity of the site by this consultant as a part of this study: Hourly 24-hour traffic count data for these locations are summarized on Tables and Charts I and 2. Other traffic count data collected as a part of this study in- clude AM and PM peak hours vehicle turning movement counts at the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morning- side Drive. The AM and PM peak hours vehicle turning movement counts made as a part of this study are shown on Figure 3A, "Existing Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour," and Figure 3B, "Existing Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour." The peak hours vehicle turning movement count data for these intersections are presented in more detail in the Appendix of this report. 'PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 9 TIME Huntsville Road Approaches to Morningsdie Drive Eastbound Westbound EB + WB 01:00 PM 428 386 814 02:00 PM 355 298 653 03:00 PM 1 488 467 955 04:00 PM 1 719 430 1149 05:00 PM 739 414 1153 06:00 PM 457 308 765 07:00 PM 380 204 584 08:00 PM 319 167 486 09:00 PM 193 123 316 10:00 PM 134 86 220 11:00 PM 97 51 148 12:00 AM 1 60 15 75 01:00 AM 30 16 46 02:00 AM 30 18 48 03:00 AM 14 16 30 04:00 AM 15 37 52 05:00 AM 63 134 197 06:00 AM 125 434 559 07:00 AM 295 911 1206 08:00 AM 397 1 765 1162 09:00 AM 269 443 712 10:00 AM 337 298 635 11:00 AM 360 357 717 12:00 PM 418 347 765 24 -Hour Tota1: 6722 6725 13447 45 40 35 30 25 20 1s 10 1000.......... Huntsv„ille_R.gad__App_rgach_es to M,RrningsA Orive....................._.............,.............................. Traffic Hourly Volumes ®Eastbound 900 01:00 PM i Westbound 800 29 03:00 PM 34 d 700 42 05:00 PM 30 E 32 07:00 PM 30 600 > 28 09:00 PM 16 500 400 = 300 200 100 0 13. Ql-"Q`s24Q`s Q4 Q1” Q4 Q4 Q1" Q4 P4P4P1 1?4 P4 P�P� P4Ql�, o°. ° o° o° o° 4P,11 On' 00 Oa 05 06 O� 0$ Oma' ° Hour Table 1—Chart 1 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Huntsville Road Approaches to Morningside Drive Hour Table 2—Chart 2 24 -Hour Traffic Counts Morningside Drive Northbound Approach to Huntsville Road PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. TIME Morningside Drive NB Approach to Huntsville Road Northbound 01:00 PM 30 02:00 PM 29 03:00 PM 34 04:00 PM 42 05:00 PM 30 06:00 PM 32 07:00 PM 30 08:00 PM 28 09:00 PM 16 10:00 PM 8 11:00 PM 7 12:00 AM 5 01:00 AM 3 02:00 AM 1 03:00 AM 2 04:00 AM 3 05:00 AM 6 06:00 AM 15 07:00 AM 20 08:00 AM 33 09:00 AM 26 10:00 AM 24 11:00 AM 26 12:00 PM 33 24 -Hour Total: 483 Page 10 Huntsville Rd 361x► 28- �9 F884° 0-11 7% ?f El Figure 3A Existing Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour Figure 3B Existing Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 11 The Trip Generation, an Informational Report, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and The Trip Generation Manual by Trafficware, LLC (9th Edition), 2012, were utilized in calculating the magnitude of traffic volumes expected to be generated by full build -out of the proposed land -use of a 290 single-family lot residential development. These are reliable sources for this information and are uni- versally used in the traffic engineering profession. Using the selected trip generation rates, calculations were made as a part of this study to provide a reliable estimate of traffic volumes that can be expected to be associated with the proposed full build -out of the development of the proposed Park Meadows. These calculations entail applying the appro- priate trip -generation rates to the land use proposed for the development. Results of these calculations are summarized on Table 3, "Summary of Trip Generation." 'Single-Famil Residential 290 Lots • �x18,�� d..� 290 Table 3 — Summary of Trip -Generation PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 12 I These calculations indicate that approximately 2,761 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday are pro- jected to be generated by the proposed residential lots land use on this site. Of this total, approximately 218 vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour and approximately 290 vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM peak hour. Residential traffic, as will be the traffic associated with this site, ordinarily does contribute to the adjacent street traffic conditions during the on -street AM peak traffic hour and the PM peak traffic hour. Accordingly, -the AM and PM peak traffic periods of the adjacent streets in the immediate vicin- ity of the site are the traffic operating conditions which have warranted primary traffic analysis as a part of this study. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 13 Once projected traffic was estimated for the site, directional distributions were made to reflect the percent of thru, left and right -turns at the study intersections and new site streets proposed to serve the site. Directional distribution percent- ages used in this report are shown on Figure 4, "Directional Distribution - Site Traffic." PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 14 11 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. The directional distribution percentages for site traffic have been equated to percentage turns for each movement at the study intersections. The site -generated traffic volumes result from applying the directional distribution percentages to the corresponding projected site -generated traffic volumes sum- marized on Table 3, "Summary of Trip -Generation." The site -generated traffic volumes at the study intersections along Huntsville Road are shown on Figure 5A, "Site - Generated Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour," and Figure 513, "Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour." The site -generated traffic volumes and corresponding exist- ing background traffic volumes have been combined and the results are depicted on Figure 6A, "Projected Traffic Vol- umes - AM Peak Hour," and Figure 613, "Projected Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour." Traffic volumes shown on Figures 3A, 313, 6A and 6B are the values used in capacity and level of service calculations conducted as a part of this study. The effect of existing background traffic (i.e. the adjacent street non -site traffic which exists) and projected traffic associated with the site development has thus been accounted for in this analysis. Page 15 I PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 16 4-24 F22 E20 x-18 �<-6 _ x-3` r2 __ A-3 . Huntsville Rd y Huntsville Rd� Huntsville Rd 16� 1i� C o co-� C/) cri i � � Cl) ; CD cn CO m .i w (D .) (DCD _n (D (I _...... Street K _.._ n j Q) Street K Figure 5B ' Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour C) 75 Figure 5A Lc Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour o— - -- - ----- — PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 16 *-16 F22 x-18 - -.... _ ......... _— r11 r7 _ _.---......... .._ - r9 Huntsville Rd 27-' - _— Huntsville Rd 2gxFe Huntsville Rd 184 I 56-* C/) cri i CD cn (D _n _...... Street K n j Q) Figure 5B ' Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour C) 75 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 16 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. • Page 17 4-421 . .. .. ... ............. . . ................ Huntsville Rd 7 24-*- 1 Huntsville Rd -D j ........... . ................ + Street K *46 6 -1 0- f i* Street E. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. -*-439 -*-435 ,Ar7 J-9 Figure 6B Projected Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour Page 18 J Street J 0 O'll U) Ilk' Street B PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. -*-439 -*-435 ,Ar7 J-9 Figure 6B Projected Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour Page 18 11 Generally, the "capacity" of a street is a measure of its ability to accommodate a certain magnitude of moving vehicles. It is a rate as opposed to a quantity, measured in terms of vehi- cles per hour. More specifically, street capacity refers to the maximum number of vehicles that a street element (e.g. an intersection) can be expected to accommodate in a given time period under the prevailing roadway and traffic condi- tions. Traffic operational analysis for the study intersections were evaluated based on the methodologies outlined in the High- way Capacity Manual, 2010 Edition, published by the Trans- portation Research Board. The operating conditions at an intersection are graded by the "level of service" experienced by drivers. Level of service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic operating conditions and is rated from "A" to "F". LOS "A" represents the most desirable condition with free- flow movement of traffic with minimal delays. LOS "F" generally indicates severely congested conditions with ex- cessive delays to motorists. Intermediate grades of B, C, D, and E reflect incremental increases in the average delay per stopped vehicle. Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. The table below shows the upper -limit -of delay associated with each level of service for signalized and un -signalized intersections. Intersection Level of Service Delay Thresholds Level of Service (LOS) Signalized Un -Signalized A < 10 Seconds < 10 Seconds B < 20 Seconds < 15 Seconds C < 35 Seconds < 25 Seconds D < 55 Seconds < 35 Seconds E < 80 Seconds < 50 Seconds F > 80 Seconds > 50 Seconds PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 19 a------ �. a l' , The LOS rating deemed acceptable varies by community, facility type and traffic control device. LOS "D" is the desir- able goal for movements at un -signalized intersections that must yield to other movements; however, a LOS "E" or "F" is often accepted for low to moderate traffic volumes where the installation of a traffic signal is not warranted by the con- ditions at the intersection or the location is deemed undesir- able for signalization for other reasons. Other reasons may include the close proximity of an existing traffic signal or the presence of a convenient alternative route. For signalized intersections, level of service and average delay relate to all vehicles using the intersection. LOS "D" is the typical desir- able standard for signalized intersections. All study intersec- tions were evaluated using the Synchro analysis software package based on Highway Capacity Manual methods. This computer program has been proven to be reliable when used to analyze capacity and levels of traffic service under various operating conditions. Detailed results for all capacity calcu- lations are included in the Appendix. The adjacent street weekday AM and PM peak traffic periods were used for these calculations. Factors included in the analysis are as follows • Existing traffic volumes and patterns. • Directional distribution of projected traffic volumes. • Existing and proposed intersection geometry (including elements such as turn lanes, curb radii, etc.). • Existing background traffic volumes and projected site - generated volumes for projected traffic conditions. • Existing or proposed traffic control. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 20 I CAPACITY ANALYSIS Level of Service Analysis Results Existing Traff c Conditions Capacity and level of service analysis was performed for existing traffic volumes, lane geometry and traffic control for the AM and PM peak hours for the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive. As indicated in Table 4, "Level of Service Summary — Ex- isting Traffic Conditions," all vehicle movements for exist- ing traffic conditions at the study intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive presently operate at what cal- culates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic volumes used for this analysis are shown on Figure 3A, "Existing Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour," and Fig- ure 313, "Existing Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour." Table 4 - Level of Service Summary - Existing Traffic Conditions PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 21 11 Projected Traffic Conditions Capacity and LOS analysis was performed for projected traf- fic conditions for the AM and PM peak hours for the follow - mg intersections: • Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive • Huntsville Road and Street "L" • Huntsville Road and Street "F" • Morningside Drive and Street "K" • Morningside Drive and Street "E" • Morningside Drive and Street "Y • Morningside Drive and Street `B." Traffic volumes used for analysis of projected traffic condi- tions are shown on Figure 6A, "Projected Traffic Volumes - AM Peak Hour," and Figure 613, "Projected Traffic Volumes - PM Peak Hour." The operating conditions projected to ex- ist at the study intersections are summarized in Table 5, "Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions." As indicated in Table 5, all vehicle movements for the pro- jected traffic conditions at the study intersections are ex- pected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS . "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours except for the northbound vehicle movements on Morningside Drive at Huntsville Road during the AM peak hour (LOS "E"). The 95th percentile calculated vehicle queue length for the northbound Morningside Drive approach to Huntsville Road is only 90 feet, and the average vehicle delay for that vehicle movement is only 49 seconds per vehicle. Furthermore, the average seconds per vehicle delay and intersection capacity utilization are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels with existing lane geometry and "Stop" sign control for the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive during the AM and PM peak hours for these projected traffic conditions. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 22 J PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. T In evaluating the need for a traffic signal, certain established warrants must be examined by a comprehensive investiga- tion of traffic conditions and physical characteristics of the location. The decision to install a traffic signal at a particu- lar location must be evaluated quantitatively relative to these warrants. These warrants, as specified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), are described in detail in the appendix of this report. They are summarized as follows: ♦ Warrant One: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume ♦ Warrant Two: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume ♦ Warrant Three: Peak Hour ♦ Warrant Four: Pedestrian Volume ♦ Warrant Five: School Crossing ♦ Warrant Six: Coordinated Signal System ♦ Warrant Seven: Crash Experience ♦ Warrant Eight: Roadway Network Traffic signal warrants analysis was made for projected traf- fic conditions for the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive. 0 As stated in MUTCD Section 4C. 01, Studies Factors for Jus- tifying Traffic Control Signals, the study should consider the effects of the right -turn vehicles from the minor -street ap- proaches. Engineeringjudgment should be used to deter- mine what, if any, portion of the right -turn traffic is sub- tracted from the minor -street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants. As a part of the traffic signal warrants analysis for the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive included in this study, none of the northbound right -turns have been factored out for analy- sis of projected traffic conditions to be conservative. _ Page 24 FINAL RESULTS: Projected Traffic Conditions W/ RTs Not Factored Out Major St.: Huntsville Road Minor St.: Momingside Drive HOUR 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 SUM MAJOR 1219 747 665 754 811 867 699 1002 1222 1263 836 630 520 350 MAX. MINOR 86 85 52 44 46 61 62 54 59 76 69 63 55 43 31 is intersection DOES NOT S outlined in the "M.UT.C.D." 11 It was found that traffic signal warrants are not projected to be met for the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morning- side Drive with projected traffic volumes associated with the Park Meadows development as proposed. Traffic signal war- rants analysis for this intersection indicates volumes are ex- pected to not be sufficient to satisfy any warrants at the com- pletion of the development. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for this intersection are summarized in Table 6, "Traffic Signal Warrants Results - Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive — Projected Traffic Conditions." Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis Hour warrant was met`. VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Peak 500 750 400 600 150 75 120 60 #8-1 #8-2 1A 1B 1AB 2 0 1 0 0 t 1 0 1 0 0 1 1` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0> ? 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. 0 3 0 2 ISFY the warrants for signalizatic V, 0 0 0 0 Table 6 0 Traffic Signal Warrants Results 0 Huntsville Road and 0 Morningside Drive 0 Projected Traffic Conditions 0 Page 25 Currently, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Depart- ment (AHTD) nor the City of Fayetteville does not have spe- cific design standards for warranting a left -turn lane. However, there are some general guidelines in the traffic engineering in- dustry that could serve as a basis for a decision by the City of Fayetteville for the need for the addition of a left -turn lane by analyzing the left -turn vehicle volumes vs the opposing vehicle volumes. In evaluating the need for a westbound left -turn lane on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive, auxiliary lane war- rants for a left -turn lane on a two-lane highway were examined using a method in the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) Access Management Policy in Section 4.5.2 - Auxil- iary Lane Warrants - Left -Turn Lanes. A copy of Section 4.5.2 of the KDOT Access Management Policy is included in the Ap- pendix of this report. This is a well established and accepted method in analyzing the need for a left -turn lane. Section 4.5.2.a - Two -Lane Highways of the KDOT Access Manage- ment Policy states the following: 4.5.2.a Two-lane highways The four key data elements required for this analysis are: o Opposing volume (Vo) in vehicles per hour (vph)— includes the right -turning and through vehicles in the opposite direction ofthe left -turning vehicles. o Advancing volume (Va) in vph—includes the right - turn, left -turn, and through movements in the same direction as the left -turning vehicles (do not include right turns ifa dedicated right -turn lane exists). o Speed in miles per hour (mph)—often indicated as the operating speed 85th percentile speed (posted speed is acceptable if the 85th percentile speed is not available). o Percentage of left turns in the advancing volume. To use Table 4-27, do the following. o Locate opposing traffic volume, Vo, and operating speed on chart. o Determine the percentage of the advancing volume that is expected to turn left. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Page 26 f. If the associated advancing traffic volume, Far is greater than the value shown, then a left -turn lane is warranted. As an example, for a two-lane highway with an opposing volume of 600 vph, a speed of 50 -mph, a left -turn percent- age of 10 percent, and an advancing volume of 200 vph, a left -turn lane is warranted since 200 vph > 117 vph. Table 4.27. Recommended left -turn lane warrants for two-lane highways Opposing volume __.. Advancing Volume v (vph) V, {-ph) a 5% ft as 10 b Left turns I 20% Left turns 30% Left turns 40 -mph speed goo 136.�' 99 74 65 159 �µ 316_ 87 76 600 186 �� 135 101 500 Z18 158 119 103 400 255 185139 121 �300 „ 301 218 m M1 164 143 200 356 259 _ i 194 169 100 426 309 232 202 50 -50 -mph speed . �- 800 118 86 64 56 700 138 100 75 66 600 163._ 1.17 88 77 ,00 188 137 103 90 400 221 163 .... 120 105 300 260 189 142 124 200 309 224 _._ _.____.... 168 _._.. _ ..___._; 147 ..__..__ _ _. _ _ 100 i 369 268 201 175 60 -mph speed 800 96 7fl mw, 5316 ._ 700 113 82 �i3 54 600 i 131 95 72 G3 500 154 ; 112 i 84 73 4{30 I 181 ? 131 ........... ,. ..._......... .. ................. .... ........ 98 ...... 86 300 213 154 116 ..............,........................ 101 200 252 1.83 .. .:... ...... ....... 137 ..... 12fl 100 301 219 .... 164 .._.... 143 70 -mph speed .............. _ _... 800 ? 68 50 37 32 700 80 58 43 38 GOO 93 I G8 500 109 79 5 59 44 52 400 128 93 70 .:. 61. ._ 300 1 350 109 82 72 200 178 329 ..... 100 213 155 97 116 85 ............. 10 Source: Aoupted from Van Schaukvryk, i., and V. stover Revisiting Existing Warrants for Left -run tortes at Unsignaftty Intersections on No -Way RoadvvaI,4 'IRB 2007 Annuol Meeting CD-ROM, Notional Research Council, Nashington, D.0 (2007). Rote: Critical gap= 8.0 seconds, tirtse to turn left = 4.3 seconds, time to clear lane = 3.2secands Table 4-27 Recommended Left -Turn Lane Warrants for Two -Lane Highways PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. Ij Page 27 I The posted speed limit on the two-lane highway of Hunts- ville Road is 25 miles per hour in the vicinity Morningside Drive. However, 40 miles per hour is the minimal speed limit shown on Table 4-27 and is the value included in these calculations. Projected traffic volumes during the AM and PM Peak Hours are as follows: AM Peak Hour o Eastbound approach = 414 vehicles. o Westbound left -turns = 14 vehicles. o Westbound -advancing (includes left -turns) = 922 vehi- cles. AM peak hour westbound left -turn volume is only 1.5 per- cent of the westbound approach volume and far less than the minimum 5 percent left -turns shown on Table 4-27. Further- more, this projected left -turn volume is only 14 vehicles dur- ing the AM peak hour. PM Peak Hour o Eastbound approach = 833 vehicles. o Westbound left -turns = 23 vehicles. o Westbound thru = 444 vehicles. It was found that the PM peak hour westbound left -turn vol- ume on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive is 5.8 percent of the westbound approach volume. With the eastbound ap- proaching volume of 833 vehicles during the PM peak hour, the 444 advancing volume is greater than the threshold vol- urne of 136 vehicles posted on Table 4-27 referenced in this section. This result indicates a westbound left -turn lane on Huntsville Road approach to Morningside Drive projected to be warranted. The Table 4-27 values are based on 40 miles per hour. However, the table does not provide data for the much lower posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The projected left -turn volume is only 23 vehicles during the PM peak hour and the westbound vehicle movements are ex- pected to operate acceptably with or without the addition of a westbound left -turn lane at this location. All westbound thru PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 28 Q PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. / left -turn vehicle movements for the projected traffic condi- tions on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive are expected to continue to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "A" for the AM and PM peak hours as indicated by the capacity and level of service calculations conducted as a part oft his study. A westbound left -turn lane on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive is found to be warranted but not be necessary for acceptable traffic operations with full build -out of the proposed Park Meadows development. Also, with left -turn volumes even lower on Huntsville Road at Street "L" and at Street "F" than at Morningside Drive, left -turn lanes are not expected to be warranted or necessary at these locations with maximum left -turn volumes of only 7 and 9 vehicles respectively during the PM peak hour. Page 29 r- r 1 f 'if Findings of this study are summarized as follows: • Approximately 2,761 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday are projected to be generated by the proposed residential subdivision at full build. Of this total, approximately 218 vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour and approximately 290 vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM peak hour. • All vehicle movements for existing traffic conditions at the study intersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive presently operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours. All vehicle movements for the projected traffic conditions at the study intersections are expected to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM and PM peak hours except for the northbound vehicle movements on Morningside Drive at Huntsville Road dur- ing the ANI peak hour (LOS "E"). The 95th percentile cal- culated vehicle queue length for the northbound Mo- ming - side Drive approach to Huntsville Road is only 90 feet, and the average vehicle delay for that vehicle movement is only 49 seconds per vehicle. Furthermore, the average seconds per vehicle delay and intersection capacity utilization are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels with existing lane geometry and "Stop" sign control for the in- tersection of Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive dur- ing the AM and PM peak hours for these projected traffic conditions. • It was found that traffic signal warrants are not projected to be met for the intersection of Huntsville Road and Morn- ingside Drive with projected traffic volumes associated with the Park Meadows development as proposed. Traffic signal warrants analysis for this intersection indicates vol- umes are expected to not be sufficient to satisfy any war- rants at the completion of the development. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 30 F1 • It was found that a westbound left -turn lane on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive is not warranted for the AM peak hour. AM peak hour westbound left -turn volume is only 1.5 percent of the westbound approach volume. Furthermore, this projected left -turn volume is only 14 vehicles during the AM peak hour. • It was found that the PM peak hour westbound left -turn vol- ume on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive is 5.8 percent of the westbound approach volume. With the eastbound ap- proaching volume of 833 vehicles during the PM peak hour, the 444 advancing volume is greater than the threshold vol- ume of 136 vehicles posted on Table 4-27 referenced in this report. This result indicates a westbound left -turn lane on Huntsville Road approach to Morningside Drive projected to be warranted. The Table 4-27 values are based on 40 miles per hour. However, the table does not provide data for the much lower posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The pro- jected left -turn volume is only 23 vehicles during the PM peak hour and the westbound vehicle movements are ex- pected to operate acceptably with or without the addition of a westbound left -turn lane at this location. All westbound thru / left -turn vehicle movements for the projected traffic condi- tions on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive are expected to continue to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "A" for the AM and PM peak hours as indicated by the capac- ity and level of service calculations conducted as a part oft his study. A westbound left -turn lane on Huntsville Road at Morningside Drive is found to be warranted but not be neces- sary for acceptable traffic operations with full build -out of the proposed Park Meadows development. Also, with left -turn volumes even lower on Huntsville Road at Street "L" and at Street "F" than at Morningside Drive, left -turn lanes are not expected to be warranted or necessary at these locations with maximum left -turn volumes of only 7 and 9 vehicles respec- tively during the PM peak hour. PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Page 31 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. w -40m) •T��j V1 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS. INC. LEGEND (EXISTING) � LEGEND (CONSTRUCT) PAWaL LINE TARLE srueas LINEMCNI( 2jj .015 �b µ�� Lx 1 uNcn clm: a% a Y o iWT9 IRa PW 64uWr — — — _ — — — — — • Sm IRa PIN EA4Vai — — — — — — — — — # liar P- ________________________ u AY Srr.Y 0.240 QNB rt ' r'g mar OF rnr WMlxc sm Dna ao)o C91r@VMN, CEG FIGHTa .1_ .-T, ME BUILDING SETBACKS: Row aR�Ewlxc -- - _ ZONING: M SRODCPWN DIII • GA SID5'B/SE • mD[WAa RFw9 . IZ B/s PA9a1 )65-tm>9-WI I_ Fo ErT911EaiRE�LK02 RE M. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Grafton Tull PART a TIE x I/2 a ME M 1/1 OF 4[na a Tr P 16 NaM RANG JO WEST ull o em«,n � •� _GRITa GOAIn, MNAHCA% YCM PARnaLA¢Y GE__ . EWmWS vaCING AT nE Xa1HNEST CORNER a RE W I/} a iM NE I/X a SVD _RGH a •..., TF)la KONG ME NORM UE DEREEF Ser V. , %.BB FEET: MU IEAVING YID N— ME 502•H'}2Yl 1206 FEET 10 TIE POINT a BEGWNING. SVD w•.nww.c...m.. Dr PONT BONG a IM SWM RIGHT a WAY a EAST NGNFT 6 ROU}. —a KONG — SCUM Mal a WAY 1M FOLLO'A1NC THREE GXAN5 t7 E 112A, REn TNaa GEX OWE A9•E ]am RET: THENCE LEAVING RRNa S ]am REF TMxa SVD SCUM Mai a NGY E0110THE jOE W. VINC FEET. T uass Fm: OI CA xa9•u'S5'E INA RET; E GATE N •c .Hsu FEEL ro THE saM ! Mal xnY a us] MlNIS4RLF N0A sues Riar a WAY >M R 2BT 2472 EfILONNE raw mLN4tnmta mfi zr:et 117 FEET; rxaa mrw•,rE m.» RET: rNOla mrxrw•E pool Rm: nE1a mr]T'2>i ,%.m FEET; raNa anvwc suD s1uM N1ar a ruY sorw'uw Imam REi; nExa xm'I2'mYr RET: Maa LO MF NWITX Wal a WAY a NN 16: THENCE ORN RIGHTrTHE -Y IRL.KWG SAID Na RIGHT a WAY ME rg1aM0 PAN aURSFSTENQ Nfir15'SlY' NA1•a•N3•W ]6.00 ftFT; 1M]I¢ XBTIFEET THE iGIT RON TO 1Mxa Nm FEET r0 M EASr Mai a WAY RIGHT T SWM RENO dUEF: -1 —G SAN F THE .1 1 O REGIN, H, CCGNT�wINNG iii, A% um¢ GR lis A]um's.-I To AL.EAE''NNTENa AN, ruars a WAY a KGgm GR .. I :k' ]63-,SO6YW0 L-, I j 2a1NE: W-, W m G41l R. ANT a ME xW I/, a ME 4 Ip a m F W a rowmllP Ni NORM GAYa /•. _ _Nft a z j RAw Eml Gaa+rc gRNANux ua¢ P]aR — Wua¢cD As moon \ ) C I_r / cOYI¢Nc xG AT THE N M LLSTCERNER TmRa a ME A� I' oa TIE m 1/4 a wo xcna a NCITWAY -G! ME S02-42IN WG FEET V THE xr DEGOMINS w0 �. _GE ALWE xa m . 0 FEET. _ ...... .. __... ....... F ...... ....... ..... THENCE • 0$*fE 57AN LI III NK76•Iln 1SSC—.6UPYia GRAPHIC SCALE ,l w 39 m 3i ,y I; _"' — "- WENa GWE ,Da51 RET. —a Sm•1131•E ]SSM RFT G '�---1 u THENCE EEANNG SAID SWM a WAY 6 RIGHT 46TOY] 151.24 FEE]. FRINGE Nm 5U•WTDO ALaw1 FEE, TDCAN -1 NIGHT OF WAY NDM] mT[11NINCSLa2 TO AREA s CE FE POI. a aWR1NG. �S Y If A] a�'Rrii"'oim a vACAiaEs. uERE OR ass ANG 4Ntcr TO Au EAs{uENrs ARE wars a WAY – w CONTROL POINT TABLE gig_ - m a ' I s9 60 61 e1 w a m m 6> 9 o ]1 µ (- ` POINT A R.M. usnxG nEYAnox —FOR m 103 103 IGH I 1W 6.." INT'. 0 1)x.22 S/6�'e W I. LM m p ]B I. I )3�1 2 NIR... DpEm.11 1114.11 S/6�T W DLLE W 61 61 / /.... SMR] (- / _ _ — — — — — — — — — / J _ 21 3 fiaYaG15 6nO66D0 n]aw S/6 HR W mUC CA➢ _ _ ]A —7.n GTGRI 3 12mw S/&H9 W BWE CAP CNISr. 60 11 1a IGH lm0 \ WuuON AREA 9 / ]3 PARK MEADOWS 1 S pAam. ]65-Isa2-D10 aAiANE RYW a N ARU15A5 FAYEiikVlllE.AR A ."I" 6nlaRNGE AJE.1o' / _ .-_..,� _.�` '- - ' ]B la j mo.. 4n]o2 {, x0xTOAD ( Q m 109 110 111 IIt IIJ 1, IIS 6 — 01PWN ` — I IT m' 1 `A� a � � � �; I 5 •_ I WI I INisn E 231 uz 1u rp] I / 1u 1u 242 u1 1w wa ITR 1m Iu u I ' 51 :I >, a ANEA II .. I I 9 { —G�MEr n- _ - .v. art Nin' -I U _� -- § _ _ /-b/\ � I 1 50 151 1 15�`ISt—SS 4I�_ 'L5] ,._ IW Ii a71 sr_1 �,. \- : 1,1 ITR J 1 I 1 �� (\- 1m � m •s,REmA ' 'I� �g ,. °--- ^_ II _«_ N fiy a» 2'n 1{ 1]B 11] � — — I � I IR i] = ITR ITR ITR•` I& � � \�\ 15 1], 1)3 I.+1I OI II I)0 169 I I I� WIIYa � I n 165 i II f —1 _ I ATEA 2 C- ATEA 12 im �SM[m J-- — — I— Hr- ft— LLONAR w / 2m Ix1sI I:m :a xW pz 201 2ao 199 _--_- - Te w] Ia 19s 1 9. re] Naz 2 •.�_ -LI — ,m I m ` m mNa wu A� � 2XR 1 2w :5 2X _ I–f.112 – – 2 15J ]HI 2m 25) 2m )N 1E0 262 163 p, 265 211 261 tm — 92 I 1 1 ZT- -- _--_ - L9 ' Iarzl n3 vs n6 Iznl ne xn xm I I� 1m Iz-]IL J. j 1 .... �... .. -..• n xn tm 2m 2B9 '.Z 119J I I r r i eEwE u+o sHDec w• x L ti L` LTJ y"- L_J I 7 / I ' I LJ ' -�-- I - •PRELIMINARY NHq SSGF ED] asst Q uaxIN05 D[ OA1K PIANS • d L_J L_ -__J L___J A. I Iu A _ i Y_ ry OVERALL PRELIMINARY PLAT Ll I C-102 Trip -Generation Data V07M�-Pi Fayetteville, Arkansas P1846 Trip Generation Summary - Single -Family Residential Project: Park Meadows Open Date: 11/8/2016 Alternative: Single -Family Residential Analysis Date: 11/8/2016 AM Peak Hour of PM Peak Hour of Average Daily Trips Adjacent Street Traffic Adjacent Street Traffic ITE Land Use Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 210 SFHOUSE 1 1381 1380 2761 55 163 218 183 107 290 290 Dwelling Units Unadjusted Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal Capture Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -By Trips 0 0. 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Added to Adjacent Streets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total AM Peak Hour Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total PM Peak Hour Internal Capture = 0 Percent _ Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012 TRIP GENERATION 2014, TRAFFICWARE, LLC 1 Vehicle Turning Movemeni] r � , Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data AM Hour Turning Movment Count Data File Name : AM -TM Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive North 4- Site Code : 00000000 Fayetteville, AR 11/10l20167:0000AM m Start Date : 11/10/2016 P1846 � o rn' m 2 al 5 o Page No :1 Groups Printed- AM Count Data W.0 OJ - Huntsville Rd. Left Right Morningside Dr. _ Huntsville Rd. From East i From South Out In Total From West StartTime Thru 1 Left 1 Peds A . Total Right Thru Left 1 Peds App. Total 1 Right { Thru Peds 1 App. T 1 Int. Total Factor 1.0 1 1.0 ' 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 ! 1:0 1 1.0 07:00 AM 205 2 0 207 1 0 1 0 2 1 50 0 51 260 07:15 AM 194 2 0 196 0 0 2 1 3 4 72 0 76 275 07:30 AM 237 3 0 240 3 0 6 0 9 4 77 0 81 330 07:45 AM 260 8 0 268 2 0 4 0 6 7 80 0 87 361 Total 896 15 0 911 j 6 0 13 1 _ 20 16 279 0 2951 1226 08:00 AM 193 1 0 1941 1 0 2 2 5 1 9 75 0 84 283 08:15 AM 213 2 0 2151 1 0 4 0 5 ''I 4 100 0 104 324 08:30 AM 218 0 0 218 j 3 0 9 0 12 8. 106 0 1141 344 08:45 AM 137 1 0 138 2 0 9 0 11 ! 8 87 0 95 244 Total 761 - 4 0 765 7 0 -. 24 2 -- 333 29 29 368 0 3971 1195 Grand Total 1657 19 0 1676 13 0 37 3 53' 45 647 0 6921 2421 Apprch % 98.9 1.1 0.0 24.5 0.0 69.8 5.7 6.5 93.5 0.0 Total % 68.4 0.8 0.0 69.2 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.1 2.2 1.9 26.7 0.0 28.6 North 4- �i 11/10l20167:0000AM m __a,5 <. 11/10/20168:4500AM � o rn' m 2 al 5 o AM Count Data N O W.0 OJ - Left Right _Peds_ 37' 64' Out In Total Momin side Dr. t. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data AM Hour Turning Movment Count Data Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive Fayetteville, AR P1846 c Hour From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 07:45 AM : 00000000 Volume 884 11 0 Percent 98.8 1.2 0.0 07:45 Volume 260 8 0 Peak Factor 7.1 High Int. 07:45 AM 0.0 Volume 260 8 0 Peak Factor 4 0 File Name : AM -TM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/10/2016 Page No : 2 895 7 0 19 2 281, 28 361 0 389 1312 25.0 0.0 67.9 7.1 7.2 92.8 0.0 _ c 268 2 0 4 0 6 7 80 0 87 361 - 11/10/2016 8:30:00 AM U, m 2 a 0.909 08:30 AM AM Count Data 08:30 AM 268 3 0 9 0 12 '- 8 106 0 114 0.835 Left Right_ 0.583 -Peds 19 2 0.853, �io .�I.C.. H North - --2 _ c of 11/10/2016 7:45:00 ANt- - 11/10/2016 8:30:00 AM U, m 2 a a AM Count Data `_,Wi,N 4 -► Left Right_ -Peds 19 2 39 28 67 - out In —Total- otalMomin side Dr. Morningside Q Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data PM Hour Turning Movment Count Data File Name : PM -TM Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive Site Code : 00000000 Fayetteville, Ar Start Date : 11/09/2016 P1846 Page No : 1 Grouns Printed- PM Cnunt Data I otal 42u Huntsville Rd. u 43u Morningside Dr. Lb 1 Huntsville Rd. 40 679 u 719 From East 05:00 PM 94 From South 0 97 From West 3 0 Start Time Thru Left j Peds App. Total Ri ht Left Peds A .Total Right Thru Peds App. Total _ Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 1 1.01 1.0 1 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 05:30 PM 103 03:00 PM 101 3 1 1051 1 5 0 6 3 113 1 1171 228 03:15 PM 121 6 0 127 1 8 0 9 11 112 0 123 259 03:30 PM 118 1 0 119 4 7 2 13 11 120 0 131 263 03:45 PM 112 4 0 116 3 3 0 6 6 111 0 117 1. 239 Total 452 14 1 467 9 23 2 341 31 456 1 488 i 989 04:00 PM 121 2 0 123 2 9 0 11 1 8 180 0 188 1 322 04:15 PM 110 2 0 112 3 5 0 81 9 168 0 177 1 297 04:30 PM 89 2 0 91 7 5 1 13 10 167 0 177 281 04:45 PM 100 4 0 104 4 6 0 10 13 164 0 177 1 291 I otal 42u 1 u u 43u 16 Lb 1 421, 40 679 u 719 1191 05:00 PM 94 3 0 97 6 3 0 91 13 174 0 187 293 05:15 PM 108 4 0 112 3 1 0 4 9 196 0 205 321 05:30 PM 103 1 0 1041 5 5 0 10 ! 9 173 0 182 296 05:45 PM 100 1 0 101 3 4 0 7 10 155 0 165 273 Total 405 9 0 414 17 1.3 0 30 ',' 41 698 0 739 _ '1 I83 06:00 PM 99 1 0 100 4 3 0 7 8 110 0 118 225 Grand Total 1376 34 1 1411 46 64 3 113 120 1943 1 2064 3588 Apprch % 97.5 2.4 0.1 40.7 56.6 2.7 5.8 94.1 0.0 Total % 38.4 0.9 0.0 39.3 1.3 1.8 0.1 3.1 3.3 54.2 0.0 57.5 ~ M m.'O .-... +North 01,;�- , c m' [if 2 _ c 11/912016 3:00:00 PM -- 11/9/2016 6:00:00 PM _ = v' PM Count Data ----- --, a I Left Right Peds 64'-_-46[_ 3' 1541 2131 -267 Out In Total Morningside Dr. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data PM Hour Turning Movment Count Data Huntsville Road and Morningside Drive Fayetteville, Ar P1846 File Name : PM -TM Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/09/2016 Page No : 2 Huntsville Rd. Morningside Dr. Huntsville Rd. L. ____ _ From East 1- 2 u From South From West c L—StartPeds Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Left Peds App. Total ';__-_ �htI, Thru — — ! pp -- A Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 03100 PM to 06.00 PM - Peak 1 of 1 11/9/2016 5:30:00 PMaw N m a Intersection 04:45 PM — PM Count Data 0 a Volume 405 12 0 417 18 15 0 33 44 707 0 751 1201 Percent 97.1 2.9 0.0 54.5 45.5 0.0 5.9 94.1 0,0 15 0 05:15 Volume 108 4 0 112 3 1 0 4 9 196 0 205 321 Peak Factor Mominctside Dr. 0.935 High Int. 05:15 PM 04:45 PM 05:15 PM Volume 108 4 0 112; 4 6 0 10 9 196 0 205' Peak Factor 0.931 0.825 0.916 - - F- - North 1- 2 u f2 c 11/9/20164:45:00 PM - 11/9/2016 5:30:00 PMaw N m a — PM Count Data 0 a 0 Left Right Peds 15 0 5-6 - 83 89 — - Out In Total Mominctside Dr. P1846 AIVI Huntsville Rd W m o c: COle CD O y L k *-0 ® r0 T ?f Street E 0 0 0 0 RO Street J p o 0 3 In 0 - CD 0 C:) RQ T Street B 0 0 11/11/2016 *-895 4-985 Aro r0 .............. -1-.1--.1 — .... — ..... 368->. j® Huntsville Rd 368 o Huntsville Rd 0-4�s 0-* ' R o I o 0 (D in CD ',I r m HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Morningside Dr & Huntsville Rd 11/21/2016 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Pagel Lane Configurations Volume (vbh/h) _ 361 28 11 884 ,. 19' 7 Sign Control Free _. Free Stop Gratle 0% 0% 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hour)y flowrate (vph) .: 392 30 12 961 21- :' 8 :.; Pedestrians —` . Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) PX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 423 1392 408 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 423 1392 408 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) :2.2 3.53.3 - p0 queue free % 99 87 99 CM capacity (veh/h) 1136 - 155 644 Volume Total 423 973 28 Volume Left 0 12 21 Volume Right li 30 -1700 0 8 cSH 1136 194 Volume to .Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 12 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 26.6 Lane LOS A p Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 26.6 Approach LOS p Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization - 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Pagel P1846 Existinq PM Huntsville Rd 707-, \ 44-�k 4-405 Ar12 U-)00 Huntsville Rd 0 0 RO y �k " Ar0 .... ....... . -- " T if Street K 0 0 0 4-417 Ar0 4-417 X-0 11/11/2016 Huntsville Rd HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Morningside Dr & Huntsville Rd 11/21/2016 IT Lane Configurations 453 36 4 0 13 16 Volume (vehlh) 7671 44 12 , ', 405 :. 15;':z-::- 18 Sign Control Free 0.14 Free Stop 12 Grade 0°la . a 0%' o Ola. C Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) , x_768 48 ,- ' . 13 440 . 16= 20 , Pedestrians 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% ICULevel of Service A Analysis Period (min) Lane Width,(ft) 15 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 816 1259 792 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 816 1259 792 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 91 95 cM capacity.(veh/h) 811 185 389 Volume Total816 453 36 Volume Left 0 13 16 Volume Right 48 0 20 cSH 1700 811 259 Volume to Capacity 0.48 0.02 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 12 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.521.1 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) '0.0 0.5 21.1 Approach LOS C w tnfersectrptt�ri�a Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% ICULevel of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report EJP Pagel P1846 4-908 x-14 .._.................................. ... ........... Huntsville Rd 369-* ` 45�45-* iw co -915 x-2 rn ca R10 t l ...::::— IV +M Street K 11/11/2016 vnc vc� �c� aacu 4-901 x-3 • Huntsville Rd CO �`R � R-8 y y ® x-8 _... _.. . o Street J LOM LO c co 0 oma': R16 + ®x-24 T Street B "00 11/11/2016 vnc vc� �c� aacu 4-901 x-3 • Huntsville Rd CO �`R � HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Morningside Dr & Huntsville Rd 11/11/2016 BJ Lane Configurations 'G T kir Control Free Free Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourty flow.rate (vph) 401' 49 -` 16� 987 74 . ` 18 . Pedestrians Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Medintype None None' " Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 450 1443 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 450 1443 426 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (S) 2.2 15:, 3.3 p0 queue free % gg 49 .: 97 cM capacity (veh/h) - 1110 144 629 Volume Total 450 1002 92 Volume Left 0 15 74 Volume Right 49 0 18 cSH 1700 1110 170 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.01 0.54 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 70 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 49.0 Lane LOS A E Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.4 49.0 Approach LOS E Average Delay 3 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C ` Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX+ Site Generated Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Pagel HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Morningside Dr & Street B 11/11/2016 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 2 Lane Configurations Volume;(veh/h) '' 24 96 42 8 6 '. 80 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0°!0 0%., 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 17—: 46 - 9 7 87 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) - Walking Speed (ft/s) PercentBlockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 150 50 54 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 150 50 54 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 838 1018 1551 - l0uet�fae�� Volume Total 43 54 93 Volume Left 26 0 7 Volume Right 17 9 0 cSH 902 1700 1551 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.03 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.2 0.0 0.5 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.2 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS A ...n a;. � y✓ ��y . ��.. , .' . ��'�'.- ri 7� -'�' i y {3� � ` � r ��, c � s ia�,-.,..�.�4,. "`� - ¢ fi.,r a.a�� r Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization -19.2% ICU Level of Service - A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 2 PA HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Morningside Dr & Street J 11/11/2016 t I''► Control Stop Free Free Median storage veh) Upstrearn signal pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume'. ; '152: ; ,61 63 vC1, stage 1 conf vol VC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 152 61 63 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3..5 3.3, 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 100 cM capacity (veh/h) , 838, 1004 1540 Volume Total`; 17� 63 87 Volume Left 9 0 3 Volume Right 9: 3 0 cSH 914 1700. 1540 Volume to Capacity, - 0.02 Q.04 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.0 0.0 0.3 Lane LOS A A Approach, Delay (s) 9.0 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS A P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Morningside Dr & Street E 11/11/2016 j- t 1 Volume Total 'r 52 68 68 Volume Left Lane Configurations ' 9 Volume Right 26 Volume (veh/h) 24 24 55 8 8 55 Sign Control Stop 0.06 Free Free Grade 0% 0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 26 60 9 9 60 Pedestrians Approach LOS A Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent'' Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median :type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) " pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 141 64 68 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 141 64 68 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 847 1000' 1533 Volume Total 'r 52 68 68 Volume Left 26 0 9 Volume Right 26 9 0 cSH 917 1700 1533 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.2 0.0 1.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.2 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX+ Site Generated Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Morningside Dr & Street K 11/11/2016 ,O' I► .Lane Configurations V U Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0%, 0% 0%, r. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Houdyflow rate (uph) : 9 . 11 : ' 84 3 : 3.. Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/8) Percent $16kage -; Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None ; Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked _ vC,'conflicting volume - 153 85 87 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 153 85 87 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC; 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5' 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % .99 99 100 CM capacity (veh/h) 837 974 a PM64 Volume Total 20 , 8 Volume Left 9 0 3 Volume Right 11 3 0 cSH 908 1700 1509 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.05 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 0.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 0.4 AlRfpproach LOS A MEMNIVE mo -v- mimpg W1, M WINE Average Delay 1,2 Intersection i Capacity Utilization 15.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Street L & Huntsville Rd 11/11/2016 Lane Configurations 420 997 16 Volume Left Volume (veh/h) 3.83 3 2 .915 Volume Right 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop 1140 Grade 0%0°/a Volume to Capacity ; '0% 0.07 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 -0.92 0.92 0_.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) , - 416 3 2 995' :' 9 8 Pedestrians A C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 Lane Width (ft) 21.5 Approach LOS Walking Speed (ft/s) Intersectiorurnrta,.v Percent Blockage Average Delay Right turn flare (veh) 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Median type None ICU Level of Service B None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume- 4.20 1417 418 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 420 1417 418 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 94 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1140 151 635 Volume Total 420 997 16 Volume Left 0 2 9 Volume Right 3 0 8 cSH 1700 1140 234 Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.00 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 21.5 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 21.5 Approach LOS C Intersectiorurnrta,.v Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX+ Site Generated Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Street F & Huntsville Rd 11/11/2016 Lane Confiaurations L T 1of Control Free Free Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (uph) x417, 7 3 979 " 17 'r 9 - ... _ Pedestrians Lane Width ({):' turn flare Median storage veh) Upstream signal'(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 424 1407 421 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) . 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 89 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1135153 _ 633 N Volume Total 424 983 26 Volume Left 0 Volume Right 7 0 9 cSH 1700 1135 205 Volume to Capacity , 0.25 0.00 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 11 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 25.2 Lane LOS _ A p Approach Delay; (s) 0.0 0.1 25.2 Approach LOS p tl'{tp dap "NA�ay t 1;.� ,IF. xgg ;13 Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service " B Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic AM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 7 P1846 11/11/2016 Projected Pm Huntsville Rd 734 99-A Site Generated + Ex PMI F421 F439 F435 x-23 x-7 x-9 ....... Huntsville Rd 750- -- :F® Huntsville Rd ------ ... 736-> 1 o Huntsville Rd Vii' N 9-4 18-* cO cn Ui R16 Co y m cn CD r m �b ® x-5 ... IF Street K o m c ; L : cO R16 Co y x-16 ® T Street E corl- �N Co R5 mm. y _ x-5 ® T Street J p j orn w iZ '! CD Wim{ X11 y !`®x-16 T Street B rnti 'I� N HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Morningside Dr & Huntsville Rd 11/11/2016 —1► 't f, , '\ /' Sign Control Free Free Stop Grady :. -`. 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly floraf (vph) 108 51, Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Perceht Blockage; Right turn flare (veh) Mediar►type .'' NoneNone, Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 905 135. 852 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 905 1359 852 tC, sirgle (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2, . 11 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.23.5 _ 3.3 p0 queue.free % 97 68 93 - cMcapacity(veh/h) 751 ;158-,360: Volume Total 905 :483 77 Volume Left 0 25 51 Volume Right _ 108 0 26 cSH 1700 751 195 Volume to Capacity, 0.53 0.03 0.40 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 44 Control Delay (s) 0,0 0.9 35.0 Lane LOS A D Approach Delay,(s) " 0.0 0.9 35.0 Approach LOS D "10, Z.. . , 1 10 -mw. i . ma c. i, G,. .. ., � %f ✓ ,. Glv` Average Delay 2.2 Intersection'Capacity Utilization 55.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report EJP Pagel HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Morningside Dr & Street B 11/11/2016 Volume Total 29 .115 110 Volume Left 17 Lane Configurations 20 Volume Right 12 29 0 Volume (veh/h) 16 11 79 27 ;18 83 Sign Control Stop Queue Length 95th (ft) Free 0 Free Grade Q% 0.0 0°fo Lane LOS 0016 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 12 86 29 : 20 ;90 Pedestrians 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization Lane Width (ft) Analysis Period (min) 15 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 230 101 115 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 230 101 115 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 748 955 1474 Volume Total 29 .115 110 Volume Left 17 0 20 Volume Right 12 29 0 cSH 821 1700 1474 Volume to Capacity Q.04 0.07 0,.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 1 Control Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 1.4 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 1.4 Approach LOS A k Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Morningside Dr & Street J 11/11/2016 f- t I' �► z)ign Lomroi Stop Free Free Median storage veh) Upstream signal "(ft)"; pX, platoon unblocked vC, cgn icting"uolume, :. .. "2,16 92" ' "' °= 97 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 c6nf vol " "' - vCu, unblocked vol 216 92 97 tC, single (s) _ 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) ; 3.5 3312.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity(vehlh) 767 966 " " 1497 Volurn'e Total;'_: Volume Left 5 0 10. Volume Right" 5 10 0 cSH 855 1700 1497 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.06 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.7 Approach LOS A P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Morningside Dr & Street E 11/11/2016 Volume Total { 4__ 126 t 17 0 29 Volume Right 17 29 0 cSH 845 Lane Configurations '!1 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.05 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) Volume /h 16 16 58 27 27 89 Sign Control Stop Free Approach Delay (s) 9.4 Free Grade 0% A 0% �4 �.� ..�x�/rt !. 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 17 63 29 29 97 Pedestrians Lane Width' Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent: Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 233 78 92 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 233 78 92 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 98 98 cM capacity (veh/h): 740 983 1502 Volume Total 35 92 126 Volume Left 17 0 29 Volume Right 17 29 0 cSH 845 1700 1502 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.05 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 1 Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 1.9 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 1.9 Approach LOS A �4 �.� ..�x�/rt !. A ''� �\. " •' / � �` � ' ,6 � '� •q� /✓1" � 'X ''im� fry �/s'..... �--'\�,y" e. q i -ems d� :?v . \�.�... « m..,.. \ h<. a,a � ... .(". n y. .. ✓ inia� rvxn.,.. �Y+P` ... .R« J. Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX+ Site Generated Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report Epp Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Morningside Dr & Street K 11/11/2016 Lane Configurations Free Free Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 H6Iy, fI*dW rate (vph) ... . � :- � � �_. 7 �71 10, Y 12 121 Pedestrians Cane Width (ft} Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median, type None None Median storage veh) Upstream'signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vG, conflicting volume 220 76 80 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage,2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 220 76 80 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cm capacity (veh/h) 762 986 1517 Volume Total 12 8D 133 Volume Left 5 0 12 Volume Right 7 10 0 cSH 870 1700 1517 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.05 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 9.2 0.0 0.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 9.2 0.0 0.7 Approach LOS A t.ffljn map" Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23`1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Street L & Huntsville Rd 11/11/2016 Volume Total 825 485 10 Volume Left 0 lwi ME� ��.� Lane Configurations +� 10 0 Volume (veh/h) 750 9 T:' 439 5 4 Sign Control Free Free Stop 0.01 Grade 0% 0% 0%. 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 815 10 � 8'- 477 5 4 Pedestrians Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 Lane Width (ft) Approach LOS Walking Speed (ft/s) pp}. n '"� „�.'�"� �/3d ,�$ �` ��.� 4✓ ✓' Y f � �.� C v�3'.��,. 7 �..< �� ". `+�z�� 3 �a. ,�eE�i: Average Delay PercentBlockage 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization Right turn flare (veh) 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 825 . 1312 ;820 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 825 1312 820 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 - 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 805 173 375 Volume Total 825 485 10 Volume Left 0 8 5 Volume Right 10 0 - 4 - cSH 1700 805 228 Volume to Capacity 0.49 0.01 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3 Control' Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 21.5 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 21.5 Approach LOS C pp}. n '"� „�.'�"� �/3d ,�$ �` ��.� 4✓ ✓' Y f � �.� C v�3'.��,. 7 �..< �� ". `+�z�� 3 �a. ,�eE�i: Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX + Site Generated Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Street F & Huntsville Rd 11/11/2016 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX+ Site Generated Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 7 Lane Configurations , volume (veh/h:) 736. ` 18 ' '9 435 11 5 Sign Control Free _ Free Stop Grade, .�... U% ....'. 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vphj 800 = 20' 10. -473. !:,2:, 5 '' Pedestrians Lane Width (ft); Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type. None None Median storage veh) upstrearrrsign all ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume' 820 1302z 810 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,-stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 820 1302 810 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 - 6.2' tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 93 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 809 175 380 Volume Total820 _ 483 17 Volume Left 0 10 12 Volume Right . 20 .0 5 cSH 1700 809 211 Volume to Capacity 0.48 4.01 0:08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 7 Control Delay (s) 0.00.3 _ 23.6 . Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 23.6 Approach LOS C / Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization49.8% _ ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 P1846 Park Meadows 11/11/2016 EX+ Site Generated Traffic PM Synchro 8 Report EJP Page 7 Mb n � �m m� b� H� z �a m 0 a m m .: � Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION Required Vol. for Warrant: major minor Road linor St.: Morningside Drive SUM MAX. Warrant MAJOR MINOR 7:00 1307 CITY: Fayetteville, AR No. Lanes Major: 1 Minor: 1 85 1A 500 150 10:00 665 CO.: - Washington --- --- 46 1B 750 75 13:00 867 HWY.,Mjr.: Huntsville Road Accidents > 5/yr? ( Y or N) N 54 1AB (80% 1 & 2) 400 120 16:00 1222 ST.,Minor: Morningside Drive Speed =>40, or Pop. < 10 K N 69 18:00 600 60 19:00 630 55 Projected Traffic Conditior Factor out "RTs" (Y or N)?: Yes 43 2 (4 Hr.) (see formula) 31 0 0 W/ RTs Not Factored Out Major: EB N WB N 3 (Peak Hr.) " 0 0 November 21, 2016 Study peformed b RMT Minor: NB Y SB n/a Adj. Factor: 1 0 0 0 MAJOR ST. 0 MINOR ST. 0 0 ' 10 0" 0 (direction) 0 (direction) 0 0" 0 Direction: 0 EB WB NB 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Factor 1.00% Factoi 100% Factor: 100% Factor: 100% Minor vol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 for 41-1r. War. Peak Hr. War. STARTING Existing Existing RESULTS ;:: Existing Existing TIME +Proj man. results +Prof man. results SUM +Proj man. results +Prof man. results TT "#3 7:00 357 : 357 : 950'. 950 1307 : i 86'. 86 ' 0 0 80 130 8:00 423 423 795 - 795 1219 "' 85 85 0 0 80 148 9:00 289 :.: -'. 289 458. 458 747 ;; 52 52 0:. 0 168 304 10:00 355 355 310 310 665 =! 44 44 -:. 0 0 196 340 11:00 385 = 385 i 369: 369 75446` 46 0: 0 166 301 12:00 447- 447 363 363 811 - 61 61 - 0' 0 148 277 13:00 462".` 462 ;' 405' 405 867 62. 62 " 0: 0 133 255 14:00 -386.'. 386 ' 312. 312 699 :' 54 54 :0 0 164 325 15:00 521 - 821 481. 481 1002 - 59- 59 -. 0 0 102 208 16:00 772, 772 450'. 450 1222 76 76 : -0 0 80 148 17:00 826 826 437' 437 1263 68 69 0. 0 80 139 18:00 .510 510 .'328' 326 836 63 63 0 0 141 267 19:00 411 411 218, 218 630: 55 55 0. 0 209 357 20:00 344 :. 344 -: 176-. 176 520 1 : 43 43 0 0 253 412 21:00 218 218 132 132 q n Note: Manual value is used if available. Results have been factored for machine count error. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis CITY: Fayetteville, AR CO.: Washing HWY.,Mjr.: Huntsville Road ST.,Minor: Morningside Drive Projected Traffic Conditions W/ RTs Not Factored Out 'rojected Traffic Conditions V/ RTs Not Factored Out lajor St.: Huntsville Road linor St.: Morningside Drive SUM MAX. HOUR MAJOR MINOR 7:00 1307 86 8:00 1219 85 9:00 747 52 10:00 665 44 11:00 754 46 12:00 811 61 13:00 867 62 14:00 699 54 15:00 1002 59 16:00 1222 76 17:00 1263 69 18:00 836 63 19:00 630 55 20:00 520 43 21:00 350 31 affic Signal Warrants Analysis Hour warrant was met: - VOLUME COMB. 4 Hr. Peart 500 750 400 600 150 75 120 60 #8-1 #8-2 1A 1B 1AB 2" 3 0" Y 0 0 1 �? 0 0 0 0'"' ii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .":;;4t 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o.�>:. 10 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 - 0 2 0 t. Page 436 2009 Edition CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for .Iustifying Traffic Control Signals Standard: 01 An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. 02 The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants: Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3, Peak Hour Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5, School Crossing Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7, Crash Experience Warrant 8, Roadway Network Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing 03 The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Support: 04 Sections 8C.09 and 8C.10 contain information regarding the use of traffic control signals instead of gates and/ or flashing -light signals at highway -rail grade crossings and highway -light rail transit grade crossings, respectively. Guidance: 05 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter are met. 05 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. 07 A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. 08 The study should consider the effects of the right -turn vehicles from the minor -street approaches. Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right -turn traffic is subtracted from the minor -street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants listed in Paragraph 2. 09 Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where approaches consist of one lane plus one left -turn or right -turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics should dictate whether an approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane for through and right -turning traffic plus a left -turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one -lane approach because the traffic using the left -turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one -lane approach. The approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left -turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left -turn vehicles. 10 Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn lane plus a right -turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor -street right -turn traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right -turn traffic should not be included in the minor -street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one -lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered. 11 At a location that is under development or construction and where it is not possible to obtain a traffic count that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an engineering study for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop -and -go operation to determine if the signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of stop -and -go operation or removed. 12 For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median, even if the median width is greater than 30 feet, should be considered as one intersection. Sect. 4C.01 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 437 Option: 13 At an intersection with a high volume of left -turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major -street left -turn volumes as the "minor -street" volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the "major -street" volume. 14 For signal warrants requiring conditions to be present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, any four sequential 15 -minute periods may be considered as 1 hour if the separate 1 -hour periods used in the warrant analysis do not overlap each other and both the major -street volume and the minor -street volume are for the same specific one-hour periods. 15 For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians. Support: is When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as pedestrians. Option: 17 Engineering study data may include the following: A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic volume. B. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, public -transit vehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles), during each 15 -minute period of the 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon during which total traffic entering the intersection is greatest. C. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in Item B and during -hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young, elderly, and/or persons with physical or visual disabilities need special consideration, the pedestrians and their crossing times may be classified by general observation. D. Information about nearby facilities and activity centers that serve the young, elderly, and/or persons with disabilities, including requests from persons with disabilities for accessible crossing improvements at the location under study. These persons might not be adequately reflected in the pedestrian volume count if the absence of a signal restrains their mobility. E. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 891 -percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location. F. A condition diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersection geometrics, channelization, grades, sight -distance restrictions, transit stops and routes, -parking conditions, pavement markings, roadway lighting, driveways, nearby railroad crossings, distance to nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures, -and adjacent land use. G. A collision diagram showing crash experience by type, location, direction of movement, severity, weather, time of day, date, and day of week for at least 1 year. is The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection, may be obtained during the periods described in Item B of Paragraph 17: A. Vehicle -hours of stopped time delay determined separately for each approach. B. The number and distribution of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street for entrance from the minor street. C. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85t1 -percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control. D. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-ininute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or Sunday. E. Queue length on stop -controlled approaches. Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Support: 01 The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. 02 The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. 03 It is intended that Warrant 1 be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then Warrant l is satisfied and analyses of Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is satisfied and an analysis of the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed. December 2009 Sect. 4C.0I to 4C.02 Page 438 2009 Edition Standard: 04 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: 05 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Guidance: 06 The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application 'at locations where Condition A is not .satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. Standard: 07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be_ required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Volume Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%a 80%° 70%- 56%d 1009/6a 80%° i 1 500 400 350. 280 150. 120 i05 84 2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 2 or more 2 or more , 600 480 420 336 200 160 140 112 ' 1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%a 80%° 70%° 56%d 100 / a 80%° 70%- 56%d '750 600 525 420 75; 60 53 42 2 or more 1 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42 2 or more 2 or more 900 720 630 504 100 80 70 56 1 2 or more 750 600 525 420 100 80 70 56 a Basic minimum hourly volume b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures ° May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 d May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 Sect. 4C,02 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 439 Option: 08 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns. Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Support: 01 The Four -Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. Option: 03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1. Section 4C.04 ,Warrant 3, Peak Hour Support: 01 The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of l hour of an average day, the minor -street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. Standard: 02 This signal warrant shall be applied only in -unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. 03 The need for a traffic control signal shall be- considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day: 1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor -street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach or 5 vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; and 2. The volume on the same minor -street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of.both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes. Option: 04 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to evaluate the criteria in the second category of the Standard. 05 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal may be operated in the flashing mode during the hours that the volume criteria of this warrant are not met. Guidance: 06 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal should be traffic -actuated. December 2009 Sect. 4C.02 to 4C.04 Page 440 Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume 500 400 MINOR STREET 300 HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 F I I I I I 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE .1 LANE & 1 LANE 2009 Edition 115' 80' 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESSTHAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 300 MINOR STREET HIGHER- 200 VOLUME APPROACH - VPH 100 f2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES >4.2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE .1 LANE & 1 LANE 80` 60' 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) "Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Sect. 4C.04 December 2009 2009 Edition Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET 300 HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES — 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE ,1 LINE8,1 LANE 100* 75* 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Page 441 150* 100* December 2009 Sect. 4C.04 600 500 MINOR STREET 400 HIGHER - VOLUME 300 APPROACH - VPH 200 100 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 1 LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET 300 HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES — 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE ,1 LINE8,1 LANE 100* 75* 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Page 441 150* 100* December 2009 Sect. 4C.04 Page 442 2009 Edition Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Support: 01 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7. Option: 03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Criterion A in Paragraph 2, and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-7 to evaluate Criterion B in Paragraph 2. Standard: 04 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. 05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 4E. Guidance: 06 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then: A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor -street or driveway traffic, should be traffic -actuated, and should include pedestrian detection. B. If it is installed at a non -intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least I00 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian -actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non -intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Option: 07 The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the 15th -percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second. os A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street. Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing Support: 01 The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word "schoolchildren" includes elementary through high school students. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour. Sect. 4C.05 to 4C.06 I December 2009 2009 Edition Figure 4C-5. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four -Hour Volume MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Figure 4C-6. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four -Hour Volume (70% Factor) 400 300 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET- 200 PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH) 100 Page 443 107' 75' 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. December 2009 Sect. 4C.06 500 400 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS 300 CROSSING MAJOR STREET - PEDESTRIANS 200 PER HOUR (PPH) 100 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Figure 4C-6. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four -Hour Volume (70% Factor) 400 300 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET- 200 PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH) 100 Page 443 107' 75' 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. December 2009 Sect. 4C.06 Page 444 Figure 4C-7. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour 700 2009 Edition 133' 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 11001200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 133 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Figure 4C-8. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour (70% Factor) 500 400 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS 300 CROSSING MAJOR STREET - PEDESTRIANS 200 PER HOUR (PPH) 93' 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 93 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Sect. 4C.06 December 2009 600 TOTAL OF ALL 500 PEDESTRIANS CROSSING 400 MAJOR STREET - PEDESTRIANS 300 PER HOUR (PPH) 200 100 2009 Edition 133' 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 11001200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 133 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Figure 4C-8. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour (70% Factor) 500 400 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS 300 CROSSING MAJOR STREET - PEDESTRIANS 200 PER HOUR (PPH) 93' 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 93 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Sect. 4C.06 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 445 03 Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade -separated crossing. 04 The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Guidance: 05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then: A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor -street or driveway traffic, should be traffic -actuated, and should include pedestrian detection. B. If it is installed at a non -intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian -actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non -intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other ,sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Section 4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Support: 01 Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning. B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. Guidance: 03 The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control .signals would be less than 1,000 feet. Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience Support: 01 The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met: A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12 -month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. December 2009 Sect. 4C.06 to 4C.08 Page 446 2009 Edition Option: 03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th -percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns. Section 4C.09 Warrant 8, Roadway Network Support: 01 Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria: A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5 -year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non -normal business day (Saturday or Sunday). 03 A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have at least one of the following characteristics: A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow. B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a city. C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. Section 4C.10 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Support: 01 The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or Y1ELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Guidance: 02 This signal warrant should be applied only after adequate consideration has been given to other alternatives or after a trial of an alternative has failed to alleviate the safety concerns associated with the grade crossing. Among the alternatives that should be considered or tried are: A. Providing additional pavement that would enable vehicles to clear the track or that would provide space for an evasive maneuver, or B. Reassigning the stop controls at the intersection to make the approach across the track a non -stopping approach. Standard: 03 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met: A. A grade crossing exists on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line on the approach; and B. During the highest traffic volume hour during which rail traffic uses the crossing, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor -street approach that crosses the track (one direction only, approaching the intersection) falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-9 or 4C-10 for the existing combination of approach lanes over the track and the distance D, which is the clear storage distance as defined in Section 1A.13. Guidance: 04 The following considerations apply when plotting the traffic volume data on Figure 4C-9 or 4C-10: A. Figure 4C-9 should be used if there is only one lane approaching the intersection at the track crossing location and Figure 4C-10 should be used if there are two or more lanes approaching the intersection at the track crossing location. Sect. 4C.08 to 4C.10 December 2009 Left-Turn Lane Analysis KDOTAccess Management Policy 4.5.2 Auxiliary lane warrants—left-turn lanes A three -tiered warrant criterion was developed by the AMU based upon research performed by national access management researcher, for this AMP update.' Safety warrant—The safety criterion is triggered if one of the following occurs: An existing access point (public intersection or driveway) has a crash rate (crashes per 10 million entering vehicles) statistically significant above the statewide average (critical crash rate). A proposed access point (public intersection or driveway) is located within an existing highway corridor with a crash rate (crashes per million vehicle miles traveled) statistically significant above the statewide average (critical crash rate). / - 3rn of urn/rear-end crashes is present at an existing access point along a corridor anu ine addition of a left -turn lane would be expected to reduce those crashes. Special circi races warrant The special circumstances criterion is triggered if one of the following occurs: Consider the construction of left turn lanes at locations where site geometry (horizontal/vertical alignment, sight distance, access configuration, other) would improve the operational and/or safety aspects of the highway. Construct left -turn lanes at all new educational institutions and medical facilities located on or adjacent to a highway with a posted speed limit of greater than 45 mph. - Construct left -turn lanes when special circumstances known by the District Engineer are present at the specific access location. Operational warrant—The operational criterion is triggered if one of the following occurs: Left -turn lane warrants for two-lane highways—Utilize the information provided in Table 4-23 for guidance based on operations. Left -turn lane warrants for four -lane highways—Utilize the information provided in Table 4-24 for guidance based on operations. 4.5.2.a Two-lane highways The four key data elements required for this analysis are: Opposing volume (Vo) in vehicles per hour (vph)—includes the right -turning and through vehicles in the opposite direction of the left -turning vehicles. Advancing volume (V,,) in vph—includes the right -turn, left -turn, and through movements in the same direction as the left -turning vehicles (do not include right turns if a dedicated right - turn lane exists). Speed in miles per hour (mph) --often indicated as the operating speed 85th -percentile speed (posted speed is acceptable if the 85th -percentile speed is not available). Percentage of left turns in the advancing volume ' Research study by Dr. Karen Dixon, educator at Oregon State University and national access management researcher, entitled KDOT Proposed Left -Turn Warrants (February 2012) . 4- 7 0,,..�1 P a g �e � J a n u a r y 2�0 1 3a.,. � � Chapter 4—Transportation engineering g KDOTAccess Management Policy To use Table 4-27, do the following: Locate opposing traffic volume, Vo, and operating speed on chart t, Determine the percentage of the advancing volume that is expected to turn left If the associated advancing traffic volume, Va, is greater than the value shown, then a left -turn lane is warranted. As an example, for a two-lane highway with an opposing volume of 600 vph, a speed of 50 -mph, a left -turn percentage of 10 percent, and an advancing volume of 200 vph, a left -turn lane is warranted since 200 vph > 117 vph. 4.5.2.b Four -lane highways For four -lane highways, left -turn lanes are not warranted if the opposing volume, Vo, is less than 400 vph unless the advancing volume, Va, is greater than 400 vph. For values above these thresholds, Table 4-28 can be used to assess four -lane undivided and four -lane divided highway configurations. An additional key data element required for this analysis is Left -turn volume (VL ) in vph—the left -turn volume in the advancing direction during the peak hour To use Table 4-28, do the following: 0 Determine if the four -lane road is divided or undivided and select the applicable column Identify the opposing traffic volume, Vo, and locate on the chart If the corresponding left -turn volume, VL, is greater than the value shown, then a left -turn lane is warranted. As an example, for an undivided four -lane highway with an opposing volume of 870 vph and a left -turn volume of 10 vph, a left -turn lane is warranted since 10 vph > 6 vph (the corresponding VL). Note: for a divided highway with similar traffic volumes, the turn lane would not be warranted since 10 vph < 14 vph (the corresponding VL). The divided highway is assumed to allow at least one vehicle of storage in the median area resulting in less stringent warrant criteria. KDOT follows a three -tiered warrant evaluation (safety, special circumstances, and operational) when considering left -turn lanes at an access. Left -turn lanes should be considered if one or more of the three warrants are met; however, meeting one or more of the warrants does not require the installation of left -turn lanes. Chapter 4—Transportation engineering J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 1 P a g e 1 4- 7 1 f. KDOTAccess Management Policy Table 4-27. Recommended left -turn lane warrants for two-lane highways Opposing VolumeAdvancing Volume V. (vph) Vo (vph) ....... _..._ _..... 5% Left turns 10% Left turns 20% Left turns 30% Left turns 40 -mph speed ........ .................. ... ......... . _.._............................................................................ . ............... ............ _ . . 800 136 99 74 .......... 65 700 .... ............... 159 .................................. ........... ...;.. 116 87 ...- .. 76 600 186 135 101 88 500 218 158 119 103 400 -- ......... 255 ................ 185 ... ........ _... 139 121 300 ........... _ 301 ............................................. 218 ........................... ... ...... ..... .: 164 : 143 200 .................. .... ............. 356 .......... 259 194 .......... ...._.. ._............_ 169 100 ----- -------- 426 ti......... ._.... _....... ...M.. . 309 232 ......... 202 50 -mph speed _ ., ........ ------- .._., 800 118 86 64 56 ........ _...................... ...... ....... a ..... ..... 700 _. .... _.................. . 138 100 75 66 600 ......... 161 ................_ 117 ......... 88 ....... ......... 77 500 _ ___-------- ----------- .... 188 137 .. 103 90 400 .......... —. __ 221 . ....._.. 161 _ _ _ ...___... 120 _ ........... ..u. 105 300 ... ........... ....._.................. .... ....... 260 ................ _ 189 . —.. ..._,-..._ __._ 142 _ ..-...._... _ .... 124 200 .............. _... _..................... 309 224 168 ........ 147 100 .............. ............... 369 _................... 268 ........... ............ 201 .............. ... ....-..... ....... 175 60 -mph speed ........ .... ,........ ............ . 80Q __._. . _�__. _..__......... 96 ......... _._.. 70 53 ......... . 46 700 ....... ...... 113 ........ _ _ ..... 82 61 54 600 ........._ 131 . ........... 95 72 63 500 ..... ........ ........ 154 .......... . 112 84 73 400 ................ 181 131 98 86 300 .... ._._..___.... ........ ..... 213 154 116 ....__. 101 200 252 183 137 __.. 120 100 ............... ...._...... 301 .......... 219 164 143 70 -mph speed ........................... .......... _...... ........ .. 800 68 50 ............ 37 .............. 32 700 _............ ..... 80 ...... 58 43 38 600 93 68 51 44 500 109 79 59 52 400 .... ....... . ..... 128 ................. 93 70 61 300 ........... ........... 150 ..... 109 . 82 ... ......... 72 200 ......... ........ .......... ............ 178 ..- 129 ..... ........... 97 . _.................. 85 100 213 _ .. 155 ................. 116 ......... ...... 101 Source: Adapted from Van Schalkwyk, l., and V. Stover. Revisiting Existing Warrants for Left -Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on Two -Way Roadways, TRB 2007 Annual Meeting CD-ROM, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (2007). Note: Critical gap = 8.0 seconds, time to turn left = 4.3 seconds, time to clear lane = 3.2 seconds 4- 7 2 1 P a g e J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 Chapter 4 —Transportation engineering I KDOTAccess Management Policy Table 4-28. Recommended left -turn lane warrants for four -lane highways LCI 17. YI1� Volume VL ` 4 -Lane Undivided 4=Lane Divided (vph) Opposing Volume Vo (vph) ... ......... ............................ Opposing Volume V. (vph) .......... ............ ........... _ .... ......... >_ 29 ............................. Turn lane not warranted Turn lane not warranted unless Va > 400 vph 28 unless V.,> 400 vph 422 _ 26 474 .............. _. 24 .... ....................... .................. _................................... _._... _.......... ............... _._._..................... .................... 530 22 ......_.. ......... ... _............ _........ . .. ............... 589 20 652 18' ............................_.............. 719 .................................. 16 _...__..._............................................................... _..... _................... ....._................ - ........... :............... 793 14 873 12 414 ........................................ 962 10 542 ........... ....... _. ... _ ............... 1062 8 ............ 690 _................... ............... ...._..._........._......._.............. .......................... ..................._................_......._._..._........................... 1179 __.------------- 6 867 ______ _._..___.. 1319 4 , ............. ................................ 1094 ........... ....................... 1499 2 1429 ........._........................................................... ........_...................._..... ..................... ..................................... .._......... 1762 Source: Adopted from Harmelink, M. D. Volume Warrants for Left -Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized Grade Intersec- tions, Highway Research Record, No. 211, Highway Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1967), pp. 1-18. Note: Critical gap = 8.0 seconds, time to turn left = 5.3 seconds Chapter 4—Transportation engineering J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 1 P a g e 1 40.- 73 KDOTAccess Management Policy 4.5.3 Auxiliary lane design As Figure 4-65 and Figure 4-66 illustrate, the length of an auxiliary lane has four parts—through- lane taper, bay taper, deceleration length, and storage length. The width of auxiliary lanes for either right- or left -turn lanes should equal the width of the through lanes (typically 12 feet). The Traffic Engineering Section of KDOT's Bureau of Transportation Safety and Technology should be contacted for details regarding the design of double left -turn auxiliary lanes (not covered in this Policy). Figure 4-65. Components of auxiliary lanes (left -turn lane) Figure 4-66. Components of auxiliary lanes (right -turn lane) ,pioai Highway 4.5.3.a Right -turn lane design The components of a right -turn lane including storage length, deceleration length and bay taper are discussed in detail below. Storage Length—The storage length is dependent on the traffic control condition at the access— signalized or unsignalized. Signalized—The storage length depends on the signal cycle length, signal phasing arrangement, and the rate of arrivals and departures of turning vehicles. The storage is based on 2 times the 95th percentile back of queue as detennined by traffic modeling software, such as Synchro. 4- 7 4 1 P a g e J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 Chapter 4—Transportation engineering t KDOTAccess Management Policy Unsignalized—The storage length is based on the number of vehicles likely to arrive in an average 2 -minute period within the peak hour of the highway. All peak -hour turning counts are projected design -year traffic volumes (typically 20 years). Each vehicle is assumed to occupy 25 feet of storage space. The minimum storage length is 50 feet (based on a minimum of storing two vehicles) and should be adjusted to account for high truck traffic according to Table 4-29. The auxiliary lane should be long enough to store the Table 4-29. Queue storage lengthadjustments for trucks number of vehicles likely to accumulate during a critical period. Through traffic should not block the turn lane. Percent trucksstorage Length (ft) < 5 25 Deceleration length—The recommended deceleration 10 30 distances for left -turn lanes and signalized right -turn lanes _ ............................................. ........ .................... ..,.._....................... .......................... ..:...:: are based on the need to stop before turning (0 mph), while Tr m15 p h hY 35 unsignalized right -turn ,lanes are based on being able to turn at 15 mph.—KDOT's policy is to utilize the recommended deceleration distances provided in Table 4-30 for left -turn lanes and signalized right -turn lanes, which are based on all deceleration occurring in the auxiliary lane and are based on drivers traveling at the posted speed limit. Table 4-30. Guideline to determine deceleration distance for auxiliary lanes Recommended Recommended Posted Highway Deceleration Distance Deceleration Distance Speed (mph) (feet) (to turn at 0mph) (feet) (to turn at 15 mph) 20 -40 40 25 60 40 ............... ... -........................ _........... ..-..... _...... ;._.................. ........................ .-............ ...........:............................... ;...................................... ................................ ............. ................... _ 30 90 40 .......... ...... .................... . . 35 135105 40 190 150 __...__.......__._.......___�._.__...... ,: _.�...._... __.._...._ _.....;..........� __............__........_.....__.... ............. _................ 45 265 205 50 310 265 55 400 335 ..... .._..... ..... ... . 60 490 ............ -415 _............_...... .._..... ............... 65 600 505 ......_ ......... ............. . .......... ...... 70 705 600 ....... 75 815 700 Source d2: Modified version of TRB, Access Management Manual, 2003, p. 172 Bay taper—The bay taper is needed for the driver to move from the through lane into the auxiliary lane, normally at the same speed of through traffic. Bay tapers are present for both left -turn and right -turn auxiliary lanes. A pair of symmetrical reverse curves, or a straight line, can be used to create the bay taper. Typically, designers use symmetrical reverse curve bay tapers in developed areas with speeds at 45 mph or less and straight line tapers in undeveloped areas with speeds of 50 mph or greater. However, both can be used interchangeably based on local preference. Example bay tapers are shown in AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011 edition (page 9-130). Chapter 4—Transportation engineering J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3 1 P a g e 1 4- 7 5 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. a CML & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • 5507 Ranch Drive - Suite 205 (501) 868-3999 Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Fax (501) 868-9710 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission November 28, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook In Attendance: Members: Kyle, Cook (Chair), Ron Autry(Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan Absent: none. Staff: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director; Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner; Quin Thompson, Planner; Harry Davis, Planner, and Corey Granderson, Engineering. City Attorney: Kit Williams PPL 16-5642: Preliminary Plat (NE OF 15TH & MORNINGSIDE DR./PARK MEADOWS SD, 564): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NE OF 15T" & MORNINGSIDE DR. The property is zoned with a mixture of NC,- NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, and RA, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 68.00 acres. The request is for 290 single-family lots. Quin Thompson,_ Planner: Gave the staff report.. Jesse Fulcher, Applicant: Said the project has taken a long time. He noted that the street improvements are the most important part of this project. The traffic study has provided more concrete information since Subdivision Committee. What we should talk about in terms of concern for traffic study, is that we are generating 5 left hand turns in the AM form Huntsville and 12 in the evening. I can't imagine why the turn lane would be required. The previous developer was proposing 200 lots without significant street improvements. The question is, how much per lot is typical for street improvements. Other developments are coming in in the hundreds of dollars per unit. Our projection is for $3000 per unit. The Links at Fayetteville had the most required improvements, and also the most development. Sub -division Committee was a recommendation, this is a determination, with planning staff recommending denial if the improvements aren't made. Huntsville is more than restriping, but rather adding width to the north side. This is the highest cost per unit required ever for a subdivision. The level of service is currently an Wand will remain an Wafter this development. There is no justification for the added turn lane. It is not rational. We did not realize we needed to add further stub outs, we will look at that. There is flood plain to the east. Public Comment: Kate Conway, Neighbor: Have lived across the street for 37 years. We have concerns about traffic and safety, especially with 600-1200 people moving into the area. There will be no east access, every car will use 15th street and Huntsville. Adding a light at Huntsville and Morningside is very important. There will two streets that are already existing Fairlane and xx and if we could make those four way stops, it would help slow down traffic on Morningside. Inaudible: I like the idea of the park, and that it will be public and people can have access to. There is a lot of wildlife in that field, deer, rabbits, geese, and coyote. What happens to those animals? Are they relocated? What is normally done? Rodney Hicks, Neighbor: My biggest concern is for traffic on Morningside. It is already horrendous. The street cannot handle that traffic. Trees will need to be removed, and a traffic light definitely needs to be installed. Spent 5 minutes waiting at that intersection tonight. Traffic is my main concern. Ralph Nesson, Neighbor: Lived across the street for 37 years. We have known that the land would be developed. We hope that the traffic speed and safety will be taken into account. Speeding is a very serious issue on Morningside. We encourage you to make sure we get improvements and a traffic signal along with this development. The density concerns us, less than .23 acres per lot. This will create a large number of homes on a small area. Would like to see as many traffic safety measures as possible. There is a large amount of wildlife, we hope that preservation will take place. Chris McGill, Neighbor: Thanks to the Planning staff and to -the Commission for their concern and looking out for neighbors. This is a big development, and I do appreciate you looking into it in such detail. There is only one chance to get it right. No more public comment was presented. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: How much are parks fees? Thompson: $269,560. Hoskins: parks fees, trail easement, and build the trail? As a developer, I am stunned by the amount of improvements required by staff. I don't see how they can make it work. Huntsville Road is a narrow road with steep ditch. Trees, telephone poles, will need to be removed. I am surprised that we are requiring a traffic signal. I think all three of us thought it was way too much. I can see the improvements on Morningside, without a doubt. Huntsville Road improvements are not warranted. I am amazed by the requirements. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Thanks to the public for the well -considered comments. I think it is important that we maintain and improve the walk ability of this part of town. Morningside: Traffic speeds are marked at 25 miles per hour now, people don't follow that. We need to balance capacity with traffic speed. These are independent of each other. Easiest thing to do is to add on -street parking. Is that being proposed? Andrew Garner, Planning Director: yes. On the east side of the street. Hoffman: Have concerns about traffic calming if we use the 30 foot section. Question to Fulcher: Excited by the number of alley loaded homes. Why can't we have it on the east side too? Would it be possible to get some alleys there? Fulcher: We are being squeezed out of space for more alleys. The small increments of space being removed for easement, street ROW, et c have resulted in small lots. Hoffman: We are asking a lot of these parcels. They will have lame backyards, with 24' wide auto storage at the front of 50 foot wide lots. It would be easier to understand backing off on some traffic related improvements if we are able to provide a more walkable development. I could forego traffic improvements if trail is provided. Alison Quinlan, Commissioner: I think you could provide more rear loaded lots. That could be to your benefit. I agree completely with you [Fulcher] about no need to improve Huntsville Road. I do support a traffic signal. Why doesn't the developer get credit for parks fees and trail? Thompson: There is not parkland being dedicated. Garner: Actually there is parkland being dedicated. The parks fees numbers are estimates if no land is dedicated. Hoskins: Developers are still paying whether they are dedicating.land or paying parks fees or building trail. The developer is paying. I would Ike to understand how creating more alleys reduces a need to street improvements. Quinlan: Alley loaded homes increase pedestrian traffic by creating traditional neighborhood developments. Leslie Belden, Commissioner: I love Disney World and go there often. I would love to live in utopia. Not many people can afford to go to Disney Land often. I don't want to compromise safety ever, while making it as beautiful as it can be without adding cost to the developer and be passed along to the buyer. Morningside improvements have to be done. Tom Brown, Commissioner: What street section is Huntsville Road? Garner: Collector. Brown: This property is unlike other recent subdivisions on the edge of town. It is really close to downtown. We need to do the improvements to Morningside. We do need a stoplight at Huntsville Road. We should not rip up recent improvements to improve Huntsville road. I like the phasing approach. I think that if we don't require the trail, we should still require the dedication of land so that the City does not have to acquire the ROW. Is it possible to move the street by the park to the west a few feet? And add more alleys for rear loaded homes? Quinlan: Are the proposed alleys required to be dedicated or could they be put into access easements? Garner: Either. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Do we have a plan for AHTD improvements? Thompson: Yes. Williams: Why should we approve a plat that may have 11 unbuildable lots? Does the street parallel to 15th street meet separation requirements? Garner: Meets street design standards. Williams: is it safe in your opinion? Garner: it meets development code. Williams: As to trail dedication, the Planning Commission cannot require dedication for trail. It is unconstitutional. Trails have been dedicated as a part of park land dedication. If the trail dedication is required, then we should give them credit towards the parks fees. As to the traffic signal: It is unlikely that it will be built and money will have to be returned. Quinlan: Project should be tabled. Fulcher: If the project is tabled, then we are likely to see the same recommendations from staff and same proposal from Rausch Coleman. I don't think that we have enough direction to be tabled. Garner: I'm not sure what tabling would accomplish. I think this is ready for a vote. Brown: If I get some feedback from the applicant that they will took at the .additional alleys. Quinlan: There is a very wide discrepancy in what staff is recommending and what the subdivision committee recommended for street improvements. Garner: Discussed traffic safety and staffs overall recommendations for street improvements. He restated that Huntsville road improvements are the priority from a public safety standpoint because of the volume of traffic and turning movements. If the commission is prioritizing traffic safety, Huntsville Road should be the very last to be removed to ensure that it remains safe because of the potential for rear end collisions and left turning movements into and out of this subdivision on Huntsville Road that would be mitigated with turn lanes. improvements to Morningside Drive while important, are not as critical from a safety standpoint because of the lower volumes and traffic speeds. If Morningside remains unimproved and a car slides off into the ditch it is not as much of a safety problem created by turning movements into and out of this subdivision on Huntsville without turn lanes. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Said that he had reviewed the traffic study, and noted that City Eng staff disagreed with the applicant's analysis. He said that the traffic consultant misread the report that they generated. He said that the warrants are in fact met on Huntsville road and the Huntsville/Morningside intersection. During peak hours, Huntsville has a vehicle every 4 seconds. Because of high volume, if the tables are read correctly, the turning lane is warranted. Intersection is the first priority for safety, and second the turn lane on Huntsville Road. Tom Hennelly, Applicant's Engineer: Discussed the traffic study,, there is no way to read the table as indicated by the City. According to the traffic study and distribution model according to our consultant, the warrants are not met. Perhaps we could decide that we will make the improvements that are warranted. Hoskins: We were discussing rational nexus. We had decided that improvements were necessary to Morningside. Were you suggesting that improvements to Huntsville would be in lieu of improvements to Morningside? Williams: What I was saying was that there is a rough proportionality to improvements, and given that our planning director has said that the Huntsville improvements are the most important for safety, the PC will have to decide which improvement is more important. Mr. Peters has presented to us many times, and I have sometimes disagreed with his analysis. Planning Commission will have to determine what is most important for a traffic safety point of view, and will have to apply the appropriate amount of money to that improvement. Hoskins: I am leaning toward including the traffic signal assessment. Cook: I am going to retract my statement about tabling, and vote to table. Belden: We had discussed a three way stop at the intersection, and it works at Mission and Maple. The transportation division determines where stop signs go. Brown: The improvements to Morningside are critical to the developer and the image of the neighborhood they want to project. They won't just want a ditch in front of those homes, so they are going to do this improvement. Fulcher: On Huntsville, the improvements recommended on Huntsville are only for those turning into and out of our development. There are more turns at the intersection. This is where the traffic is. This should be a balance of safety and cost. The north side of Huntsville has open ditch. Expansion there will be expensive. We should provide turn lanes where they are needed. Motion #1: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to table PPL 16-5642 for two weeks. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-6-0 (Commissioners Noble, Selby, Autry, Hoskins, Belden, Brown voted `no'). Motion #2: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve PPL 16-5642 with the following conditions: Street improvements -Improve Morningside Drive as recommended by staff. -No improvements to Huntsville Road except for a turn lane at the intersection of Morningside Drive. -Payment of assessment for proportional contribution to a traffic signal at Huntsville/Morningside with payment by project phase as recommended by staff. -No multi -use trail improvements are required to be constructed by the applicant. Dedication of land to the city for the planned multi -use trail internal to the site to be provided to the city in a fee simple transaction prior to final plat. Other Conditions of Approval: #1. Approve the block length variance between Fairlane and McClinton Streets and require an additional street stub -out to the east between Street `H' and Street 'B'. #2. Approve variances for all double frontage lots as requested by the applicant. #3. Recommend a combination of land dedication and money in lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements. This includes the acceptance of land dedicated for the multi -use trail corridor internal through the site to be deeded fee simple to the City as parkland. ■ Including all other conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0 (Commissioners Cook, Hoffman, Quinlan voted `no'). CITY OF +r PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO; Fayetteville Planning Commission THRU: Andrew, Garner, City Planning Director FROM: Quin Thompson, Current Planner Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer MEETING: November 28, 2016 Updated 11-29-2016 SUBJECT: PPL 16-5642: Preliminary Plat (NE OF 15TH & MORNINGSIDE DR./PARK MEADOWS SD, 564): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NE OF 15TH & MORNINGSIDE DR. The property is zoned with a mixture of NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, CS, COMMUNITY SERVICES, and RA, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 68.00 acres. The request is for 290 single-family lots. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of PPL 16-5642 with conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: Property and background: The subject property is a 68 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of Morningside Drive and 151 Street. A small portion of the parcel extends to the south side of 15th Street. The property is _undeveloped pasture, and remains in agricultural use. The parcel contains some flood plain, and a string of ponds that become a. protected stream immediately to the south. These valuable natural resources are classified as Natural Area on the 2030 Future Land Use Plan. Surrounding land use and zoning is depicted on Table 1. Table 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Residential RSF-4, Single Family Residential South Undeveloped RSF-8, Single Family Residential East Commercial RSF-4, Single Family Residential/RMF- 12, Multi-famil Residential West Residential NC, Neighborhood Conservation/DG, Downtown General Proposal: The proposal is to develop the property with a subdivision of 290 residential lots. Public Comment: One neighbor provided comments at the Subdivision Committee meeting, saying that traffic volume and speeds are a problem on Morningside Drive currently, and that left turns on Huntsville Road are very difficult at certain times of day. Planning ommission Mailing Address: November 28, 2016 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevillg dj&%totem 6 Fayetteville, AR 72701 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 1 of 27 INFRASTRUCTURE: Water and Sewer System: The property has access to existing public water service on Morningside Drive, 15th Street, and Huntsville Road. Pubic sewer service is available on Morningside and Huntsville Road. Adjacent streets and right-of-way. This site is adjacent to Master Street Plan (MSP) designated Collector Streets Morningside Drive and Huntsville Road, and 151 Street, a MSP designated Principal Arterial street. Street Improvements: Significant street improvements are warranted given the unimproved nature of surrounding streets, existing congestion and traffic safety issues and traffic generated by this development. Morningside Drive is approximately 22 feet wide and has curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the west side. Huntsville Road in this location is approximately 26 feet wide and has recent sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements on the south side constructed by the City. The recommended improvements and phasing for each street and are listed in condition of approval #1. Traffic Signal at Huntsville and Morningside. According to the applicant's preliminary traffic study, left turns from Morningside onto Huntsville would increase significantly during peak hours because of this development. A traffic signal warrants analysis should be performed at this intersection based on projected traffic volumes to determine if a signal needs to be installed in the near future. L The traffic numbers provided by the applicant indicate this project would generate 12% of the volume through this intersection. Based on the current estimated cost of a traffic signal at $150,000.00, staff recommends an assessment of $18,000.00 (12% of the cost of a traffic signal) by paid by.the applicant for all phases of the - development. This amount may change with submittal and review of the final traffic study. i. It should be noted that from a safety and traffic function standpoint, the critical improvement to Morningside Drive is the inclusion of turn lanes at the intersections with Huntsville Road and 15th Street. Internal multi -use trail on the Active Transportation Plan _Right-of-way should be dedicated and multi -use trail should be built running north -south from 15th Street to Huntsville Road internal to this subdivision consistent with the general trail alignment on the Active Transportation Plan: L All street and alley crossing should be accomplished by using the city's standard detail for trail crossings. This includes red -dye concrete, and no changes in elevation or ramps. See standard details. ii. The trail geometry proposed shows several harsh 90 -degree turns with no radius proposed. This alignment will not be approved due to concerns for pedestrian safety. iii. A 50 -foot centerline radius should be used for all changes in horizontal alignment of the trail where feasible, according to AASHTO design guidelines. iv. Any areas that cannot achieve a 50 -foot radius must provide the maximum radius possible and be reviewed/approved by the City Engineer. Planning Commission November 28, 2016 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Agenda Item 6 Morningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) 564\03 Planning Commission\11-22-2016\Comments and Redlines 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 2 of 27 Tree Preservation: Canopy minimum requirement: 20% Existing canopy: 4.4% Preserved canopy: 3.7% Mitigation required: 22,953 Sq. Ft. / 105 mitigation trees Block Length/Connectivity: The subject development will be accessed via seven new public streets and two alleys connecting the site to existing public roads. The site is approximately 2,600 linear feet from north -south along east property line. Adjacent land to the east is undeveloped farmland. Connectivity is proposed by way of two future street stub outs to undeveloped land to the east, breaking up the 2,600 linear feet of the site's eastern property line into large blocks. The subdivision design as proposed would require variances of the Block Length requirement (§166.08.E.1) for a blocks longer than 660 feet. ■ A block is proposed between Fairlane and McClinton Streets of approximately 740 feet. Staff supports the variance; finding that there are safety benefits to aligning the proposed streets with existing streets on Morningside Drive. In order to mitigate the lack of connectivity on this block, staff recommends an east -west mid -block alley connecting Morningside Drive to street `J'. ■ The block between Street `H' and Street 'B' is approximately 1,600 feet without a street stub -out to the east or south. Staff recommends at least one additional stub -out to undeveloped property to the east in this area of the site. The development seeks a variance of (§166.08.E.2) for double -fronted lots. Three double -fronted lots (Lots 46-48) along Huntsville Road, a Collector Street. Staff finds that the layout is justified by steep topography that makes building near Huntsville Road unfeasible in this case. Multi -use Trail Improvement. The Fayetteville Active Transportation Plan identifies a 12 -foot wide shared use paved trail within the project site running north and south between Huntsville Ave and 15th Street. Parks: On September 12, 2016, the Park -and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) recommended accepting a combination of land and money in lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements for this proposed subdivision. The exact amount of land to be deeded to the city and amount of fees to be paid to be calculated based on the final number of units prior to final plat. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of PPL 16-5642 with the following conditions. Given the Subdivision Committee's disagreement with staffs recommended street improvements, it is advisable that the street improvements be voted on in a separate motion from the overall project. Street Improvements Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission determination of street improvements. The Planning and Engineering divisions have assessed the size and scope of the proposed development and the impacts on adjacent streets and traffic patterns. As a result of staff's recommendations during the technical plat review meeting, the applicant provided a preliminary traffic study for review. In consideration of all this information, staff recommends the following improvements to be delivered with each proposed phase of development. Planning Commission November 28, 2016 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Agenda Item 6 Morningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) 564\03 Planning Commission\11-22-2016\Comments and Redlines 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 3 of 27 1. Street Improvements required with Phase 1 (76 lots) A. Assessment for a traffic signal / improvements at the intersection of Morningside and Huntsville Road based on the amount of traffic expected with this phase in the amount of $4,716.56 for 76 lots. 2. Street Improvements required with Phase 11 (87 lots) A. Huntsville Road shall be re -striped to create a safe turn lane for vehicles turning left into and out of the new proposed street intersections and the existing Morningside/Huntsville Road intersection. The existing striped bike lanes will be removed along this section of Huntsville Road and be replaced as follows: A 12 -foot wide multi -use trail shall be constructed along Huntsville Road on the south side of the street, the existing sidewalk may be widened to the south to accomplish this if possible. The trail would extend from Morningside Drive to Seven Hills Drive. ii. Striping and signage shall be used to direct bicycle traffic off of the street and onto the south side of Huntsville Road onto a 12 -foot wide multi -use trail. iii. This section of trail would be a logical extension of the city's plan to have a multi- use trail on the south side of Huntsville Road just west of this block. B. Assessment for a traffic signal / improvements at the intersection of Morningside and Huntsville Road based on the amount of traffic expected with this phase in the amount of $5,399.22 for 87 lots. C. A trail easement shall be dedicated, centered on the final alignment of the trail. The applicant shall construct a 12 -foot wide- Multi -use Trail through the natural/common area from Huntsville Road to Street'E'. 3. Street Improvements required with Phase III (80 lots) A. Morningside Drive shall be fully improved as a Collector Street per the master street plan (30 -feet from face -of -curb to face -of -curb) along the entire Phase III frontage, approximately 1,359 linear feet. This will include road widening, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage to provide improved street frontage along the lots facing Morningside Drive. A. Assessment for a traffic signal / improvements at the intersection of Morningside and Huntsville Road based on the amount of traffic expected with this phase in the amount of $4,964.80 for 80 lots. B. - 4. Street Improvements required with Phase IV 47 lots B. Morningside Drive should be fully improved as a Collector Street per the master street plan (30 -feet from face -of -curb to face -of -curb) along the entire Phase IV frontage, approximately 1,175 linear feet. This will include road widening, Planning Commission November 28, 2016 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Agenda Item 6 Morningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) 564\03 Planning Commission\11-22-2016\Comments and Redlines 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 4 of 27 curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage to provide improved street frontage along the lots facing Morningside Drive. C. Assessment for a traffic signal / improvements at the intersection of Morningside and Huntsville Road based on the amount of traffic expected with this phase in the amount of $2,916.82 for 47 lots. D. A trail easement shall be dedicated, centered on the final alignment of the trail. The applicant shall construct a 12 -foot wide Multi -use Trail through the natural/common area from Street 'E' to Street 'B'. 15th Street/AR HWY 16 East: This development site contains approximately 800 feet of street frontage on the north side and 800 feet of street frontage on the south side of 15th Street. No improvements are recommended to 151l' Street. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department has a funded project to widen 15th Street along this property frontage and build sidewalks. The applicant should coordinate with AHTD to determine appropriate right-of-way dedication and turn radius onto Morningside Drive; current plans seem to indicate that insufficient right-of-way as shown which will impact the size and feasibility of lots along 15th street. Subdivision Committee recommended the following street improvements: 1. Against improvements to Huntsville Road; 2. Against improvements for a traffic signal at Huntsville/Morningside; 3.. In favor of improvements to Morningside; and 4. Against all multi -use trail improvements except for dedicating an easement for the internal multi -use trail through the site. At the level of improvements currently recommended by the Subdivision Committee staff finds that the size and impact of this development will overburden the existing infrastructure Huntsville Road and will create a dangerous traffic condition. For that reason staff would recommend denial of the PPL without further improvements to mitigate the impact of this 290 lot subdivision Other Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission determination of variances to the Block Length requirement (§166.08.E.1) for a blocks longer than 660 feet. o A block is proposed between Fairlane and McClinton Streets of approximately 740 feet. Staff supports the variance, finding that there are safety benefits to aligning the proposed streets with existing streets on Morningside Drive. In order to mitigate the lack'of connectivity on this block, staff recommends an east -west mid -block alley connecting Morningside Drive to street Y. o The block between Street 'H' and Street 'B' is approximately 1,600 feet without a street stub -out to the east or south. Staff recommends at least one additional stub - out to undeveloped property to the east in this area of the site. Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of these variances. Planning Commission November 28, 2016 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Agenda Item 6 Morningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) 564\03 Planning Commission\11-22-2016\Comments and Redlines 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 5 of 27 2. Planning Commission determination of a variance to allow lots 46, 47, and 48 to be platted as double frontage lots. Staff recommends in favor of the variance, finding that the lots will have steep topography that justifies that proposed lot layout. Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of this variance. 3. Planning Commission determination of parkland dedication or fees -in -lieu. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and Parks Department staff recommends a combination of land and money in lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements. The exact amount of land to be deeded and money to be paid to the city to be calculated based on the final number of units and completed prior to final plat. 4. All internal streets and alleys shall be constructed in accordance with City development code including street lights along all interior and exterior adjacent streets at street intersections and spaced every 300 feet in accordance with code. 5. Right-of-way dedication is required along the site's Morningside and Huntsville Road frontages in the amount of 35 feet from centerline for a Collector Street with a turn lane and 29.5 feet from centerline where the turn lane is not required; 43.5 feet from centerline right-of-way to be dedicated along the site's 1511 Street frontage; 50 feet total width and 43 feet total width for the new interior streets as indicated on the preliminary plat. 6.. Direct access to Huntsville Road, Morningside Road, and 15th Street shall not be permitted for individual lots. This note shall be included on the final plat. Standard conditions of approval: 7. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance. 8. Future street connection signs shall be placed at the street connectivity points prior to final plat. 9. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). 10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 11. All exterior lights shall comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut -sheets are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. All mechanical/utility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened using materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. A note shall be clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents indicating this requirement. Planning Commission November 28, 2016 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Agenda Item 6 Morningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) 564\03 Planning Commission\11-22-2016\Comments and Redlines 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 6 of 27 13. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location, size, type, number, etc. Any proposed signs shall be permitted by a separate sign permit application prior to installation. Freestanding pole signs and electronic message boards (direct lighting) are prohibited in the Design Overlay District. 14. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall be located underground. 15. Preliminary plat approval is valid for one year. All permits to complete construction for all lots within this preliminary plat are required to be obtained within one (1) year, subject to extensions in accordance with the Unified Development Code. 16. All tree preservation, landscape, engineering and fire department conditions included herein shall apply. All revisions shall be addressed prior to construction plan approval. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None. Attachments: ■ Parks Department comments ■ City Engineering Division comments ■ Urban Forestry comments ■ Fire Department comments he city for to street )ugh Planning Commission November 28, 2016 G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Agenda Item 6 Morningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) 564\03 Planning Commission\11-22-2016\Comments and Redlines 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 7 of 27 ■ Applicant's letter ■ Site Plan ■ Close up Map ■ One Mile Map G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2016\Development Review\16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Morningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) 564\03 Planning Commission\11-22-2016\Comments and Redlines Planning Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 8 of 27 16-5642 Par mmission 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 k Meadows SD Page 9 of 27 CITY OF Ta y4 s . 1 ARKANSAS Date: November 23, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Memo To: Quin Thompson, Current Planner From: Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer Re: Plat Review Comments Development: PPL 16-5642: PARK MEADOWS SD Engineer: Crafton Tull Comments - Traffic & Street Improvements: 1. To avoid duplication, please refer to the planning staff report for recommendations on street improvements. The planning and engineering division are in agreement on all recommendations and have worked together to create the language presented in the planning report. If the engineering division has different opinions as the project moves forward, those will be outlined in an updated memo. 2. The engineering division has reviewed a draft traffic study from Peter's and Associates dated 11/22/2016 that was submitted late on this project. The traffic study states that signal and turn lane warrants are NOT met at any location on this project. a. Based on preliminary review of this information, the engineering division disagrees with the findings and finds that (using the same methodology and source references) that all left turn lanes along Huntsville Road are warranted. b. A preliminary review of the traffic signal warrants for the intersection of Morningside Drive and Huntsville Road has not been completed at this time. Comments — Drainage: No protected streams exist onsite based on the City's adoption of the Streamside Protection areas map. However, corps permitting must be obtained for modifications to any streams or wetlands onsite under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant is aware of this and has already begun the permitting process with the corps. Standard Comments: 1. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, streets and drainage). Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements, and all proposed improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. 2. Any damage to the existing public street due to construction shall be repaired/replaced at the owner/developers expense 3. Any water main upgrades that parallel a smaller or older waterline are required to relocate all existing service connections to the new water main and abandon the old water main. 4. Water and sewer impact fees will apply for the additional impact to the system. The fees will be based on the proposed meter size and will be charged at the time of meter set. 5. Note, the following portions of all projects will typically not be reviewed by the Engineering Division until time of construction -level review (unless specifically requested at plat review): Mailing Address: ENGINEERING 113 W. Mountain Street wvnu.t%ttevill -ar.gqov. lanrnng Commission Fayetteville, AR 72?D4 November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 10 of 27 o Storm Sewer pipe/inlet sizing, gutter spread, profiles, or utility conflicts o Sanitary Sewer pipe sizing, profiles, or utility conflicts o Waterline fittings, callouts, or utility conflicts o Street profiles o Fine grading/spot elevations 6. The Engineer of Record shall: a. Review and approve material submittals. Approved submittals shall be submitted to the City for concurrence before grading permit is issued. b. Perform "Full Time" Inspection for the utility installation and shall be "In- Charge" of the approval testing. c. Provide a qualified representative for all testing and inspection. d. Schedule testing with the Public Works Inspector. e. Authorize geotechnical testing laboratory to provide reports directly to City in PDF format. . Reports shall be submitted.in a timely manner. f. Prepare material data sheets and test reports required by the specifications. g. Insure that daily inspection reports and data sheets are submitted to the City of Fayetteville's public works inspector weekly in PDF format. 7. 2012 Standard Water & Sanitary Sewer Specifications & Details apply 8. Demolition shall not begin until the appropriate erosion control measures and required tree preservation fencing are installed 9. Prior to Project Acceptance (Final Plat) the following items must be performed or provided to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department: h. The work shown on the civil site package must be complete and the items on the final punch list completed. i. Vegetation must be established and perimeter erosion controls removed. j. One (1) set.of as -built drawings of the complete project (excluding details) as a hard copy, digital file dwg, and PDF format; i. Public infrastructure and services shall be surveyed after installation in relation to easements, property lines, and rights-of-way. 1. More than 2 ft deviation of design alignment of shall require new easement dedication or adjustment of the utility/storm drain. ii. Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Drainage (Including Private) elevations must be verified and updated. (Elevations out of design tolerance must be corrected) iii. Street Centerline, Width, Profiles and Cross slopes shall be verified. 1. More than 6 inches deviation of design alignment of shall require new right of way dedication or adjustment of the street section. iv. Adequate verification survey to confirm accuracy of drainage report. v. As-builts should include the following information in a table; Linear Feet of new public streets sidewalk (categorized by width), waterline, and sanitary sewer. Square feet of newly dedicated right -of -waw k. Unit price construction costs for review and approval and a single 2 year maintenance bonds in the amount of 25% of the public improvements; 1. Certification that the streets, sidewalk, storm sewer, water, fire line, and sewer lines, etc., were installed per approved plans and City of Fayetteville requirements; i. Provide all Inspection Reports; approved submittals; Data Forms from Utility Specifications (Including Consultants sewer TV report); compaction test results, etc... in. Certification that the designed retaining walls were installed per approved plans and City of Fayetteville requirements(Inspection and Testing Reports required); Planning Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 11 of 27 n. Cross Sections, Volume Calculations, and Certification Retention/Detention Ponds are in accordance with the approved Drainage Report. o. Surveyor's Certification of Compliance for monuments and property pins. p. The As- Built Final Drainage Report in PDF format updated per as -built invert, slope, inlet opening, road profile, cross slope, etc... q. Bond, guarantee, or letter of credit for all sidewalks not constructed prior to final plat approval (150% of the estimated cost of construction); r. Cross Sections, contours, spot elevations, and Certification that the site has been radedep r the approved MRLGP within the right of way, drainage easements, and utility easements. Planning Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 12 of 27 CITY OF ARKANSAS TO: Planning Division FROM: Ken Eastin, Park Planner Il DATE: November 14, 2016 SUBJECT Parks & Recreation Subdivision Committee Review Comments 4 s.: " �11, PARKS AND RECREAT10N Meeting Date: November 17, 2016 Item: 16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Morningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) 564 Park District: SE Zoned: NC Billing Name & Address Rausch Coleman Homes Jesse Fulcher 4058 N. College Fayetteville, AR 72703 Current Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu Single Family 293 @ 0.023 acre per unit = 6.74 acres 293 @ $920 per unit = $269.560 Multi Family @ 0.014 acre per unit= acres @ $560 per unit = ` COMMENTS: • Applicant is proposing 293 single family lots on about 68 acres. • On September 12, 2016, DRAB reviewed the project and recommended accepting a combination of land and money in lieu for 293 single-family lots to satisfy the park land dedication ordinance due to the development's proximity to Walker Park and the existing trails system. ■ A combination of land and money in -lieu to satisfy parkland dedication requirements will be due before signing of the final plat. ■ The actual amount of acreage and money in -lieu for the Park Meadows Development will be determined by the actual number of units and the parks fee formula at Planning Commission approval of the Preliminary Plat. Mailing Address: PARKS 8t RECREATION 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayettevilWlanmng ar.go Commission Fayetteville, AR 72701 November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 13 of 27 CITY OF Tay ARKANSAS LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS — Chapter 177 To: Jesse Fulcher, Rausch Coleman Homes and Daniel Ellis, Crafton & Tull From: John J. Scott, Urban Forestry CC: Quin Thompson, Planner Date: November 14, 2016 Subject: PPL 16-5642 NE of 151h St. & Morningside Dr. I Park Meadows I Subdivision Comments Applicable Requirements: NASite Deste opmerit;,& �?a It ng i ot,Standi rds Y St f eet Tree Plantir S' I- Dards: Y Stormwatr Facilitiies Plan Checklist: Yes = submitted by applicant No = required by City Code but not included on submitted plan N/A = not applicable. Tech Plat SC PC All Larldsca eP(ans Y Y Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib 100' o.c. (177.03A.7. & 177.04.B.3•a) Y Y Species of plant material identified (177.03.A.7.d & e) Y Y Size of plant material at time of installation indicated minimum size 2" caliper for trees and gal. shrubs (j177.03.A.7.b & c) YY _ -3. Soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod removed (177.03.C.6.b) _..........:......_.......___........�..__....................._...._._ Y Y ...__ Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within landscape beds (177.03.C.6.c & d) Y Y LSD and Subdivisions plans stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect, others by Landscape Designer (177.03.6) NA Na Na Planting bed contained by edging (177.03.C.6. Y Y Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual (177.03.C.6.g) Mailing Address: URBAN FORESTRY i13 W. Mountain Street wtv "fayettevillPiahr'M g Commission Fayetteville, AR 72701 November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 14 of 27 12 Tech Plat i SC>.peveTopment & f'arkmg: Lot S#andards .. NA Na Na Wheel stops/ curbs (177.04.B.1) - Interior landscaping (177.04.C) NA Na Na Narrow tree lawn (8' min width, 37.5' min length/ 1 tree per 12 spaces) OR Tree island (8' min. width, 18, 7' min. length/1 tree per 12 spaces) All parking lot trees must be deciduous (177.04.C.3 NA Na Na Placement of Trees (177.04.C.2) Either side at points of access (entrance%xit) Perimeter landscaping (177.04.D) Side and rear property lines (5' wide landscaped) Front property line (15' wide landscape) (177.04.D.2.a) NA NA NA Shade trees planted on south and west sides of parking lots (I 77.04.D.2.e) Parking lot adjacent to R.O.W.- continuous row planting of shrubs - 50% evergreen Remaining landscaping to be ground cover and /or turf.) (177.04.D.4a) NOTE: Shade trees are described in street tree lantin standards Tech Plat Stree"ETree P1�nttriiandards (ttrrre of F P kora erfrrf) 172,05) Y Y Residential Subdivisions -1 large species shade tree/ lot tree planted within R.O.W. if possible NA Na Na Nonresidential Subdivision -1 large species shade tree/30 L.F. tree planted within 15-25' reens ace NA Na Na Urban Tree Wells -urban streetscape only- B'sidewalk, trees every 30 L.F. 177.05.B.3.a-9 NA Na Na Structural Soil -if urban wells are used, a note or detail of structural soil must be indicated on the landscape plan and inspected at time of construction. N N Timing of planting indicated on plans (subdivisions only) (177.05.A.4) N N Written description of the method for tracking plantings (177.05.A.4.e) Plan contains 3 -year Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement. The owner shall N Y deposit with the City of Fayetteville a surety for approved landscape estimate. 177.05.A.2.e Tech Plat' SC " PC tart�wateIttlp(fitn,E(./?.,ol Y Y 1 deciduous or evergreen tree/ 3000 square feet Y Y 4 large shrubs or small trees (3 gal)13000 square feet Y Y 6 shrubs or grasses (1 gal) / 3000 square feet tbd Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified - tbd 50% of facility planted with Arass or grass like plants - Landscape;Fe 105 Mitigation Trees I Surety or Contract per 177.10 required TBD Street Trees (one per residential lot and at 30' interval spacing on Surety or Contract per 177.10 required common street frontages. Where existing trees are to be preserved adjacent to common street frontage, new street trees may not be required). VA Planning Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 15 of 27 CITY OF T.a*y" V�� AS TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION — Chapter 167 To: Jesse Fulcher, Rausch Coleman Homes and Daniel Ellis, Crafton & Tull From: John J. Scott, Urban Forestry CC: Quin Thompson, Planner Date: November 14, 2016 Subject: PPL 16-5642 NE of 151h St. & Morningside Dr. I Park Meadows I Subdivision Comments Requirements Submitted: Y Initial Review with the Urban Forester NA Site Analysis Map Submitted (if justification is needed NA Site Analysis Written Report Submitted (if justification is needed) Y Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted Y Tree Mitiqation Table on Plans NA Tree Preservatidn Wavier Submitted Tree Preservation Calculations Square Feet Percent of site Total Site Area *Minus Right of Way and Easements 2,970,345 100% Zoning Designation * Select Below with drop down arrow NC -Neighborhood Conservation 594,069 20% HHOD * Select Below with Drop Down Arrow No 0 0% Total Canopy for Minimum Preservation Requirements 594,069 20.0% �......... _._ Existing Tree Canopy * Minus Right of Way and Easements 131,792 4.4% Tree Canopy Preserved 108,839 3.7% Tree Canopy Removed *On Site 22,953 0.8% Tree Canopy Removed *Off Site Tree Canopy Removed Total 22,953 0.8% Removed Below Minimum _ 485,230 Mitigation Requirements 22,953 • Total Site Area* is property line minus Master Street Plan ROW, existing easements, and Dedicated Parkland • Existing Tree Canopy* is total tree canopy minus Master Street Plan ROW and existing easements Mailinc, Address: URBAN FORESTRY 113 W. Mountain Street ww,,:+.fayettevill � Fayetteville, AR 72701 �id#ir�Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 16 of 27 Tree Canopy Mitigation: 105 Mitigation trees are required at this time and this will change prior to Planning Commission. ar opy etov� 'r s rvat#aniOrestatIoi�;�ase ; lensi% Nu nbe .of 2" caliper. 22953 ft2 High Priority 218 105 ft2 Mid Priority 290 0 ft2 Low Priority 436 0 N YExisting s7777-71, Topography with slopes < 15% highlighted _. . tiRe 'nested Each , .; Total Cost On-site Mitigation Site Analysis -Plan Components Off-site Mitigation Y Tree Escrow $675 5 year aerial check on existing trees _ 7'ota1; Mti ritiiJrl Y Mitigation Type Requested: ® On -Site ❑ Off -Site ❑ Tree Escrow ❑ Not Requested Yet Mitigation Type Requested Approved: ❑ YES ❑ NO TREE PROTECTION PLAN CHECKLISTS AND COMMENTS: Plan Checklist: NA = not applicable Yes = submitted by applicant No = required by City Code but not included on submitted plan The Site Analysis Plan 1167,04( (1)] Tech Plat SD PC Site Analysis -Plan Components Y Y 5 year aerial check on existing trees Y Y Property Boundary = not shown fully in NE corner Y Y _ Natural Features 100ft beyond property line shown N YExisting Topography with slopes < 15% highlighted N Y - --- - ..... ..._-.......__. _. _. Soils Y Y Significant Tree(s): 24", 18" and 8" DBH all shown graphically on plan Y Y Table listing Sig. Trees with species, size, health, priority Y Y Grouping of Trees: all other trees that do not meet significant requirements Y Y Table listing Grouped Trees with average species, size, health, priority N Y All existing utilities Y Y All perennial and intermittent streams with approximate center line Y Y Floodplains/Floodways and Streamside Protection Zone line Y Y Existing street, sidewalk or bike path ROW NA Na Na Submitted Site Analysis Plan 67 Planning Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 17 or 27 0 Parking Trees TBD Detention Lar a Trees TBD Detention Small Trees / Large Shrubs TBD Detention Small Shrubs Urban Forestry recommends approval with the following conditions:: 1. Address all items above marked "N" and all Redlines on plan. 2. Please include detention pond calculations. The mitigation numbers are shown but not stormwater calculations. 3. Please include street tree calculations, a note with lot numbers. 4. Please locate the additional 54 mitigation.trees that are needed in common areas. 5. The following apply and shall be added to the Landscape Plan: a. Prior to approval of Final Plat, any street trees fronting commonly owned properties must be planted and have a 3 -year maintenance surety, or contract per 177,10, submitted to ensure maintenance and survival through the 3 -year establishment period. This surety must be accompanied by a completed Landscape Surety Form. b. Prior to approval of Final Plat, any required mitigation trees must be planted and have a 3 -year maintenance surety, or contract per 177.10, submitted to ensure maintenance and survival through the 3 -year establishment period. The surety must be accompanied by a completed Landscape Surety Form. c. Prior to approval of Final Plat, a landscape performance surety (letter of credit, bond or -cash) must be provided on all street trees adjacent to homes. This surety must be accompanied by a completed Landscape Surety Form. A cost estimate from a professional landscaping or contracting company must be provided to the Urban Forester in order to determine the required amount of the performance bond. The final surety amount is 150% of the approved cost estimate. d. Planting of LOT trees adjacent to homes may be deferred until completed construction of individual homes; however, the timing must be specified in conjunction with the phased -completion of homes. For example, after the completion of (xx) homes, these trees must transition from a performance surety to a 3 -year maintenance surety or contract per 177.10. This can be specified by the number of homes, the percentage of completion of the overall development, or simply on a time scheduled basis. The developer is required to determine this timing and state on the plat how these plantings and subsequent surety submittals will occur. Planning Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 18 of 27 Na Na PC Tree Preservation Plan Components ` Detail Design Approaches used to minimize damage to OR removal of existing canopy Na Na Y Justification for removal of individual or groupings of trees/canopy NA Na Y Details providing information on on-site mitigation OR off-site alternatives Na Na De ict limits of soil disturbance Submitted Analysis Report Detail methods that will be used to protect trees during construction: N Y Tree Preservation Plan I767.04(H)(2)] Tech Plat SD PC Tree Preservation Plan Components ` Y N Shows ALL Proposed Site Im rovements Y Y Delineates trees/canopy to be preserved and removed Y Y Delineates existing and proposed grading Y Y De ict limits of soil disturbance Detail methods that will be used to protect trees during construction: N Y 1. Tree Protection Fencing Na Na Na 2. Limits of Root Pruning Y Y 3. Traffic flow on worksite Y Y 4. Location of material storage Y Y 5. Location of concrete wash out Y Y 6. Location of construction entrance/exit Y Y Location of ALL existing and new utility/drainage easements Urban Forestry recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Address any items above marked "N" and all Redlines on plan. 2. Please include soil types if this is on another plan just include in a note on the Tree Preservation Plan. 3. Please adjust the grading plan to preserve the trees noted in the Northwest corner to preserve them or adjusfthe calculations to show removed. - 4. Please show a building foot print in the Northwest corner where trees are on the lots. 5. The following apply and shall be added to the Landscape Plan: a. Prior to approval of Final Plat, any street trees fronting commonly owned properties must be planted and have a 3 -year maintenance surety, or contract per 177.10, submitted to ensure maintenance and survival through the 3 -year establishment period. This surety must be accompanied by a completed Landscape Surety Form. b. Prior to approval of Final Plat, any required mitigation trees must be planted and have a 3 -year maintenance surety, or contract per 177.10, submitted to ensure maintenance and survival through the 3 -year establishment period. The surety must be accompanied by a completed Landscape Surety Form. c. Prior to approval of Final Plat, a landscape performance surety (letter of credit, bond or cash) must be provided on all street trees adjacent to homes. This surety must be accompanied by a completed Landscape Surety Form. A cost estimate from a professional landscaping or contracting company must be provided to the Urban Forester in order to determine the required amount of the performance bond. The final surety amount is 150% of the approved cost estimate. d. Planting of LOT trees adjacent to homes may be deferred until completed construction of individual homes; however, the timing must be specified in conjunction with the phased completion of homes. For example, after the completion of (xx) homes, these trees must transition from a performance surety to a 3 -year maintenance surety or contract per 177.10. This can be specified by the number of homes, the percentage of completion of the overall development, or simply on a time scheduled Planning Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 19 of 27 basis. The developer is required to determine this timing and state on the plat how these plantings and subsequent surety submittals will occur. Planning Commission November 28, 2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 20 of 27 CITY OF O ARKANSAS TO: Jonathan Curth, Planner FROM: Deputy Fire Marshal Brian Sloat DATE: November 14, 2016 gYETTEVI(ke Fine DEPT. AidK �, SUBJECT: 16-5642 PPL NE of 15th St. & Moriningside Dr. (Park Meadows SD) Comments made by the fire department during Technical Plat review have not been placed on subsequent submittals. 1. AFPC 2012 D103.6.1 Roads 20 to 26 feet in width. Fire lane signs as specified in D103.6 shall be posted on both sides of fire apparatus access roads that are 20 to 26 feet wide. In addition signs must meet spacing requirements of AFPC 2012 503,3 2. AFPC 2012 D103.6.2 Roads more than 26 feet in width. Fire lane signs as specified in D103.6 shall be posted on one side of fire apparatus access roads more than 26 feet wide and less than 32 feet wide. In addition signs must meet spacing requirements of AFPC 2012 503.3 FAYETTEVILLE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE 833 N. Crossover Road www.fayettevifg-ar go ssion Fayetteville, AR 72701-2701 November 2812016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 21 of 27 Craftan Tull archileciure I engineerhig I surveying November 9, 2016 City of Fayetteville Planning Staff 125 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE:. Park Meadows CT Job No. 16108500 To the chair of the Planning Commission, 901 N 47th Street, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72756 479.636.4838 (Pr,; 479.631.6224 ,rax; A variance is being requested to allow 14 lots to front two streets, 11 of them to the south between Fifteenth St. and Street B, and 3 of them to the northeast between Huntsville Rd. and Street G. For the northeast corner of the site, the existing grades make it difficult to front lots only on Huntsville Rd. Instead the back yards will be against Huntsville with a large separation down to the house to get out of the steeper grades_ To the south, connectivity to Morningside and Fifteenth require the lots to front two streets. These lots will not be allowed to directly access Fifteenth St. or Huntsville Rd. A second variance is needed to allow a block length to exceed the maximum 660 feet between Streets K and E. This will._ allow us to align these two streets with existing streets across Morningside Dr. A third variance will be requested to allow the removal of curb and gutter along the common area adjacent to Streets J and F. The goal is to remove the need for traditional storm sewer along these streets and allow runoff to sheet flow off the street, through a grass buffer strip and into the existing creek. Should you have any questions, or require any additional information, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Taylor/Lindley, E.I. Project Engineer 016 go m6 SD Page 22 of 27 (X- PROPERTY DESCRIFTIOti ?14 loi I- -1VII. It. I—— VC,LS IlST AW �Il WIA 111111 1,' 1,t W"M ED Ai Y. RSA a —1, m %w . ... ... .• It Al —M �—' wc � -, 41 —Ic —T III --A 1, 1. -J-1. Lu 41 i. I -T t' —1-1 i'm SaIif I -m IM; Egg ffl.i .KC "I C—U NINT WX 65 Uf Lro j j�� ...... ------- 'IF'q j fiW jj f!4' /X2 I .. .................. (OCOD O E U) -N N 00 0 - = 3: (y) 'o CO 0 CN .01 IM PARK MEADOWS 'I'fmmA' #P Ai tiW HlYxarr UW ARI P NS MW OWRALIPREMMI—PUT IC -102 mu usrm MD.! LaEAM Ly L-ArA't (07-- 7-7717) R - (X- PROPERTY DESCRIFTIOti ?14 loi I- -1VII. It. I—— VC,LS IlST AW �Il WIA 111111 1,' 1,t W"M ED Ai Y. RSA a —1, m %w . ... ... .• It Al —M �—' wc � -, 41 —Ic —T III --A 1, 1. -J-1. Lu 41 i. I -T t' —1-1 i'm SaIif I -m IM; Egg ffl.i .KC "I C—U NINT WX 65 Uf Lro j j�� ...... ------- 'IF'q j fiW jj f!4' /X2 I .. .................. (OCOD O E U) -N N 00 0 - = 3: (y) 'o CO 0 CN .01 IM PARK MEADOWS 'I'fmmA' #P Ai tiW HlYxarr UW ARI P NS MW OWRALIPREMMI—PUT IC -102 CDco O E N N r) N U) 2 N O O d aN (O N gN m Y d r Y 1: g 3 ,CiIICIICC1CC11�;s,(( CPQ! W = x 2, 1 xg x as g g8 s s"88 4e <::s o:s9=aaa�ssaaaa"aaaaa 9. �, /\` e<' = 3 ca c a -.o -------------a-3 3�33s .cccc a3-------a-e?3 r r� & W Wi - n f1 b......... � ; �� ; �� '. �� 4 �-�'•'`''---y--.., .,..�, - ' ,.-i° �� arj° �j' �.._.f'� _ _ate - (Zi f�r. �s E `...'*.'..yf /'f' d%`�•�..-14'ykt J�lh1 1 i +,�idt- " . ,... if s "_Y L ",> la _`�.`ti a e e s $ � ;•��_ ��`',f ��?�t{r �.,e � ''fix�"t,}�y�>s�a'4 Plannirig Commission `?-. ,Npve ber28,2016 Agenda Item 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 25 of 27 Agenda Item, 6 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 26 of 27 Hgenaa item b 16-5642 Park Meadows SD Page 27 of 27 Crofton Tull 1�1 PARK MEADOWS