The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance 6334t - ; 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Ordinance: 6334 File Number: 2020-0513 Doc ID: 019351590004 Type: REL Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 08/03/2020 at 01:22:15 PM Fee Amt: $30.00 Page 1 of 4 Washington County, AR Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk File2020-00026457 C-PZD 20-7093 (NW OF DEANE SOLOMON RD. & LORI DRJUNDERWOOD DEV.): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED C-PZD 20-7093 FOR APPROXIMATELY 128.54 ACRES LOCATED NORTHWEST OF DEANE SOLOMON ROAD AND LORI DRIVE TO ALLOW A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES CITY PARKLAND AND 602 MULTI -FAMILY UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves C-PZD 20-7093 as described in Exhibits `A', `B' and `C' attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo. Section 2: This C-PZD approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed percent minimum canopy shall be revised to 25% pursuant to § 167.04, Tree Preservation and Protection During Development, which requires a 25% minimum canopy preservation for Planned Zoning Districts, unless the applicant receives approval for on -site mitigation or off -site alternatives. 2. The density allowance in Planning Area 1 shall be amended to 24 units per acre without the proposed variable density. Removal of language in Section 1 L noting that "Improvements and/or associated fees for the upgrade of Deane Solomon Road shall not be assessed as a result of the development of Planning Area 4." All final street improvements will be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of Page 1 Printed on 7/22/20 L_ Ordinance: 6334 File Number. 2020-0513 development review. An applicant may pursue other avenues to reduce expenses, including a cost -share or similar mechanism that may be considered by City Council. 4. 50% of the park's full perimeter shall have lots that feature buildings fronting the park. Lots may be adjoining the park or separated from the park by a street as long as buildings include front doors to the park. No portion of the perimeter, either developed or undeveloped shall be exempt from this. This shall be a development requirement, with variances subject to Planning Commission consideration. 5. In Planning Areas where conventional building setbacks are proposed, these shall be replaced by 0 to 25-foot build -to zones. All Planning Areas shall have a 50% minimum buildable frontage requirement for lots, with contributing built frontage established by adjacency to either public street or parkland. This shall be a zoning requirement, with reductions subject to staff approval and variances subject to Board of Adjustment consideration. Section 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby approved to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section 1 above. PASSED and APPROVED on 7/21/2020 Attest: �ER K r,T V O •."'ram'. Fq rFn. ;r, Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer: f [[��.9 • r may' • U ♦ 4 Page 2 Printed on 7122120 PZD20-7093 UNDERWOOD-RAZORBACK GC 2020-7093 Close Up View EXHIBIT 'A' I I I CRYSTAL- DR-� VANIKE DR I z > TIGER 0 EYE DR P-t H a_ TOPAZI�z- - � s RSF-1 I ■ a ■ RSF-4 .� P. L) w Z Q w Y Legend Planning Area L _ _ t Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail • - - Trail (Proposed) _., Design Overlay District Building Footprint R-A Subject Property NO v-QUAIL-DR�—z z X x > 9 Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1 inch = 600 feet z 10 f. 0'` 0 to We FLAW PV3TLE� 'W-OX Liy I` ILLS D PINE R W0( Cn PRIVATE �LIN D,Q 2580 I MILLION LN NS-c j -LORI DR r� MOORE LN—MOOR_ E L'N RMF-24 C-2 EMIL DR NORTH I♦ Residential -Agricultural RSF-1 RSF-4 11111111 RI-12 RMF-24 C-2 Neighborhood Services - Ltd. Neighborhood Services - Gen. 1'760 Neighborhood Conservation Commercial, Industrial, Residential P-1 b 2020-7093 EXHIBIT 'B' Description from Deed Record 2017-00032183 Tract I: A part of the East half of Section 32 and a part of the West half of Section 33, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a found 3/8" rebar being the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32 and running thence N87°27'18"W 776.76' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence NO2°31'33"E 1555.97' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N12°21'28"W 456.73' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N87°14'46"W 207.73' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence NO2°45'14"E 649.54' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N69°47'21"E 47.68 to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N53°40'33"E 150.23' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N84°12'39"E 284.06' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N86°12'19"E 61.89' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N65°48'05"E 418.87' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N81°42'20"E 305.70' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N61°57'52"E 305.93' to a point in existing deane Soloman road. Thence S02°36'38"W 2468.18' in said road, thence leaving said road N86°11'43"W 329.80' to a found 60D Nail, thence S03°11'57"W 749.11' to the point of beginning and containing 76.54 acres, more or less. Subject to Easements and rights -of -way of record. Tract II: A part of the East Half of Section 32 and a part of the Southwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Commencing at a found 3/8" rebar being the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32 and running thence N87"27'18"W 776.76' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence NO2"31'33"E 1555.97' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N12"21'28"W 456.73' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N87"14'46"W 207.73' to a set 1/2" rebar being the point of beginning of the herein described tract: thence N87"14'46"W 934.29' to a found 1/2" rebar, thence NO3°19'05"W 658.23' to a found 1/2" rebar, thence N00°43'22"E 310.72' to a found 1/2" rebar, thence N81°11'30"E 239.40' to a found 1/2" rebar, thence N44"22'50"E 726.00' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence NO2'52'12"E 69.27' to a found 3" aluminum monument, thence S87°23'56"E 1406.05' to a found 1/2" rebar with cap, thence S02°35'43"W 157.10 to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S87°19'28"E 330.00' to a point in the existing dean soloman road, thence S02°36'38"W 254.96' to a point in said road, thence leaving said road S61°57'52"W 305.93' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S81°42'20"W 305.70' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S65°48'05"W 418.87' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S86°12'19"W 61.89' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S84°12'39"W 284.06' to a set 1/2 rebar, thence S53°40'33"W 150.23' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S69°47'21"W 47.68' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S02°45'14"W 649.54' to a set 1/2" rebar, to the point of beginning and containing 52.00 acres, more or less. Subject to Easements and rights of -way of record. i Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 08/03/2020 01:22-15 PM and recorded in Real Estate File Number 2020-00026457 Kyle Sylvester - Circuit Clerk by City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street \\ Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 i Text File File Number: 2020-0513 Agenda Date: 7/21/2020 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting Agenda Number: B 4 File Type: Ordinance C-PZD 20-7093 (NW OF DEANE SOLOMON RD. & LORI DRJUNDERWOOD DEV.): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED C-PZD 20-7093 FOR APPROXIMATELY 128.54 ACRES LOCATED NORTHWEST OF DEANE SOLOMON ROAD AND LORI DRIVE TO ALLOW A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES CITY PARKLAND AND 602 MULTI -FAMILY UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves C-PZD 20-7093 as described in Exhibits `A', `B' and `C' attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo. Section 2: This C-PZD approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed percent minimum canopy shall be revised to 25% pursuant to § 167.04, Tree Preservation and Protection During Development, which requires a 25% minimum canopy preservation for Planned Zoning Districts, unless the applicant receives approval for on -site mitigation or off -site alternatives. 2. The density allowance in Planning Area 1 shall be amended to 24 units per acre without the proposed variable density. 3. Removal of language in Section 1 L noting that "Improvements and/or associated fees for the upgrade of Deane Solomon Road shall not be assessed as a result of the development of Planning Area 4." All final street improvements will be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of development review. An applicant may pursue other avenues to reduce expenses, including a cost -share or similar mechanism that may be considered by City Council. 4. 50% of the park's full perimeter shall have lots that feature buildings fronting the park. Lots may be adjoining the park or separated from the park by a street as long as buildings include front doors to the park. No portion of the perimeter, either developed or undeveloped shall be exempt from this. This shall be a development requirement, with variances subject to Planning Commission consideration. 5. In Planning Areas where conventional building setbacks are proposed, these shall be replaced by 0 to 25-foot build -to zones. All Planning Areas shall have a 50% minimum buildable frontage requirement for lots. with contributing built frontage established by adjacency to either public street or parkland. This shall be a City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 712212020 File Number. 2020-0513 zoning requirement, with reductions subject to staff approval and variances subject to Board of Adjustment consideration. Section 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby approved to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section 1 above. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 2 Printed on 7/22/2020 Garner Stoll Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2020-0513 Legistar File ID 7/7/2020 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 6/19/2020 Submitted Date Action Recommendation: CITY PLANNING (630) Division / Department CPZD 20-7093: Commercial Planned Zoning District (NW OF DEANE SOLOMON RD & LORI DR./UNDERWOOD DEV., 246-285): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NW OF DEANE SOLOMON RD. & LORI DR. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, & NS-L, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES -LIMITED and contains approximately 128.54 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CPZD for a mixed use development that includes City parkland and 602 multi -family units with associated parking. Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $ - Funds Obligated $ - Current Balance $ - Does item have a cost? No Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget $ - V20180321 Purchase Order Number: Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Change Order Number: Approval Date: Original Contract Number: Comments: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS MEETING OF JULY 7, 2020 TO: Mayor; Fayetteville City Council THRU: Susan Norton, Chief of Staff Garner Stoll, Development Services Director FROM: Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager DATE: June 19, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEMO SUBJECT: CPZD 20-7093: Commercial Planned Zoning District (NW OF DEANE SOLOMON RD & LORI DRJUNDERWOOD DEV., 246-285): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NW OF DEANE SOLOMON RD. & LORI DR. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, & NS-L, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES -LIMITED and contains approximately 128.54 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CPZD for a mixed -use development that includes City parkland and 602 multi -family units with associated parking. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of C-PZD 20-7093 as shown in the attached Exhibits 'A', 'B', and 'C', and with the following conditions of approval: 1. §167.04, Tree Preservation and Protection During Development, requires a 25% minimum canopy preservation for Planned Zoning Districts, unless the applicant has been approved for on -site mitigation or off -site alternatives. At this point, alternatives to on -site preservation have not been approved and the proposed percent minimum canopy should be revised to 25%; 2. Staff recommends revision of the proposed variable density allowance in Planning Area 1 to a consistent 24 units per acre; and Staff recommends removal of language in Section 1 L noting that "Improvements and/or associated fees for the upgrade of Deane Solomon Road shall not be assessed as a result of the development of Planning Area 4." All final street improvements will be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of development review. At that time, staff will have the necessary information, including but not limited to traffic studies, street layouts, proposed uses, and number of residential units, to comprehensively recommend improvements necessary for vehicular and pedestrian safety, and preservation of levels of service. Waiver of street improvements is not typical to zoning entitlement and an applicant may pursue other avenues to reduce expenses, including a cost -share or similar mechanism that may be considered by City Council. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends approval of C-PZD 20-7093 with the following, additional conditions of approval: 5. 50% of the park's full perimeter shall have lots that feature buildings fronting the park. Lots may be adjoining the park or separated from the park by a street as long as buildings include front doors to the park. No portion of the perimeter, either developed or undeveloped shall be exempt from this. This shall be a development requirement, with variances subject to Planning Commission consideration. 6. In Planning Areas where conventional building setbacks are proposed, these shall be replaced by 0 to 25-foot build -to zones. All Planning Areas shall have a 50% minimum buildable frontage requirement for lots, with contributing built frontage established by adjacency to either public street or parkland, with a prioritization on parkland. This shall be a zoning requirement, with reductions subject to staff approval and variances subject to Board of Adjustment consideration. BACKGROUND: The subject property includes multiple parcels totaling 128.54 acres on the west side of Deane Solomon Road, between Emil and Vanike Drives to the south and north. The property was used for many years as the Razorback Golf Course which has closed for business. The property is largely cleared from its previous use as a golf course, however there are notable fencerow and other trees throughout. Notable topographic features of the property include an approximately 6- acre artificial pond and a section of the Clabber Creek riparian corridor. Clabber Creek enters the northeastern extents of the property from Wilson Springs to the east, before flowing to the southwest on to adjacent property. 100-year floodplain and floodway associated with Clabber Creek encumber approximately 35 acres of the property. Proposal: The proposal is to rezone the property to a planned zoning district (PZD) for mixed -use development, parkland dedication, and 602 multi -family dwelling units. Four planning areas are proposed along with property intended for future public park. These areas, their relative locations, and intended development are described below: Planning Area 1 (16 acres): Centrally located on the property and setback from Deane Solomon Road and west of the existing large pond, Planning Area 1 is intended for office use principally, with allowances for nonresidential and residential development comparable to the R-O, Residential Office zoning district. Residential density is variable as proposed, with four units per acre for 10 years before increasing to 24 units per acre after ten years. • Planning Area 2 (16 acres): Located along Deane Solomon Road and east of the existing large pond, Planning Area 2 is intended to provide neighborhood -oriented nonresidential uses of a smaller scale along with single-, 2-, 3-, and 4-family dwellings. Residential density is proposed at 18 units per acre. These standards are comparable to the NS-G, Neighborhood Services zoning district. • Planning Area 3 (15 acres): Includes the large pond on the property and is intended for the dual-purpose of meeting stormwater requirements and offering a water feature amenity. The zoning standards most closely resemble those of the P-1, Institutional zoning district that is typically associated with parks. • Planning Area 4 (21.5 acres): Represents the southern portion of the property with access to both Deane Solomon Road and the future extension of Emil Drive. Permitted uses include all residential building types, from single- to multi -family, along with small- scale nonresidential uses. Density is proposed at 21.5 units per acre. Parkland (approx. 50 acres): Represents the entirety of Clabber Creek, and areas adjacent to its floodway between Deane Solomon and the property to the west. Following the May 26', 2020 Planning Commission, the following changes were made to the submitted PZD booklet: • Permitted Uses in Planning Area 1 were increased to include Unit 13, Eating Places, Unit 15, Neighborhood Shopping Goods, Unit 40, Sidewalk Cafes, Unit 42, Clean Technologies, and Unit 45 Small -Scale Production. • Permitted Uses in Planning Area 2 were increased to include Unit 13, Eating Places, Unit 16, Shopping Goods, Unit 25, Offices, studios, and related services, and Unit 45 Small - Scale Production. Following the June 811, 2020 Planning Commission, additional revisions were made to the request, as described in the applicant's request letter within Exhibit 'C'. Land Use Compatibility: The development incorporates a range of permitted uses, both residential and nonresidential, with the primary development by area and intensity being conventional garden apartment buildings. While a proposal for such single -use development on its own may pose compatibility issues with nearby properties, the potential for services and amenities within the PZD area reduces the negative impacts that are associated with increased residential density without commensurate opportunities for nearby employment, recreating, and shopping. Land Use Plan Analysis: As standalone planning areas, the applicant's proposal is only somewhat complimentary to City's land use plans, but taken as a whole, it is consistent with the planning objectives put forth in City Plan 2040. Although intended specifically for residential or nonresidential development, each planning area allows for a mixture of uses that promote complete neighborhoods and serve the needs of both nearby residents and those further afield. In an area of Fayetteville that is woefully lacking in services, creating access to restaurants, jobs, and retail can facilitate fewer vehicle trips and promote transportation alternatives. At the same time, the proposed dedication and donation of parkland can create an area that serves as a communitywide amenity and furthers the establishment of an enduring green network. Similarly, the proposed PZD respects the varied future land use map designations on the property. While Clabber Creek and its associated riparian corridor will remain undeveloped, and in -line with the Natural Area designation, the most intense and dense development will be located further south in Residential and City Neighborhood Areas. This will place additional housing and services in closer proximity to the Tier 3 Center envisioned by City Plan 2040's Growth Concept Map at Shiloh and Deane Solomon. City Plan 2040's Infill Matrix indicates a varying score for the subject property, ranging from 0 to 5. The elements vary by the area of the property being considered, and include the following: • Appropriate Future Land Use Map (City Neighborhood Area for southern area) • Near an Elementary School (Holcomb) • Near Trail (Clabber Creek Trail) • Near Park (Gary Hampton Softball Complex) • Near Water Main (Deane Solomon Road, Emil Drive) • Near Sewer Main (Deane Solomon Road, Emil Drive) All told, staff finds the proposed PZD, with its associated proposal for parkland to be compatible and consistent with existing land uses and adopted land use plans. DISCUSSION: At the May 26, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners unanimously tabled the item to afford the applicant an opportunity to address concerns about the perceived lack of detail within the request. Among comments from the Commission, this included but is not limited to how the development will address the proposed parkland, the potential for development north of Clabber Creek, and the request for street and building layout details. At the June 8, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant did not propose revisions to address the Commission's comments. In response, the Commission added two proposed conditions to the three included by staff (outline above). Staff interprets the two additional conditions as motivated by concerns about the lack of detail within the proposal and the importance of requiring future development to front the parkland for public safety through passive surveillance. After approval of the conditions, the Commission unanimously forwarded the request to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Public comment was made before and at both meetings. Comments were uniformly positive, especially in relation to the project's proposal for parkland dedication and donation. Although not opposed to the project, some residents did express concerns about the adequacy of Deane Solomon for increased traffic. Further, when members of the Planning Commission discussed the importance of homes and businesses facing the park, with potential for housing north of Clabber Creek, some residents of the Crystal Springs Phase 3 subdivision north of the subject property expressed opposition to any development of that area. 4 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: N/A Attachments: • Exhibit A • Exhibit B • Exhibit C o Request Letter o PZD Booklet o PZD Plats o PZD Architectural Examples • Planning Commission Staff Report • Public Comment PZD20-7093 Close Up View UNDERWOOD-RAZORBACK GC I I CRYSTAL -DR-? VANIKE DR I Lu z � Q TIGER o EYE DR 11-1 w aTOPAZIO RSF-4 RSF-1 R_ k i 10 Z 3 w rl0-QUAIL- DR—�'' za Zy w Y � Q Legend I _ : Planning Area IL L - - Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Design Overlay District Building Footprint Subject Property Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1 inch = 600 feet -[I EMIL 1,760 z 0 2020-7093 EXHIBIT'A' Z—FLO n� PURPLE PHLOX LN q ILLS DR 1! l `PINE? i WOE y PRIVATE RUN 12580 1 ti-G i i NORTH Residential -Agricultural RSF-1 RSF-4 ice. RI-12 RMF-24 111111110 C-2 Neighborhood Services - Ltd. OL Neighborhood Services - Gen. Neighborhood Conservation Commercial, Industrial, Residential ON P-1 2020-7093 EXHIBIT'B' Description from Deed Record 2017-00032183 Tract I: A part of the East half of Section 32 and a part of the West half of Section 33, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a found 3/8" rebar being the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32 and running thence N87°27'18"W 776.76' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence NO2°31'33"E 1555.97' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N12°21'28"W 456.73' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N87°14'46"W 207.73' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence NO2°45'14"E 649.54' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N69°47'21"E 47.68 to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N53°40'33"E 150.23' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N84°12'39"E 284.06' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N86'12'19"E 61.89' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N65°48'05"E 418.87' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N81°42'20"E 305.70' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N61°57'52"E 305.93' to a point in existing deane soloman road. Thence S02°36'38"W 2468.18' in said road, thence leaving said road N86°11'43"W 329.80' to a found 60D Nail, thence S03°11'57"W 749.11' to the point of beginning and containing 76.54 acres, more or less. Subject to Easements and rights -of -way of record. Tract II: A part of the East Half of Section 32 and a part of the Southwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Commencing at a found 3/8" rebar being the Southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32 and running thence N87"27'18"W 776.76' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence NO2"31'33"E 1555.97' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N12"21'28"W 456.73' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence N87"14'46"W 207.73' to a set 1/2" rebar being the point of beginning of the herein described tract: thence N87"14'46"W 934.29' to a found 1/2" rebar, thence NO3°19'05"W 658.23' to a found 1/2" rebar, thence N00°43'22"E 310.72' to a found 1/2" rebar, thence N81°11'30"E 239.40' to a found 1/2" rebar, thence N44"22'50"E 726.00' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence NO2*52'12"E 69.27' to a found 3" aluminum monument, thence S87°23'56"E 1406.05' to a found 1/2" rebar with cap, thence S02°35'43"W 157.10 to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S87°19'28"E 330.00' to a point in the existing dean Soloman road, thence S02°36'38"W 254.96' to a point in said road, thence leaving said road S61°57'52"W 305.93' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S81*42'20"W 305.70' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S65°48'05"W 418.87' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S86°12'19"W 61.89' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S84°12'39"W 284.06' to a set 1/2 rebar, thence S53°40'33"W 150.23' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S69°47'21"W 47.68' to a set 1/2" rebar, thence S02'45'14"W 649.54' to a set 1/2" rebar, to the point of beginning and containing 52.00 acres, more or less. Subject to Easements and rights of -way of record. (r,4w Crafton TuII IV architecture I engineering I surveying June 15, 2020 City of Fayetteville Planning Division 125 W Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: Underwood Development PZD (CPZD 20-7093) CTA Job No. 19111600 Mr. Curth, 300 North College, Suite 317 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.455.2207 2020-7093 craftontull.com EXHIBIT'C' Attached you will find a revised copy of the above referenced planned zoning district (PZD) booklet. Changes were made based on the conditions of approval from staff as well as the additional conditions approval from Planning Commission. Listed below are each of the conditions and the reasons why we either did or did not change the booklet. Condition 1: §167.04, Tree Preservation and Protection During Development, requires a 25% minimum canopy preservation for Planned Zoning Districts, unless the applicant has been approved for on -site mitigation or off -site alternatives. At this point, alternatives to on -site preservation have not been approved and the proposed percent minimum canopy should be revised to 25% • No changes have been made to the booklet related to this condition. Our original plans were to rezone the individual areas of the site. After meeting with City staff it was recommended that we bring it through as a PZD in lieu of a standard rezoning package. Each of the planning areas mimic a particular zoning district (R-O, NS-G, P-1, RMF). The only changes to the planning area regulations have been at the request of staff. Each of the canopy percentages shown still reflect our original intent and none our less than what is required (20%) currently. For this reason, we would prefer for this to remain unchanged. Condition 2: Staff recommends revision of the proposed variable density allowance in Planning Area 1 to a consistent 24 units per acre • No changes have been made to the booklet related to this condition. This was added at the request of one of the leaders from an adjacent neighborhood. For this reason, we would prefer for this to remain unchanged. Condition 3: Staff recommends relocation of Unit 16, Shopping Goods, from Permitted Uses to Conditional Uses in Planning Area 2. The allowance for nonresidential buildings of unlimited size represents the potential for impacts leading to incompatibility with surrounding land uses, and is more appropriately subject to heightened conditional use review. 0 Noted. The booklet has been changed to reflect this condition of approval. Cr4 Crafton Tull VS architecture i engineering i surveying 300 North College, Suite 317 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479.455.2207 craftontull.com Condition 4: Staff recommends removal of language in Section 1 L noting that "Improvements and/or associated fees for the upgrade of Deane Solomon Road shall not be assessed as a result of the development of Planning Area 4." All final street improvements will be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of development review. At that time, staff will have the necessary information, including but not limited to traffic studies, street layouts, proposed uses, and number of residential units, to comprehensively recommend improvements necessary for vehicular and pedestrian safety, and preservation of levels of service. Waiver of street improvements is not typical to zoning entitlement and an applicant may pursue other avenues to reduce expenses, including a cost -share or similar mechanism that may be considered by City Council. No changes have been made to the booklet related to this condition. Due to the large value of the land being donated along with this PZD, we feel that our client should not have bear the cost of road improvements along Planning Area 4. This is only around 650 feet out of the total 2200 feet of developable frontage. If this plan is approved, all development within the other planning areas will be assessed during development review. This was something that the City has been aware of since discussions of this development began. For these reasons, we would prefer this language to remain in the booklet. Condition 5 (Planning Commission): As understood, the minimum buildable frontage along the park shall be 50%. Minimum buildable frontage requirements for Planning Area 1, 2 and 4 have been revised to reflect this requirement for commercial and multi -family uses. Planning Area 3 is shown as 50% of the lot width but use type is not distinguished because none of the uses listed above are permitted within this area. A note was also added that states that ROW and Parkland are both considered frontage. Condition 6 (Planning Commission): As understood, all planning areas shall have build -to - zones in lieu of standard building setbacks. • Building setback requirements have been updated so that all planning areas reflect a front build -to -zone of 0-25. A note has also been added that states, "when property has a common boundary with both parkland and public right of way, the build -to -zone applies to either." Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact us. Thank you, Joseph Fifer, PE June 11, 2020 PZD BOOKLET Prepared for: KTB Limited Partnership UNDERWOOD DEVELOPMENT Submitted to: City of Fayetteville 125 W Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 CT JOB NO. 19111600 Prepared by: �0 Crafton Tull 300 North College, Suite 317 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-455-2207 www.craftontLill.com INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION PLAT INFORMATION EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT A - ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS • EXHIBIT B -TRAFFIC STUDY WE) Crafton Tull CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS CITY PLAN 2040 GOALS • WE WILL MAKE APPROPRIATE INFILL AND REVITALIZATION OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY. • WE WILL DISCOURAGE SUBURBAN SPRAWL. • WE WILL MAKE COMPACT, COMPLETE, AND CONNECTED DEVELOPMENT THE STANDARD. • WE WILL GROW A LIVABLE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. • WE WILL ASSEMBLE AN ENDURING GREEN NETWORK. • WE WILL CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ATTAINABLE HOUSING. C�� Crofton Tull U PROJECT INFORMATION 1A CURRENT OWNER: KTB Limited Partnership PO Box 1223 Fayetteville, AR 72701 M The Underwood Development is a proposed 125 acre mixed -use development, located adjacent to North Deane Solomon Road, on the old Razorback Golf Course, in Fayetteville. The site is currently zoned NC, NS-L, RSF-4, R-A and has a bill of assurance applied to the property. We are seeking to rezone to Planned Zoning District (PZD) to allow us to develop a portion of the property at a higher density than would be allowed under the current zoning. It will also allow us to provide a walkable, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood development form with sustainable and complementary neighborhood businesses that are compatible in scale, aesthetics, and use with surrounding land uses. With the approval of this PZD, the owner will dedicate/donate 50 acres of land to the City of Fayetteville to be used as a public park. An additional 15 acres will be donated at a later date. This will bring the future total size of the park to 65 acres and will be the largest community park within Fayetteville. This PZD is made up of four planning areas, each with their own zoning district requirements. Planning Areas 1 and 2, both +/-16 acres in size, have zoning regulations similar to Residential Office and Neighborhood Services — General, respectively. Planning Area 3, has regulations similar the City's P-1 Institutional district. This 15 acre planning area will be donated for the expansion of the park after the development of Planning Area 4. Planning Area 4, 28 acres in size, has zoning regulations similar to residential multi- family districts but limits the density to 21.5 units per acre. The development will be serviced by City of Fayetteville water and sanitary sewer. v c, `'� Crafton Tull 4P 1C 1. STREET AND LOT LAYOUT Planning areas 1-4 have not yet been designed or conceptualized in regards to street and lot layout. This PZD will set the zoning regulations in these areas. Street and lot layout will meet the regulations laid out within this booklet, as well as current City of Fayetteville access management standards. In anticipation of a park entrance and future connectivity, right of way for a public street will be dedicated through Planning Area 2 and the donated park land in order to provide access to Planning Area 1. A stub out from Planning Area 4 will also be provided for secondary access to Planning Area 1. Planning Area 3 will remain undeveloped but will be utilized to meet the development's requirements relating to water quality and storm water detention. Currently, the only access from Deane Solomon Road into Planning Area 4 is off Lori Lane. The right of way for Lori Lane will be vacated and a new public street connection will be established further north on to Deane Solomon Road. The Crystal Springs subdivision, west of the property, purchased the right-of-way along the southern edge of the planning area and will extend Emil Drive all the way to Deane Solomon Road during the first phase of their development. This will provide a public street connection to the south. Additionally, plans will be coordinated with this development in order to provide two connections to the west on to W Azurite Drive and W Obsidian Drive. City streets will be designed to meet State fire code, City minimum street standards and approved cross sections. Development layouts within all planning areas will take into account significant trees on site and will maximize open space/green space when possible. Please refer to the Plat Information portion of this report. 2. SITE PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT The proposed 125 acre development will feature a 65 acre park, 602 apartment units and multiple locations for commercial development. Planning areas 1-4 have not yet been designed or conceptualized in regards to street and lot layout. This PZD will set the zoning regulations in these areas. Street and lot layout will meet the regulations laid out within this booklet, as well as current City of Fayetteville access management standards. In anticipation of a park entrance and future connectivity, right of way for a public street will be dedicated through Planning Area 2 and the donated park land in order to provide access to Planning Area 1. A stub out from C-0 Crafton Tull 1C Planning Area 4 will also be provided for secondary access to Planning Area 1. Planning Area 3 will remain undeveloped but will be utilized to meet the development's requirements relating to water quality and storm water detention. Currently, the only access from Deane Solomon Road into Planning Area 4 is off Lori Lane. The right of way for Lori Lane will be vacated and a new public street connection will be established further north on to Deane Solomon Road. The Crystal Springs subdivision, west of the property, purchased the right-of-way along the southern edge of the planning area and will extend Emil Drive all the way to Deane Solomon Road during the first phase of their development. This will provide a public street connection to the south. Additionally, plans will be coordinated with this development in order to provide two connections to the west on to W Azurite Drive and W Obsidian Drive. Water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer will be constructed as required within the development to service the businesses and residences. Utility easements will be provided to allow for franchise utility connections. Please refer to the Plat Information portion of this report for further detail. 3. BUFFER AREAS Existing fencing/vegetation on the east side of the property, as well as existing privacy fences along adjacent residential subdivisions will remain untouched. Vegetative buffers will remain in place where utility easements or grading is not required. 4. TREE PRESERVATION AREAS Site plans for each planning area when developed will be done so with open space and significant trees in mind in order to maximize the preservation of tree canopy where possible. This will help to enhance the look and feel of the total development and park land areas. The development will comply with the standards set forth in UDC Chapter 167 for Tree Preservation and Protection. Planning Area 1 will meet the requirements associated with the City's R-O zoning district (20%). Planning Area 2 will meet the requirements associated with the NS-G zoning district (20%). Planning Area 3 will meet the requirements associated with the P-1 zoning district (25%). Lastly, Planning Area 4 will meet the requirements associated with the RMF-24 zoning district (20%). C40 Crafton Tull 0 Prior to the 22.5 acre donation of park land, we will work with Parks staff to designate groups of trees within this area and Planning Area 3 that can be placed in tree preservation easements. The square footage within these easements may be used as offsite preservation in the event a development within this PZD is unable to meet the minimum canopy requirements at the time of development. A log of the total square footage will be computed and shown on each tree preservation/planting plan associated with this PZD in order to track the amount previously used. Canopy within existing utility easements will not be counted for or against the development. In the event any future development within this PZD requires the planting of mitigation trees and on -site mitigation is not possible, the designated offsite planting location shall be the proposed park area. Planting within the proposed park area will be done so in coordination with City parks staff. 5. STORM WATER DETENTION AREAS AND DRAINAGE The 125 acre former golf course is mainly comprised of grassland. There are multiple structures on site. Clabber Creek runs from east to west across the northern 1/3 of the site. North of Clabber Creek, the site drains from north to south. South of Clabber Creek the site generally drains from south to north. The existing pond within Planning Area 3 will be modified to receive the excess runoff from the development of Planning Area 4. Modifications to the existing pond will respect the nature of the proposed public park and be done in a manner that will enhance, not detract from the intended use of Planning Area 3. Planning Areas 1 and 2 will construct either ponds or underground detention structures to satisfy requirements at the time of development. Ponds and/or detention facilities will be sized to meet the requirements set forth in the City of Fayetteville Drainage Criteria Manual. There is an existing floodplain on site due to Clabber Creek. Majority of development will take place outside the floodplain and will have no impact on base flood elevations. Most of the property containing the floodplain will lie entirely within the donated park land, which is the best use for low lying land of this type. 6. UNDISTURBED NATURAL AREAS Vegetative buffers and existing trees will be an invaluable part of the development and will be protected when possible per UDC Chapter 167. Additionally, 65 acres of land will be donated the City of Fayetteville for the creation of a public park. This area will not be impacted by the development. 4O7 Crafton Tull 1C 7. EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND EXTENSIONS Water is currently available along Deane Solomon Road and sanitary sewer is available on along the north side of the property as well as the south side of the property along Emil Drive. Water mains will not require any additional extensions, other than what will be required to service the neighborhood. Sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the proposed park area to service the development. Easements will be established when the land is deeded to the City. Storm water leaving the site will be detained, via pond or under ground detention facilities, and released directly in to Clabber Creek. New water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer will all be designed and installed per City of Fayetteville standards. m [.pPtfl Ptly ,E i ' _ - LOCATION 8. DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS This development will comply with City of Fayetteville UDC Chapter 166.25 — Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Design and Development standards, as well as, UDC Chapter 166.23 — Urban Residential Design Standards. When applicable within Planning Area 2, developments will comply with UDC Chapter 166.24 Nonresidential Design Standards. 9. BUILDING ELEVATIONS Please refer to Exhibit A attached to this report to view example Building Elevations for the apartments within Planning Area 4. No conceptual renderings have been produced at this time for the Planning Areas 1 & 2. Building elevations will be submitted at the time of development and will meet the requirements as stated in 1.C.8 of this report. tr�7 Crafton Tull 1D In total, the property contains approximately 125 acres. 50 acres will be donated to the City of Fayetteville upon approval of this PZD. The remaining 75 acres will be broken down into four different Planning Areas. Planning Area 1 will have zoning requirements similar to the City's R-O zoning. Planning Area 2, along Deane Solomon Road, will have zoning requirements similar to the City's NS-G zoning district and will feature a 0-25' build -to zone that will require buildings to be near the road with parking in the back. Both Planning Areas will allow for a variety of uses both commercial and residential we feel will best suit the location and surrounding community. Planning Area 3 will have zoning requirements similar to the City's P-1 district, which is typical of park land. This 15 acres will be donated after the development of Planning Area 4. Planning Area 4 will have zoning requirements typical of the City's residential multi -family districts. Density will be a max of 21.5 units per acre which will allow for a total of 602 units. This area will feature amenities such as open/greenspace, bike/jogging trail connection to the new park, pool, basketball court and play ground. N OOOSEDERRY LANE q 2 WOOMMK LANE Z 2 S o N o ; M OPAL LN Plannina Ana 1: 4l � Nl-16 aCns C u wMy Zorlad: NC t Raquaafad Zoning: .' P20 (-R.0) y M RAVEN LAME �atar«b or Raux Ok" 09 P ye:R.ng bra i 1a ac ra• Wa•uwaeuf doWnQ. PZD <•JiAi-E I SI Pond Area PI}: nlno Aron 2_ H•16 acrrs Currently Zcrnd: NC Requealed Zoning: PZD I-NS,) 9FPNCAT'QN AA. 1 27 5 acres ,y i f lZuea fw.P �`-. aw. 55 7 ) •1-5C Kris aterr PZD apwo sl ' 15 4PA 51 acrwa ane. dxVN CPmnm Pf Planning Araa ' \ 4 Krra 1�"l Cr*7 Crafton Tull 1 E — PLANNING AREA 1 A) Purpose. This PZD district is designed primarily to provide are for offices without limitation to the nature or size of the office, together with community facilities, restaurants and compatible residential uses. The intent of this district is to allow administrative approval if the developer decides to use urban form, in compliance with the build -to zone and minimum buildable street frontage specified herein. B) Uses. 1. Permitted Uses: Unit 1 — City-wide uses by right Unit 5 — Government facilities Unit 8 — Single-family dwellings Unit 9 — Two-family dwellings Unit 12b — General business Unit 13 — Eating places Unit 15 — Neighborhood Shopping Goods Unit 25 — Offices, studios, and related services Unit 40 — Sidewalks cafe Unit 41 — Accessory dwellings Unit 42 — Clean technologies Unit 44 — Cluster Housing Development Unit 45 — Small-scale production 2. Conditional Uses: Unit 2 — City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 — Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 — Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 10 — Three (3) and four (4) family dwellings Unit 11 — Manufactured home park Unit 24 — Home Occupations Unit 26 — Multi -family dwellings Unit 36 — Wireless communications facilities C) Density. 4 units/acre (0-10 years) and 24 units/acre (>10 years)* *Residential density within Planning Area 1 shall be restricted to 4 units per acre for the first 10 years after the approval of this PZD. After 10 years, the maximum residential density within this planning area reverts back to 24 or less units per acre. D) Bulk and Area Regulations. 1. Lot Width Minimum: None C0 Crafton Tull 0 1 E — PLANNING AREA 1 2. Lot Area Minimum: Manufactured home park 3 acres Lot within a mobile home park 4,200 square feet Townhouse - development 10,000 sq uare feet Townhouse - individual Lot 2,500 square feet Single-family 6,000 square feet Two 2 family 6,500 square feet Three 3 or more 8,000 square feet Fraternity or Sorority 1 acre 3. Land Area Per Dwelling Unit. Manufactured Home 3,000 square feet Townhouses & apartments: No bedroom 1,000 square feet One bedroom 1,000 square feet Two 2 or more bedroom 1,200 square feet Fraternity or Sorority 500 square feet per resident E) Setback Requirements: Front 0-25 feet build -to zone** Side 5 feet Side -zero lot line See below* Rear None Rear, when adjacent to residential district 15 feet *A setback of less than 5 feet (zero lot line) is permitted on one interior side, provided a maintenance agreement is filed. The remaining side setback(s) shall be 10 feet. **When property has a common boundary with both parkland and public right-of- way, the build -to -zone applies to either. F) Building Height Regulations. 1. Building Height Maximum: 5 Stories. If a building exceeds the height of two (2) stories, the portion of the building that exceeds two (2) stories shall have an additional setback from any side boundary line of an adjacent single family district. The amount of additional setback for the portion of the building over two (2) stories shall be equal to the difference between the total height of that portion of the building and two (2) stories. G) Building Area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. Accessory ground mounted solar energy systems shall not be considered buildings. CD Crafton Tull 0 1 E — PLANNING AREA 1 H) Minimum Buildable Street Frontage: • 50% of the lot width (Commercial / Multi -family) • None (Single-family) *Public right-of-way and parkland considered frontage. 1) Landscaping: Compliance with Unified Development Code Standards (UDC) Chapter 177 J) Parking: Compliance with UDC 172 Parking and Loading. K) Signage: Compliance with UDC 174 Signs for R-O zoning. L) Minimum Tree Canopy Preservation Percentage: 20% CCrofton Tull UP 1 E - PLANNING AREA A) Purpose. This PZD district is designed to serve as a mixed -use area of medium intensity. This planning area promotes a walkable, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood development form with sustainable and complementary neighborhood businesses that are compatible in scale, aesthetics, and use with surrounding land uses. For the purpose of Chapter 96: Noise Control Planning Area 2 is a residential zone. B) Uses. 1. Permitted Uses: Unit 1 - City-wide uses by right Unit 8 — Single-family dwellings Unit 9 — Two-family dwellings Unit 10 — Three (3) and four (4) family dwellings Unit 12b — General business Unit 13 — Eating places Unit 24 — Home occupations Unit 25 — Offices, studios and related services Unit 40 — Sidewalk cafes Unit 41 — Accessory dwelling units Unit 44 — Cluster housing development Unit 45 — Small-scale production 2. Conditional Uses: Unit 2 — City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 — Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 — Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 — Government facilities Unit 16 — Shopping goods Unit 19 — Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 26 — Multi -family dwellings Unit 36 —Wireless communications facilities C) Density. 18 or less units/acre D) Bulk and Area Regulations. 1. Lot Width Minimum: All dwellings 35 feet All other uses None 2. Lot Area Minimum: Single-family 4,000 square feet Two 2) family or more 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit All other uses None �,Crafton Tull 1E - PLANNING AREA 2 E) Setback Requirements: Front 0-25 feet build -to zone** Side 5 feet Side -zero lot line See below* Rear None Rear, when adjacent to residential district 15 feet *A setback of less than 5 feet (zero lot line) is permitted on one interior side, provided a maintenance agreement is filed. The remaining side setback(s) shall be 10 feet. **When property has a common boundary with both parkland and public right-of- way, the build -to -zone applies to either. F) Building Height Regulations. 1. Building Height Maximum: 3 Stories G) Building Area. There are no maximum or minimum building area requirements. H) Minimum Buildable Street Frontage: • 50% of the lot width (Commercial / Multi -family) • None (Single-family) *Public right-of-way and parkland considered frontage. 1) Landscaping: Compliance with Unified Development Code Standards (UDC) Chapter 177 J) Parking: Compliance with UDC 172 Parking and Loading. K) Signage: Compliance with UDC 174 Signs for NS-G zoning district. L) Minimum Tree Canopy Preservation Percentage: 20% ��7 Crafton Tull 1E — PLANNING AREA 3 A) Purpose. This PZD district is designed to protect and facilitate use of property owned by larger public institutions and church related organizations. B) Uses. 1. Permitted Uses: Unit 1 — City-wide uses by right Unit 4 — Cultural and recreational facilities Detention ponds required for development will be allowed to be constructed within Planning Area 3 prior to the acreage being deeded to the City of Fayetteville. After Planning Area 3 has been deeded to the City of Fayetteville, detention facilities as a result of development will be constructed on site within the associated Planning Area. 2. Conditional Uses: Unit 2 — City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 — Public protection and utility facilities Unit 5 — Government facilities Unit 36 — Wireless communications facilities Unit 42 — Clean technologies C) Density. None D) Bulk and Area Regulations. 1. Lot Width Minimum: None 2. Lot Area Minimum: None E) Setback Requirements: Front 0-25 feet build -to zone** Side 5 feet Side -zero lot line See below* Rear None Rear, when adjacent to residential district 15 feet *A setback of less than 5 feet (zero lot line) is permitted on one interior side, provided a maintenance agreement is filed. The remaining side setback(s) shall be 10 feet. **When property has a common boundary with both parkland and public right-of- way, the build -to -zone applies to either. 10' Grafton Tull 1 E - PLANNING AREA 3 F) Building Height Regulations. There shall be no maximum height limits in Planning Area 3, provided, however, if a building exceeds the height of two (2) stories, the portion of the building that exceeds two (2) stories shall have an additional setback from any boundary line of an adjacent residential district. The amount of additional setback for the portion of the building over two (2) stories shall be equal to the difference between the total height of that portion of the building, and two (2) stories. G) Building Area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. Accessory ground mounted solar energy systems shall not be considered buildings. H) Minimum Buildable Street Frontage: 50% of the lot width 1) Landscaping: Compliance with Unified Development Code Standards (UDC) Chapter 177 J) Parking: Compliance with UDC 172 Parking and Loading. K) Signage: Compliance with UDC 174 Signs for P-1 zoning district. L) Minimum Tree Canopy Preservation Percentage: 25% ,�v Crafton Tull 1E-PLANNING AREA A) Purpose. This PZD Multi -family Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the developing of a variety of dwelling types in suitable environments in a variety of densities. B) Uses. 1. Permitted Uses: Unit 1 - City-wide uses by right Unit 8 — Single-family dwellings Unit 9 — Two-family dwellings Unit 10 — Three (3) and four (4) family dwellings Unit 12a — Limited business Unit 26 — Multi -family dwellings Unit 41 — Accessory dwelling units Unit 44 — Cluster housing development 2. Conditional Uses: Unit 2 — City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 — Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 — Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 — Government facilities Unit 11 — Manufactured home park Unit 24 — Home occupations Unit 25 — Offices, studios and related services Unit 36 — Wireless communications facilities C) Density. 21.5 units per acre (602 units on 28 acres) D) Bulk and Area Regulations. 1. Lot Width Minimum: Manufactured home park 100 feet Lot within a Manufactured home ark 50 feet Single -Family 35 feet Two 2 family 35 feet Three 3) or more 70 feet Professional offices 100 feet �,�� Crafton Tull 1 E - PLANNING AREA 4 D) Bulk and Area Regulations cont.: 2. Lot Area Minimum. - Manufactured home park 3 acres Lot within a mobile home park 4,200 square feet Townhouse - individual Lot 2,000 square feet Single-family 3,000 square feet Two (2) family 4,000 square feet Three 3) or more 7,000 square feet Professional offices 1 acres E) Land Area Per Dwelling Unit. Manufactured Home 3,000 square feet F) Setback Requirements: Front 0-25 feet build -to zone** Side 5 feet Side -zero lot line See below* Rear None Rear, when adjacent to residential district 15 feet *A setback of less than 5 feet (zero lot line) is permitted on one interior side, provided a maintenance agreement is filed. The remaining side setback(s) shall be 10 feet. **When property has a common boundary with both parkland and public right-of- way, the build -to -zone applies to either. G) Building Height Regulations. 2 stories / 3 stories / 5 stories* *A building or a portion of a building that is located between 0 and 10 feet from the front property line or any master street plan right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of two (2) stories, between 10-20 feet from the master street plan right-of- way a maximum height of three (3) stories and buildings or portions of the building set back greater than 20 feet from the master street plan right-of-way shall have a maximum height of 5 stories. If a building exceeds the height of two (2) stories, the portion of the building that exceeds two (2) stories shall have an additional setback from any side boundary line of an adjacent single family district. The amount of additional setback for the portion of the building over two (2) stories shall be equal to the difference between the total height of that portion of the building, and two (2) stories. t,�7 Crafton Tull 1 E - PLANNING AREA 4 H) Building Area. The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 50% of the total lot area. Accessory ground mounted solar energy systems shall not be considered buildings. 1) Minimum Buildable Street Frontage: • 50% of the lot width (Commercial / Multi -family) • None (Single-family) *Public right-of-way and parkland considered frontage. J) Landscaping: Compliance with Unified Development Code Standards (UDC) Chapter 177 K) Parking: Compliance with UDC 172 Parking and Loading. L) Signage: Compliance with UDC 174 Signs for RMF zoning districts. M) Minimum Tree Canopy Preservation Percentage: 20% �r�7 Crafton Tull 1 F Current Zoning requirements Versus Requested Zoning requirements: Total bite Area 1AC) 124.65 0 Crofton Tull Total Site Minus Parkland (AC) ' 7,1s5 I Rabble Zoning: PZD lonlingAl-tin rip Anwo . on tg n beg r Curet Zoning aloe Site: NC,NS-L ring anrg l nnp o on rip. NC S-L nmpc nnp Zoning NC Gulledmnp:' o Planned Number of Dwellln U.N. W2 Sias AC 16 16 .1 1 28 Residential Dens Und,IAL 10 10 4 0-10 ye—). 24 (— a 16 None 21.5 N—AlA li dW Who.il None Lol M—Nin Wirth Ft 40 35 naitlargY e al Nonomens No- 35 (el dwellnps). None (el —1 use. No 100 (mobile twine park): 50 (Tot k mood, home park), 35 (rnpk S two famit/): 70 (tile or man)', 100 (prolexlprol."-.) LOT Ana An—Ams SF 4,000 4,000 (..note-hmiy)-. 3,000 (mWNamfy) Nona (sN others) 3 a....... blk Mme perk), 4,2W (bl in noble home pa2i, 0,OD0 (townToYx tlavebpmen0. 2.SOO Itawnnoux ndwdual lnl).6 000 (ample lnhovj, 65w (Mo h n,f l S, DOD (three w non), 1 ecre (hatennny/xrorayl 4 Op0 jwrgk )lenity) J OWrdwelllnp (Mo lamiry c� morel, None (all otMr aces) None 3 sues (mobg Tome park)', 4.2001bt In m,b,W Mme pane). 2.000 T.-Ind... - lntllvdwl bN, 3,000 (.snob famiy): 4.000 (Mo hmdy). ] 000 (No. IT more), 1 aw.. (proles .-1 oM.) Lane Ana Per Unit SF) 3,1N10 (hni-o -e-I home). wnh-le, S ap,n... I, 1,000 (xro III one Mmpom), 1 200 (two or more do...), 5U01reellen1 (IfAhrndyl nndy) None a 3.OD0 m rwfectured Mme Front Setback Ft 0- 25 Build to Zone BTZ 10-25 BTZ 0- B ""• 0-25 di?""' 0-25 BT2"•" 0-25 BTZ""' Side Setback F 5 5 5 5 5 6 Rear Sell Ft 5 IT2 from cl sib 15 None 05 win adi• .ht to re.d.nMl None 15 when ed, c 1 to re d-1.1 None IT5 when adjacent to residential M B.ild.ng Hell 3 store. 3 stories "S atones 3 stories "None 2 ahnn. 13 atonic.! 5 Worts M—nonn il Area W% W% None 60, 50% Mmhnun Buildable Street Front., - Commewl r MWrhnly 50%0f the Tot —11, (ROW antl Pe,klend w-A.retl 1roMapel Soglel-0y No. C—onenl, MUMIYrnlly. 50% of iM Tot wdtn (ROW and ParkYM wnadered Romeo.) Sin le -Family. None 50% of IM Tot wdm commerwl / MWllamily 50%0l the bl vadln (ROW and P.M nd....idered bpnt.Wj Shoo -Family. None L' -aNde wa t C -wih uxa by right Cl -castle urea o r ht Cy —Aide we, by i ht City-wde uus b r CR -wide uxa b r t S k-h dywk Sin Lin diva' GovernmentlaciMea l l dwekn s ;ua��ala n'e riot !ardaie. Sin k-hmi tlwek e Acw,eo tlwek Two -fen tlhAekn Sin le-lem tlwek T-4enr dwegn , "' Two4 N.Jhno. Trine 3 art bur 4 hm' dwegin iwa-hmi tivxlll s Three 3 and lour 4 lam) d—h, s Throe 3) art bur 4 land dwebn . Lim I" beak , General buane.. General business Londed business Home Pu ebon, Ea- has Eel lace. MWI-hmr dwell Permined Uses side" Gale, Ne hborhood.hp Nome oc Au;esw dweb -A. Accea.o undo Offices WW., and I.J.—ser�sces Of ... lit... are hill-sen�ces ClwterMwln deveb merit CYWI Towin deveb mend Sdewsh C.M. Sdevnk Cells Acceex ewekn unit. Accaaw tlwelll no. Clean tech.., le cluWar Mwin deveb meM Chile, h.-in Devebpment S 11 soak rpduclbn S-11 scale pod.t.n Ci -wde axle b conditbrwl ux enne C -wide ws wntlabrol w —d Cn -wide uxs b condtlbnal um permit C -wtle uxa wndlbrol ux rmn Ci -wide we. b conditional use e C -vale w. b cord. —I w rind Publk noted,.. art MiN hcNlea Pudic okeWn and M4 hcMnies Pubtic rotection and Nlli hciMes PubNc rohUlon eneW ,cinka PubNc roteclron aria Nib hulnlesnl Public protection and ldil hcilMwa Gdmml and recreational laclblice C.Nural And ...... Ional hcild— Wll , al a nd..creanonai raclhl— C ulfunl end reveallonal F-11os Govermnent lacele, C allure aria iecreauonal facdnres Two-fam dvwlNn s Government faciMies Throe 3i and lour 4'lamd dwells.. s (wvernment land,... Will— eommunicatiens lacNitw, Go"n"Inl laeddies C inhiowl Uses Three 3 and lour 4 hmr dvwB a Estl Yces M.nuhctured Mme arX She 1 goods Clean technologiesManuhcbred Mme arN Lennae buMrou Nel h0orhootl MoIng goodie Home occu abona Com —1.1 re eatbn, smell who. mMWNam Hom Ions /Tome slbna Com col re ee,bn. anal axe MuOr-lams dwalm a dwell Olbcea. Wutlba art reletee xrvicas Center forwlkcbnor cbbl. maurYb Oft.. ti end 1.1i lin-is Wirelee. ..lonehddle. Wind—whi—nketbns Noon,. Wir.1.. wmmun—Who lsciMe. Wlr.kx w mmunlatbro hclie Mulls -font dr-ini e Meter Hpwd O—loinninid WMek. con—n-th. N.M.. Smell sulk podou i Lanescapiny Unshed D—I'lon art code Standerde, (UDC) Chapter 177 U,,F d D—lop—M Code Standards (UDC) Chainer 177 Undled Devebpment Code Sknderda (UDCI Chapter 17] UMMd Devebpmenl Code Standard. (UDCI Chapter 177 Umhed Devebpmenl Code Slanderer (UDC) ChAp ar 177 Unified Devebpin Code Stanoards (UDC, CMDter 177 Parkin UDC Lha ur 1 ]2 Parkf and L.dIng UDC CM er 172 Parkin and Load U C Chapter 172 Parking art L-d rej JDC Cheu., 172 Pa,kihg end L.nhng U C Chapter 172 arkmg a nip JOC Chapter 172 Pink,h, antl Loeding Sr n UDC Sund—Ian NC 7 n,ng UDC ShrdanN Tor NS-L Zoning JDC Stindl fo,1rU-F.--9 Slentlarda r S-0 Zoning U C Sundartls -I nlrg C Suntlard. Tor onlnp ArL lideNural Standards UDC Siendend. Tor NC Zoning UDC Standards Tor NS-L Zon UDC Shniero, to, R-O Zoning UM Shndende, Tor NS-G Zoning UDC Standards Tor P-1 Zoning UDC Sandards to! RMF Zoning Mnsnum Tie. Ceno lo—inveds— 1 20% 20% 20% 213% 25% 20% 'Refeennel density within Manny A— 1 shell he resmkted la. aids in— Tor the 1-110 years.heriM approval ofthis 11D.After 10 ynn,lM manmum residential densdy within this Planning area reverts back to 22 units per xre ftypkal of R-h mnnV. • 'It Abudding evneds 1M Migmoftwo(21 stories, lM Mindo If 1M buddingthat emends two 12) st—ess-ll nave anaddleh lselbackfmm any side boundary — of an adjacentsingk f—./tliso- The amount of adtlnional setback for ON, pw.,h of 1M bu.higpeertwo(21 stones z na11 M e ,l to the edleienrnberweetiIn� IUIaI neyn:of mat Portion of the butiding antl two 12) stones. tinportspai repaired for devebpmMow ent will alled to be...sit-edMr within Ph —%Area 3OW the acreage being dito the Ony of Fayetteville Al Planing Area3has been tleedM to me Ciry of cayettevllk, tletentwn reoulrcments asaresult of tleveloDment willMconstructed on siteAmin the asspcuted Planning Ana. •••''A buildingpr a Portion ofabuiltlingtit Is located Mnween 0antl 10 feet from the front pr ." line or any master street plan right of lv tin shall have A maximum height of two121 storks, MneenID— 20 he from the master shhen plan right-ol-way A hni. m helghl of three 131 stones a ntlbuildings or Portions of the builtlng eel back greater than M feet tram the ni.n"" street phh n{ht of -way shall Mve a mamma, height of S stories. If a bulldlry eviceeds the -1ht of two f2) stones, tM pon- of the budding the, cycled. two f21 stores shall have an atldluonal utbac4 from anV side boundary Ilne pl an atllxanl single hmity dlsmtt. Th..-- Ill sethack for the ponlon of the building over two (2) stories sill be inn.1 to the dllkrence between 1M tout het{fit of that wnion of the bwdix, art two 12) stones. '••"When PMpenV has a common boundary wnh both Parkland and pudic nyht-of way, the budd to rove opfie, to either. 1G The 125 acre site consists of grasslands, fencerows, ponds, riparian areas, outbuildings and residential structures. South of Clabber Creek the property falls around 90 feet from the south to the north. North of Clabber Creek the property falls around 4 feet from the north to the south. Zone AE floodway and floodplain cover approximately 50 acres of the site. There no known natural or man-made hazards that exist on the property. 1H Open gatherings spaces, park access and connectivity will be at the forefront of the design of this development. With the establishment of the 65 acre park, each planning area will have direct access/frontage to the space. This will provide a place for all citizens of Fayetteville, not just the development, to come and enjoy time outdoors. Planning area 4, containing the apartment buildings, will feature amenities such as open/greenspace, bike/jogging trail connection to the new park, pool, basketball court and play ground. These private amenities will be constructed and maintained by the apartment complex owner. H PA 1 { PA 4 PA 2 i 'a,�'L Crafton Tull 11 A large majority of the property is zoned NC and the remainder NS-L, RSF-4 and RA. All of which restrict the density and the type of commercial developments allowed. In order to offset the cost of donating 65 acres of park land (53 acres over the requirement at this time) we are seeking the higher density 21.5 units per acre associated with Planning Area 4 only. This zoning allows the ability to provide the largest community park internally in the City of Fayetteville, provide attainable housing and provide the type of mixed -use development we feel would be a good fit for the area. Goals for City Plan 2040 are: • We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priority. • We will discourage suburban sprawl. • We will make compact, complete, and connected development the standard. • We will grow a livable transportation network. • We will assemble an enduring green network. • We will create opportunities for attainable housing. Approving this PZD will help to achieve all of the goals above. It is the definition of infill and not sprawl. The development layout will be designed to meet current City of Fayetteville code. The density of the development encourages neighborliness and the use of the proposed City park. It will provide multiple points of access for others in adjacent neighborhoods, no matter if they are on foot, bike or car to utilize the park and businesses without having to drive across town. The park will add to the vast green network the City has to offer. Given the current cost of larger tracts of land within the City, approving the PZD as proposed will help the developer provide housing that is more attainable and offset the costs of the large land donation. 1J The vast majority of houses located around the 125 acre site are single-family homes. The 28 acre site, or Planning Area 4, is adjacent to a duplex neighborhood, as well as a mobile home park. It is located across the street from an area currently zoned RMF-24 and also from an existing attached residential community (The Pines at Springwoods) just north of Moore Lane. The highest density proposed will be located directly adjacent to the area's higher density developments. All development on site whether residential or commercial will be screened as required by City code when adjacent to single-family districts. The donated park land will provide a buffer between Planning Area 4 and the residential housing to the north and north east. The development will be accessed off of multiple points on Deane Solomon Road, Emil Drive and streets within the Crystal Springs development to the west. With the construction of Crystal Springs, there will be three ways to get to the property from the south off of Mount Comfort (via Woodlark Lane, Raven Lane �,�)I Crafton Tull 1J and Deane Solomon Road). This will provide further relief to traffic that previous proposed developments on site could not utilize. Further traffic analysis can be seen in section 11 and Exhibit B of this booklet. Architectural requirements will be as described within Section 1.C.8 of this booklet. Any signage proposed will comply with the requirements laid out in City code. Refer to section 1.F for each planning area and the associated zoning district regarding signage. The City of Fayetteville's future land use (2040) map designates this area as both city neighborhood and a residential neighborhood. Almost all of the park land is designated as natural area. The proposed park location as well as Planning Area 4 will comply with the guiding policies of the natural area and city neighborhood area use designation. Depending on how Planning Areas 1 & 2 are developed they may or may not comply with the residential neighborhood area use designation. If developed as commercial they will not comply. Either way, we feel that this is an appropriate location for a PZD of this nature. The development will promote walkability, neighborliness and the use of existing parkland. Because this is an infill type development, it's close to existing schools and the street/utility infrastructure adjacent to the site is in place. Residents will have multiple exit points which will help to reduce traffic on Deane Solomon Road. Access through the park will be available to utilize the City of Fayetteville trail systems. Water mains are already at the site and will not require any additional extensions, other than what will be required to service the neighborhood. Sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the park area to service the development. Easements will be established when the land is deeded to the City. = Natural Area i11t1 Rural Area Residential Neighborhood Area I• City Neighborhood Area = Urban Center Area Industrial 111111111 Complete Neighborhood Plan i1g/ Civic and Private Open Space/Parks Civic Institutional Non -Municipal Government Fayetteville City Limits EXCERPT FROM Cn'Y PLAN 2040 - FUTURE LAND USE MAP C-0 Crafton Tull a.. Future Land Use Map Designations Natural Areas consist of lands approximating or reverting to a wilderness conditions, including those with limited development potential due to topography, hydrology, vegetation or value as an environmental resource. These resources can include stream and wildlife corridors, as well as natural hubs and cores, many of which are identified in the generalized enduring green network. A Natural Area designation would encourage a development pattern that requires conservation and preservation, prevents degradation of these areas, and would utilize the principles of low impact development stormwater infrastructure for all developments. Natural Areas are prime candidates for conservation subdivision design and/or clustered development patterns. The guiding policies for Natural Areas are: Figure 12.1- Dover -Kohl DevelopmentTransect 1. Preserve a network of habitat and open space, thereby protecting biodiversity and enhancing the City's quality of life. 2. Preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species. 3. Encourage recreational and educational opportunities in appropriate areas to enhance appreciation of existing environmental resources. 4. Identify areas of environmental concern and protect and preserve environmental f1i9-141 IC-13 5. Conserve open space and protect areas of significant riparian benefit, tree canopy and other environmental resource through cluster development provisions, density controls, protective easements and/or other development tools. Photo 12.2 - Clabber Creek Photo 12.3 - Lake Wilson El 141NIF 126 Future Land Use Map Designations (contd.) Residential Neighborhood Areas are primarily residential in nature and support a wide variety of housing types of appropriate scale and context: single-family, duplexes, rowhouses, multifamily and accessory dwelling units. Residential Neighborhood encourages highly connected, compact blocks with gridded street patterns and reduced building setbacks. It also encourages traditional neighborhood development that incorporates low -intensity non- residential uses intended to serve the surrounding neighborhoods, such as retail and offices, on corners and along connecting corridors. This designation recognizes existing conventional subdivision developments which may have large blocks with conventional setbacks and development patterns that respond to features of the natural environment. Building setbacks may vary depending on the context of the existing neighborhood. The following guiding policies are designed to encourage future and existing residential neighborhoods to be or become more complete, compact and connected: 1. Encourage a block and street layout that promotes walkable and bicycle friendly road designs with slow vehicular design speeds. 2. Utilize principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible, livable and accessible neighborhoods. 3. Eliminate designs elements that prohibit complete, compact and connected neighborhoods. 4. Protect and restore Fayetteville's outstanding residential architecture of all periods and styles. 5. Encourage the scale of new development to be compatible in use and proportionality between a variety of residential and non-residential uses. 6. Site new residential areas accessible to roadways, sidewalks, trails, transit, parklands, schools, existing utilities, and retail commercial goods and services. 7. Minimize through traffic on minor residential streets, while providing connections between neighborhoods to encourage openness and neighborliness. 8. Continue to encourage context -sensitive streets, allowing for efficient access to commercial residential areas for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Figure 12.1 - Dover -Kohl DevelopmentTransect Photo 12.6 - Lakewood Subdivision Photo 12.7 - Olive & Maple 128 Photo 12.8 - Charleston Place Photo 12.9 - Monterrey Apartments Photo 12.10 - Brookhaven Subdivision Photo 12.11- Neighborhood Development Photo 12.12 - Wilson Park 129 Future Land Use Map Designations (contd.) City Neighborhood Areas are more densely developed than residential neighborhood areas and provide a mix of non-residential and residential uses. This designation supports the widest spectrum of uses and encourages density in all housing types, from single- family to multi -family. Non-residential and commercial uses are primarily located at street intersections and along major corridors. Ideally, commercial uses would have a residential component and vary in size, variety and intensity. The street network should have a high number of intersections creating a system of small blocks with a high level of connectivity between neighborhoods. Building setbacks and landscaping are urban in form with street trees typically being located within the sidewalk zone. Cily Neighborhood Areas encourage complete, compact and connected neighborhoods and are intended to serve the residents of Fayetteville, rather than a regional population. While they encourage dense development patterns, they do recognize existing conventional strip commercial development and their potential for future redevelopment in a more efficient urban layout. The guiding policies for City Neighborhood Areas are: 1. Protect adjoining properties from the potential adverse impacts associated with non- _ residential uses adjacent to, and within, residential areas with proper mitigation measures that address scale, massing, traffic, noise, appearance, lighting, and drainage. 2. Provide non-residential uses that are accessible for the convenience of individuals living in residential districts and where compatibility with existing development patterns is desired. 3. Reduce the length and number of vehicle trips generated by residential development by enhancing the accessibility to these areas. Walkability should be integral to the design of the street and neighborhood shopping should be within a reasonable walking distance from residential uses. 4. Encourage developers to designate and plan for mixed -use corners at the time of approval to properly plan for accessibility to these areas. 5. Encourage pedestrian -friendly mixed -use buildings with transparent glass for commercial uses at street level and building entrances that address and connect to the street and sidewalk. 6. Encourage a block and street layout that promotes walkable, bicycle friendly street designs with slow design speeds. Figure 12.1 - Dover -Kohl DevelopmentTransect Photo 12.13 - Three Sisters on Dickson Street Photo 12.14 - Chestnut Lofts 130 7. Encourage mixed -use development that is sensitive to surrounding residential uses and allows for day and night utilization of available parking. 8. Utilize principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible, livable and accessible neighborhoods. 9. Encourage properties to redevelop in an urban form utilizing form -based zoning designations. 10. Protect and restore Fayetteville's outstanding residential architecture of all periods and styles. 11. Utilize the Master Street Plan and incorporate bike lanes, parkways and landscaped medians to preserve the character of the City and enhance the utilization of alternative modes of transportation. 12. Manage non-residential development within and adjoining residential neighborhoods to minimize nuisances. 13. Minimize through traffic on minor residential streets, while providing connections between neighborhoods to encourage openness and neighborliness. Photo 12.16 - Summerhill Subdivision Photo 12.17 - Hill Place Photo 12.15 - Girl Scouts Building Photo 12.18 - Sycamore Apartments 131 1 L -Traffic Study Please refer to Exhibit B at the end of this report to view the full traffic study generated by Traffic Engineering Consultants, Inc (TEC). Below represents the conclusion portion of their report: "TEC was requested to conduct a traffic impact analysis on a proposed planned zoning district (PZD) development in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Existing traffic volume data was collected adjacent to the proposed development. The 2019 existing traffic was utilized to determine the background traffic for 2022 and 2030 by applying an average annual growth rate of 6%. The 2022 and 2030 design periods were selected as the years the development is estimated to be completed. The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development was determined and distributed among the points of access to the development, as well as the adjacent street intersections. The proposed development traffic was added to the 2022 and 2030 projected background traffic for conducting the reviews and analyses. The analyses conducted under the 2019 existing traffic, 2022 projected background traffic, and 2030 projected background traffic scenarios indicated that the intersections of Deane Solomon Rd. with Emil Dr., Pinehills Dr., and Crane Ct. currently operate and would be expected to continue operating at acceptable levels -of -service during peak hours. Once the proposed site generated traffic was added to the 2022 and 2030 projected background traffic, the intersections and additional development drives would be expected to operate at acceptable levels -of -service with single lane entries and stop control on the minor street. The analyses conducted under the 2022 projected background traffic and 2030 projected background traffic scenarios indicated that the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd. would be expected to operate at acceptable levels -of -service during peak hours. The non- critical northwest bound approach, representing a commercial drive for a car dealership, at the intersection would operate at level -of -service "F". This result likely indicates that while the overall intersection may be operating with an acceptable level -of -service, it may be nearing the need for improvements to maintain those levels in the future. When the proposed site generated traffic was added to the 2022 projected background traffic, the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd. would need to be signalized with existing geometry or converted to a single lane roundabout to operate at acceptable levels -of -service. Once the proposed site generated traffic was added to the 2030 projected background traffic, the intersection would need to be signalized with a southwest bound right turn bay and southeast bound right turn bay or converted to a single lane roundabout with a yield entry southwest bound right turn bay and yield entry southeast bound right turn bay to operate at acceptable levels -of -service. " Any off -site road improvements deemed necessary by the City of Fayetteville as a result of this PZD shall be assessed at the time of development. Fees shall take in to account the percentage increase in traffic caused by each development. Improvements and/or associated fees for the upgrade of Deane Solomon Road shall not be assessed as a result of the development of Planning Area 4. C* Crafton Tull a 1M This development will be served by City of Fayetteville water and sewer infrastructure. Water: An existing 36" water main is located on the east side of Deane Solomon Road. With approval from the City of Fayetteville utility department, this line will be used to service the development. Flow tests will be performed during the design phase in order to ensure the proposed development meets City and State standards. Sanitary Sewer: Two existing gravity sewer mains are located on site. Along the northern portion of the property there is a 48" line and along the southern portion of the property, there is an 8" line. Although not expected, if required by the City, the capacity of the existing network will be evaluated to determine if any downstream improvements are required. Sewer mains will need to be extended through the proposed park land in order to service portions of the development. Easements will be established when the land is deeded to the City. Franchise Utilities: All franchise utilities (phone, cable, electric, gas) currently have infrastructure on or adjacent to the proposed development. Upgrades or extensions will be constructed to meet the demands of the development. 1N 1. Screening and Landscaping: Existing fencing/vegetation on the east side of the property, as well as existing privacy fences along adjacent residential subdivisions will remain untouched. Vegetative buffers will remain in place where utility easements or grading is not required. All development on site whether residential or commercial will be screened as required by City code when adjacent to single family zoning districts. Landscaping will comply with UDC Chapter 177 Landscape Regulations 2. Traffic and Circulation: A traffic study has been provided with this booklet. Please refer to section 11 and Exhibit B of this report. 3. Parking Standards: This development will comply with UDC Chapter 172 Parking and Loading. Specific requirements for each planning area have been described in 1.E.J within this booklet. 4. Perimeter Treatment: As previously mentioned, existing fencing on the north, west and southeast sides of the development will remain. Existing vegetative buffers will remain in place where utility easements are not required. Utility easements may impact some of these areas No privacy fencing will be allowed within Planning Area 4 which will provide an open feeling and increase visibility/security. Street and lot trees will be provided as required by the UDC. Vegetative screenings will be planted in areas as required by the UDC. C40 Crafton Tull a 1N 5. Sidewalks: This development will construct sidewalks to promote connectivity with the proposed park trail network and the adjacent neighborhoods. Public sidewalks will be constructed per City details. 6. Streetlights: Streetlights will be provided and installed as required by City Ordinance. 7. Water: The development will be serviced by the City of Fayetteville. Waterline size and location will be reviewed during the large scale development / preliminary plat process for this project. 8. Sewer: The development will be serviced by the City of Fayetteville. Sanitary sewer line size and location will be reviewed during the large scale development / preliminary plat process for this project. 9. Streets and Drainage: Streets will be designed to meet the City's minimum street section standards. If alternate street sections are required, a variance will be applied for at the time of development. Storm drainage pipes and the retention pond will be sized to meet the requirements set forth in the City of Fayetteville Drainage Criteria Manual. 10.Construction of Nonresidential Facilities: The PZD in general will contain a mix of residential and non-residential/commercial buildings. Non-residential structures will comply with City of Fayetteville UDC Chapter 166.25 — Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Design and/or UDC Chapter 166.24 Nonresidential Design Standards. Structure heights will be limited to the height requirements set forth within this PZD. Please refer to section 1.E of this report for further information. 11.Tree Preservation: Site plans for each planning area when developed will be done so with open space and significant trees in mind in order to maximize the preservation of tree canopy where possible. This will help to enhance the look and feel of the total development and park land areas. The development will comply with the standards set forth in UDC Chapter 167 for Tree Preservation and Protection. Planning Area 1 will meet the requirements associated with the City's R-O zoning district (20%). Planning Area 2 will meet the requirements associated with the NS-G zoning district (20%). Planning Area 3 will meet the requirements associated with the P-1 zoning district (25%). Lastly, Planning Area 4 will meet the requirements associated with the RMF-24 zoning district (20%). utv Crafton Tull 1N Prior to the 22.5 acre donation of park land, we will work with Parks staff to designate groups of trees within this area and Planning Area 3 that can be placed in tree preservation easements. The square footage within these easements may be used as offsite preservation in the event a development within this PZD is unable to meet the minimum canopy requirements at the time of development. A log of the total square footage will be computed and shown on each tree preservation/planting plan associated with this PZD in order to track the amount previously used. In the event any future development within this PZD requires the planting of mitigation trees and on -site mitigation is not possible, the designated offsite planting location shall be the proposed park area. Planting within the proposed park area will be done so in coordination with City parks staff. 12.Architectural Design Standards: This development will comply with City of Fayetteville UDC Chapter 166.25 — Commercial, Office and Mixed Use Design and Development standards, as well as, UDC Chapter 166.23 — Urban Residential Design Standards. When applicable within Planning Area 2, developments will comply with UDC Chapter 166.24 Nonresidential Design Standards. 13. Proposed Signage: All signage proposed will comply with UDC Chapter 174 Signs. Refer to section 1.F for each planning area and the associated zoning district regarding signage. 14. View Protection: The development will be constructed at the old Razorback Golf course location. Both current zonings on site restrict building heights to a maximum of 3 stories. Adjacent neighborhoods to the north and northeast will not be affected by the development because they will be directly adjacent to the 65 acre proposed park. Adjacent neighborhoods to the east and southeast will be across from Planning Area 2. This planning area will have a building height restriction of 3 stories and will not impact views anymore that they would if the property was developed under the current zoning. Views from the south and southwest adjacent neighborhoods may be impacted by the development of Planning Area 4. Vegetative screenings and setbacks will be installed/enforced as required within this PZD. Currently the west and northwest sides of the property are undeveloped. 15. Covenants, Trusts, and Homeowner Associations: NA 4fth' Crafton Tull 10 We feel that this development meets both the intent and purpose of the Planned Zoning District. Code Section 161.35.B for Planned Zoning Districts states that the City Council may consider certain factors while reviewing a PZD application. Below are how we address each of the specific factors. Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. o This PZD allows us to develop a portion of the property at a higher density than would be allowable under the current zoning. By doing so it offsets costs and opens up almost half of the property to become a public park. The PZD will also allow for the development of businesses and offices that will provide both jobs and services for the surrounding community Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. o The most dense multi -family planning area is tucked within the southern portion of the property adjacent to a subdivision of duplex homes and will be across Deane Solomon from property currently zoned NS-G and RMF-24. The park will help to buffer the neighborhoods to the north and northeast. The other areas will help to serve as mixed use areas of medium intensity. This PZD promotes a walkable, pedestrian -oriented neighborhood development form with sustainable and complementary neighborhood businesses that are compatible in scale, aesthetics, and use with surrounding land uses. Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. o All sides of the property are residential in nature. This PZD gives us the creativity and opportunity to provide both residential and commercial uses as well as provide a 65 acre public park for all citizens of Fayetteville. Natural areas will be preserved. Adjacent neighborhoods will now be able to walk to a park and businesses that they would previously have to drive across town to enjoy. Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. o This PZD will allow us to provide attainable housing, commercial opportunities and public park space not currently available in this area. • No Negative Impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the area. o This development will have no negative impact on future development of the area. �rU) Crafton Tull Wel Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. o Throughout the pre -application process, we've coordinated with City of Fayetteville officials in regards to Planning, Engineering, Urban Forestry and Parks as well as some neighbors to the property. There will be continued coordination throughout the approval process to ensure all ideas are heard and regulations are met. Open Space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. o As proposed, this PZD requires the dedication of 12.04 acres of park land. 15.5 acres is being dedicated and will be banked to account for any residential development that may take place. 22.5 acres will be donated to the City. In total this will provide a 65 acre park, the largest within Fayetteville, for all citizens to enjoy. Natural Features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities. o 65 acres of natural area will be preserved with the approval of this PZD. Land will be both dedicated as required and donated. Vegetative buffers around the perimeter of the property will remain largely intact. Site grading will be planned to provide as minimal impact to existing natural features as possible. Future Land Use Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed used yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the Future Land Use Plan. o The City of Fayetteville's future land use (2040) map designates this area as both city neighborhood and a residential neighborhood. Almost all of the park land is designated as natural area. The proposed park location as well as Planning Area 4 will comply with the guiding policies of the natural area and city neighborhood area use designation. Depending on how Planning Areas 1 & 2 are developed they may or may not comply with the residential neighborhood area use designation. If developed as commercial they will not comply. Either way, we feel that this is an appropriate location for a PZD of this nature. C40 Crafton Tull a 10 Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. o The site will be designed with all of these in mind. The residential area will be located on top of the hill and overlook the park. Commercial areas will front both the park and existing streets making them more accessible on foot. An existing pond will be utilized to control storm water. Topography, shape and the size of the property will play a role in how both streets and utilities were laid out. • Recognized Zoning Consideration. Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD. o No other recognized zoning consideration will be violated in this PZD. CUD Crafton Tull PLAT INFORMATION UNDERWOOD DEVELOPMENT PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS wICINITY MAP ZONING I Oct- , IRO It C T TOo, I 0 1W VICINITY MAP CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLAT PAGE . .......... ...... T, .......... .............. ... ...... .. .... ............ �vICINITY MAP MASTER STREET PLAN Till - ........... i —R R10111020 —E-11 IL RVMORS 524 W. 4 AYFATF. NSA. 72703 OFF )6 F f—fi--i AOIhon xm M 1534 IKSO 12 1� :1%14V 1 ()R1 DR F AN F.MV171F, AR KM.'IDPAWINIIMHTP 0 'EMIL MIT PAGI: 2 OF 2 Crafton Tull ,7, 6i UNDERWOOD DEVELOPMENT PZD FAYEETEVILLE, AR ISSUED FOR REVIEW COVER SHEET I SURVEY C-00 I LEGEND UNDERWOOD DEVELOPMENT-PZD IN= ❑ NEWIM ZONING & DEVELOPMENT STANDARD`. ,n. �4 � � Crofton Tull w. BY PLANNING AREA `----- ----- • 5[�iERGN PIN EIGxi PRE [XIRiIMG RRMO FX SiING FA41[ f YN[NI _ a iRNO RW PIN ==�---------- RUINING C EIRII PR[ EX ..�� X RIGx, a •Av � - �O� ,r•......,..., ,.� PARK LAND � •l ��•._ .,_1 � +/-W ACRES �� rrw m _ PLANNING Ak � UNDERWOOD ' ---- I DEVELOPMENT PZD -=—._ - FAYEIIEVIILE. AR sxwne-T J' AiWhar ,�xy ,w:yawv mwaws...y x, .unurew•e:+.x c:x_wu.wua,...n_ o-,_.wwrvr�.+, cwu-vw.w'w+'. � •... -� .+ o�msanhv,a _ %.a I i ,co,P. r,=...Nw nww.rrn.a Jry,•�— _.- -- - — �. Y -, REIE INRE. A. ISUED FOR s-Io.rtD - REVIEW Al -i JVMENI I ♦ Y fl< ,rIING AREA .... n.,:.Nw..Nie... .x .,r+nw.,P. • . NRUAI pX' - ~ UNDERWOOD DEVELOPMENT-PZD; ' y k A • Grafton Tull MASTER PLAN f -- _ _ ADR NSAS �. w ¢w E SYIIBGS LQC'tl8K / :., /, ,y PA[ANI 50 [ASF1Ext [M-- - - - N WRB Eg51111G OMB � / "- � f umr Fal w #j noa, �Ft [xrsnxcwan axxa<fxE xrotwry urc _ _ 1 _ / _.__ ��' i .1 P x �n-fK - - - - - - SxY•d tun a MnxLn u yxF Aces Y ' FLNNINE, A111 +/151.S ACRE eo — orUNDERW r • + �' aNN�N 1 DEVELOPMENT � DEVELOPMENT PZD wWnmimoe tee. • L..-- I - FAIIETI M,AR -._. _.. �_�._i f.. I - ..: ARCS J�x iAll ,f EN PLAN C-003 EXHIBIT A - ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS R�DOnuTFv �s o� Hsu Rxo coulx �r:Di PoLS of 1 11 [¢ IX T 11 swlKts puN'.L pRK T •rtivpT hpsipu IKn @T@�Nc T. xp_t xxo Rcp oR olrregk.[: toTiW E/♦M EPIKA�rusu ussETOLrl�s. PEN[TWirpis�T _ [ui IMER'[TP'nKx�[�CG xfT4LlD cM Bc1u SW ENO 4art5Nanl 11.1i tD RfaNsir �CwrTriP= tuE�nxur', ICYtr (RlrJ Rt4tpx4@TUE n.—I rx O![9rrd TbCxT@U� iaµ�Ythl Txi ICOxTM[TOx'9 RlSPoxbbLrTr TO RlN1r1RlC T—T TORT [ O—Rb —1—T EXTERIOR ELEVATION at FRONT e EXTERIOR ELEVATION at REVERSE O�S1r eEXTERIOR ELEVATION at SIDE + 5rnb 114°.I'-0' e4EXTERIOR ELEVATION at SIDE $,oW 1/4'-1'-0* mm wu�'�`uea��ro orreTMiron w:c +nmrcmc wn� er.rnuu, snx.w wmcrwr, rxr-ry rvrrnu ro wwr. arts rr erwc ruwYc rnrtwua.:evnin� �w�wm nn"ems rown an feij �o-c ru �� aearia uw �evaae rm^ rye .w � �awwn raw m ww``S lgdtftr on Ulu ��I MEMO �� iain — ��i dd��dl - BE End �� 0 i sla i .. -r d didrm rm��,� � ►aio .mmm. M■AIM 1mia', II q 1■, I it■q■I■,' dd' ,fall _iwuui ■ d d ; `� did � did = I -.._. I! n n no d�d _ t `— maw, u Y u win ■ an " II li win m mg, Y nomppp- 11dol. li W—mr— a FOE 0 FOE jul-Raffiallaulaw — WINE map 0101 did did a U Emig tralra � did: dl®� ' il� ��' �� d�1 �' rolaroNOW Il a a ■ .AIM fulro & i -0 inns III& FiFw Firm als GLO n::n �Mlffikik on On NEI no I .24 .1 M lu NMI ■ eEXTERIOR ELEVATION at NORTH ELEV Scale : I/B'-I:_Or eEXTERIOR ELEVATION at EAST EV Scale : 1/B'-I'-0" (� EXTERIOR ELEVATION at WEST ELEV 5cak 1/8'-1'-0' EXTERIOR ELEVATION at SOUTH ELEv S.I. 1/6'.1 -0' GC �D Pl 1. r✓:W«G RlDD iD Ir 01«LDI«D w.TER T-T n!-«ooa, . n.Tnu.c io r..s« uo cairn !ua« .«T we .0 :Rw w«ni�D:sem w.rzRuu rair n Dann swa.ua r.xD! aRNTaI u vie. r ru«wR ro n To nlevwr roT` AT arnxu T«D ww`uo w m uu:Rrni n I. >w1 x « AT .r- .wrr 1AT Il' vxi euc`a.:es. s*Uc°wa`�e '+s«r. an wo vnu.i��,wcsoD — w ruauu. a :w+T+ulD a eor« wus .«.«! uwriWa�4�T bOVC vRD.Rtf11 �xG ton it Rn (RTC) tax'rRY.i nR wK.FDW[C:xTaksiKM :! —TT11 T 11-11 11 -1 1 rw-wfu.1 uD_mCr 1.—, MD .rfRM[IM: aJ.11r1 V M! MJRR �r1—D — TO -1 M =nl =1:i nAl I Y— 1 'V•KI M« 5 ",Zvs� i t.00 e e errD w.r�rni.rurn - H s....:1,T CU TM s?R DN , 4R ELEV o�.00e� ao z CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO ARKANSAS TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jonathan Curth, Development Review Manager MEETING: June 8, 2020 (Updated with Planning Commission Results) SUBJECT: CPZD 20-7093: Commercial Planned Zoning District (NW OF DEANE SOLOMON RD & LORI DRJUNDERWOOD DEV., 246-285): Submitted by CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties located NW OF DEANE SOLOMON RD. & LORI DR. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, & NS-L, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES -LIMITED and contains approximately 128.54 acres. The request is to rezone the property to CPZD for a mixed -use development that includes City parkland and 602 multi -family units with associated parking. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding C-PZD 20-7093 to the City Council with a recommendation of approval with conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to forward C-PZD 20-7093 to the City Council, with a recommendation of approval and with conditions as recommended by staff." MAY 26, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On May 26, 2020, the Planning Commission tabled the item to afford the applicant time to evaluate Commission comments and concerns. This included, but is not limited to how the development will address the proposed parkland, the potential for development north of Clabber Creek, and the request for additional details on building and street layout. The applicant has not proposed revisions and addresses Commissioner comments in the attached letter. BACKGROUND: The subject property includes multiple parcels totaling 128.54 acres on the west side of Deane Solomon Road, between Emil and Vanike Drives to the south and north. The property was used for many years as the Razorback Golf Course which has closed for business. The property is largely cleared from its previous use as a golf course, however there are notable fencerow and other trees throughout. Notable topographic features of the property include an approximately 6- acre artificial pond and a section of the Clabber Creek riparian corridor. Clabber Creek enters the northeastern extents of the property from Wilson Springs to the east, before flowing to the southwest on to adjacent property. 100-year floodplain and floodway associated with Clabber Creek encumber approximately 35 acres of the property. The surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1. Planning Commission June 8, 2020 Agenda Item 5 20-7093 Underwood Page 1 of 59 Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Single-family Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre South Large Lot Single-family Residential, Two-family Residential R-A, Residential -Agricultural, RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units per Acre East Undeveloped (Wilson Springs) Single-family Residential Two-family Residential Springwoods C-PZD, NS-G, Neighborhood Services, General, RI-12, Residential Intermediate, 12 Units per Acre West Undeveloped RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 Units per Acre Proposal: The proposal is to rezone the property to a planned zoning district (PZD) for mixed -use development, parkland dedication, and 602 multi -family dwelling units. Four planning areas are proposed along with property intended for future public park. These areas, their relative locations, and intended development are described below: Planning Area 1 (16 acres): Centrally located on the property and setback from Deane Solomon Road and west of the existing large pond, Planning Area 1 is intended for office use principally, with allowances for small-scale nonresidential and residential development comparable to the R-O, Residential Office zoning district. Residential density is variable as proposed, with four units per acre for 10 years before increasing to 24 units per acre after ten years. • Planning Area 2 (16 acres): Located along Deane Solomon Road and east of the existing large pond, Planning Area 2 is intended to provide neighborhood -oriented nonresidential uses of a smaller scale along with single-, 2-, 3-, and 4-family dwellings. Residential density is proposed at 18 units per acre. These standards are comparable to the NS-G, Neighborhood Services zoning district. • Planning Area 3 (15 acres): Includes the large pond on the property and is intended for the dual-purpose of meeting stormwater requirements and offering a water feature amenity. The zoning standards most closely resemble those of the P-1, Institutional zoning district that is typically associated with parks. • Planning Area 4 (21.5 acres): Represents the southern portion of the property with access to both Deane Solomon Road and the future extension of Emil Drive. Permitted uses include all residential building types, from single- to multi -family, along with small- scale nonresidential uses. Density is proposed at 21.5 units per acre. • Parkland (approx. 50 acres): Represents the entirety of Clabber Creek, and areas adjacent to its floodway between Deane Solomon and the property to the west. Since the May 26th, 2020 Planning Commission, the following changes were made to the submitted PZD booklet: Permitted Uses in Planning Area 1 were increased to include Unit 13, Eating Places, Unit 15, Neighborhood Shopping Goods, Unit 40, Sidewalk Cafes, Unit 42, Clean Technologies, and Unit 45 Small -Scale Production. • Permitted Uses in Planning Area 2 were increased to include Unit 13, Eating Places, Unit 16, Shopping Goods, Unit 25, Offices, studios, and related services, and Unit 45 Small - Scale Production. Staff recommends relocation of Use Unit 16 to conditional uses to reflect its allowance of large nonresidential buildings and their potential impacts. Planning Commission G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2020\Develo ment Services\20-7093 CPZD June a. Item 5 p p Agenda Item 5 NW of Deane Solomon Rd & Lori Dr. (Underwood Dev.) 246-285\03 PC\ 20-7093 Underwood Page 2 of 59 Public Comment: Staff has received numerous calls and inquiries about the project, but no statements of support or opposition. At an associated Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting there were several members of the public that supported the potential for a large park for northeast Fayetteville. More recently, during the May 26, 2020 Planning Commission members of the public spoke in support of the applicant's proposal and against development of the land along the subject property's northern border where residents assert flooding is an issue. INFRASTRUCTURE: Given the large area under consideration and the multiple parcels that make up the subject property, the following comments have been generalized in relation to the areas of proposed development. Streets: The subject property has access to Deane Solomon Road and Lori Drive. Deane Solomon Road is a partially improved Neighborhood Link with asphalt paving and open ditches along the property's frontage. Lori Drive is a partially improved Residential Link with asphalt paving. Additionally, Planning Area 4 will have access to the extension of Emil Drive that is to be constructed with the Crystal Springs subdivision to the west. Emil Drive is a Residential Link and will be constructed with asphalt paving and curb and gutter along the subject area's frontage. Any street improvements required in these areas would be determined at the time of development proposal, and shall be roughly proportional to the amount of impact caused by development on the city's transportation network. Any additional improvements or requirements for drainage will be determined at time of development. Water: Public water is available to the parcel by way of existing 8-inch and 6-inch mains along the southern boundary, and a 12-inch main that runs along Deane Solomon Road. Water main extensions will be required with development, with the extent being determined by the type of development proposed. Sewer: Sanitary Sewer is available to the site. The subject property is split between two basins, with Lori Drive being the approximate boundary between the basins to the north and south. An existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main is present on the southern boundary of the subject area. An existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main is present along the east side of Deane Solomon Road from the northeast corner of the overall property to Crane Court. An existing 48-inch sanitary sewer transmission main is present along the subject area's northern boundary that can provide sanitary sewer access with main extensions. The determination of main extensions and any sewer capacity analyses will be determined with the type of development proposed. Drainage: The northernmost portion of this property is identified as FEMA-regulated floodplain and floodway in association with Clabber Creek. Clabber Creek is also a protected stream. Hydric soils appear to be present in over half of the property, but no portion is identified as within the Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District. Fire: The Fire Department did not express concerns with this request. The site will be protected by Station 7, located at 835 North Rupple, with an anticipated response time of 6 minutes. This is within the response time goal of 6 minutes for an engine and 8 minutes for a ladder truck within the City limits. Planning Commission G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2020\Develo ment Services\20-7093 CPZD Junes, Item 5 P p Agenda Item 5 NW of Deane Solomon Rd & Lori Dr. (Underwood Dev.) 246-285\03 PC\ 20-7093 Underwood Page 3 of 59 In the future, a new fire station located near the intersection of Deane Street and Porter Road will service this property with an anticipated response time of approximately 4.2 minutes. Police: The Police Department did not comment on this request. CITY PLAN 2040 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2040's Future Land Use Plan designates the properties within the proposed rezone as Natural, Residential Neighborhood, and City Neighborhood Areas. Natural Areas are those approximating wilderness conditions and possessing limited development potential. Accordingly, any development proposal ought to encourage sensitivity to the degradation of riparian corridors, wetlands, and the like. Residential Neighborhood Areas are primarily residential in nature and support a variety of housing types of appropriate scale and context, including single-family, multi -family, and rowhouses. Development is encouraged to be highly -connected, with compact blocks, grid street pattern and reduced setbacks. Low -intensity non-residential uses are encouraged at appropriate locations, such as on corners and connecting corridors. City Neighborhood Areas are more densely developed than residential neighborhood areas and provide a varying mix of nonresidential and residential uses. This designation supports the widest spectrum of uses and encourages density in all housing types. CITY PLAN 2040 INFILL MATRIX: City Plan 2040's Infill Matrix indicates a varying score for the subject property, ranging from 0 to 5. This translates to a score of 0 to 6 per the Planning Commission's weighting system. The elements vary by the area of the property being considered, and include the following: • Appropriate Future Land Use Map (City Neighborhood Area for southern area) • Near an Elementary School (Holcomb) • Near Trail (Clabber Creek Trail) • Near Park (Gary Hampton Softball Complex) • Near Water Main (Deane Solomon Road, Emil Drive) • Near Sewer Main (Deane Solomon Road, Emil Drive) FINDINGS OF THE STAFF A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. Finding: Land Use Compatibility: The development incorporates a range of permitted uses, both residential and nonresidential, with the primary development by area and intensity being conventional garden apartment buildings. While a proposal for such single -use development on its own may pose compatibility issues with nearby properties, the potential for services and amenities within the PZD area reduces the negative impacts that are associated with increased residential density without commensurate opportunities for nearby employment, recreating, and shopping. Land Use Plan Analysis: As standalone planning areas, the applicant's proposal is only somewhat complimentary to City's land use plans, but taken Planning Commission GAETC\Development Services Review\2020\Development Services\20-7093 CPZD June 8. Agenda Itemem 5 5 NW of Deane Solomon Rd & Lori Dr. (Underwood Dev.) 246-285\03 PC\ 20-7093 Underwood Page 4 of 59 as a whole, it is consistent with the planning objectives put forth in City Plan 2040. Although intended specifically for residential or nonresidential development, each planning area allows for a mixture of uses that promote complete neighborhoods and serve the needs of both nearby residents and those further afield. In an area of Fayetteville that is woefully lacking in services, creating access to restaurants, jobs, and retail can facilitate fewer vehicle trips and promote transportation alternatives. At the same time, the proposed dedication and donation of parkland can create an area that serves as a communitywide amenity and furthers the establishment of an enduring green network. Similarly, the proposed PZD respects the varied future land use map designations on the property. While Clabber Creek and its associated riparian corridor will remain undeveloped, and in -line with the Natural Area designation, the most intense and dense development will be located further south in Residential and City Neighborhood Areas. This will place additional housing and services in closer proximity to the Tier 3 Center envisioned by City Plan 2040's Growth Concept Map at Shiloh and Deane Solomon. All told, staff finds the proposed PZD, with its associated proposal for parkland to be compatible and consistent with existing land uses and adopted land use plans. 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed. Finding: Staff finds that the proposed zoning is justified and needed to accommodate development of this area. Paralleling national trends in the golf course industry, Razorback Golf Course endured declining success before going out of business. Given this site's proximity to existing roads, utility infrastructure, and surrounding development, it is justified to rezone the property for mixed -use development. 3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The proposed PZD zoning will increase traffic, and possibly to a significant degree. Currently, Deane Solomon is a largely -unimproved Neighborhood Link, but with direct access to Mount Comfort Road to the south and Van Asche Drive to the north. Staff anticipates on- and off -site street improvements being necessary to off -set the potential number of trips generated by residential and nonresidential uses to and from the subject property. This will be reviewed in greater detail at the time of development submittal. 4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer facilities. Finding: Development under the existing or proposed zoning will increase density on the property. Although capacity review is necessary for the adequacy of existing water and sanitary sewer mains, these facilities are present and Planning Commission GAETC\Develo ment Services Review\20201Develo ment Services\20-7093 CPZD June a, Item 5 p p Agenda Item 5 NW of Deane Solomon Rd & Lori Dr. (Underwood Dev.) 246-285\03 PC\ 20-7093 Underwood Page 5 of 59 accessible from the site. Otherwise, Fayetteville Public Schools has not submitted comment. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as: a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning classifications; b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable. Finding: N/A Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD) (B) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage comprehensively planned zoning and developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit the concurrent processing of zoning and development. The City Council may consider any of the following factors in review of a Planned Zoning District application. (1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts. (2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses. (3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are harmonious and beneficial to the community. (4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities. (5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of the area; (6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas. (7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under conventional land development regulations. (8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities. (9) Future Land Use Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the Future Land Use Plan. (10)Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of geographic location, topography, size or shape. (11)Recognized zoning consideration. Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD. Findings: As outlined in previous findings, staff finds the proposed PZD to be in agreement many of the factors encouraged in a planned zoning district, Planning Commission r m G \ETC\Develo ment Services Review\2020\Develo ent Sevices\20-7093 CPZD June a. Item 5 p p Agenda Item 5 NW of Deane Solomon Rd & Lori Dr. (Underwood Dev.) 246-285\03 PC\ 20-7093 Underwood Page 6 of 59 including land use compatibility, flexibility, variety, and harmony with the tenets of Fayetteville's Future Land Use Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding C-PZD 20-7093 to City Council recommending in favor of the proposal, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. §167.04, Tree Preservation and Protection During Development, requires a 25% minimum canopy preservation for Planned Zoning Districts, unless the applicant has been approved for on -site mitigation or off -site alternatives. At this point, alternatives to on -site preservation have not been approved and the proposed percent minimum canopy should be revised to 25%; 2. Staff recommends revision of the proposed variable density allowance in Planning Area 1 to a consistent 24 units per acre; 3. Staff recommends relocation of Unit 16, Shopping Goods, from Permitted Uses to Conditional Uses in Planning Area 2. The allowance for nonresidential buildings of unlimited size represents the potential for impacts leading to incompatibility with surrounding land uses, and is more appropriately subject to heightened conditional use review; and 4. Staff recommends removal of language in Section 1 L noting that "Improvements and/or associated fees for the upgrade of Deane Solomon Road shall not be assessed as a result of the development of Planning Area 4." All final street improvements will be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of development review. At that time, staff will have the necessary information, including but not limited to traffic studies, street layouts, proposed uses, and number of residential units, to comprehensively recommend improvements necessary for vehicular and pedestrian safety, and preservation of levels of service. Waiver of street improvements is not typical to zoning entitlement and an applicant may pursue other avenues to reduce expenses, including a cost -share or similar mechanism that may be considered by City Council. Planning Commission Action: Meeting Date: June 8, 2020 Motion: See below. Second: See below. Vote: See below. M Forwarded O Tabled O Denied Planning Commission June 8, 2020 GAETC\Development Services Review\2020\Development Services\20-7093 CPZD Agenda Item 5 NW of Deane Solomon Rd & Lori Dr. (Underwood Dev.) 246-285\03 PC\ 20-7093 Underwood Page 7 of 59 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • Cover Letter • PZD Booklet— REVISED REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH CURRENT REQUEST FOR • PZD Plats THE JULY 7, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING (Exhibit'C') • Architectural Examples (Available upon request) • One Mile Map • Close Up Map • Current Land Use Map • Future Land Use Map Note: PZD Booklet Appendix B: Traffic Study available as supplemental document Motion #1 Motion: Hoffman, to include the following condition: 50% of the park's full perimeter shall have lots that feature buildings fronting the park. Lots may be adjoining the park or separated from the park by a street as long as buildings include front doors to the park. No portion of the perimeter, either developed or undeveloped shall be exempt from this. This shall be a development requirement, with variances subject to Planning Commission consideration. Second: Johnson Vote: 9-0-0 Motion #2 Motion: Hoffman, to include the following condition: In Planning Areas where conventional building setbacks are proposed, these shall be replaced by 0 to 25-foot build -to zones. All Planning Areas shall have a 50% minimum buildable frontage requirement for lots, with contributing built frontage established by adjacency to either public street or parkland. This shall be a zoning requirement, with reductions subject to staff approval and variances subject to Board of Adjustment consideration. Second: Johnson Vote: 8-1-0, Brown voted 'no' I ds . .. .-W Motion: Belden, as recommended by staff, with the two additional conditions approved by the Commission Second: Johnson Vote: 9-0-0 GAETC\Development Services Review\2020\Development Services\20-7093 CPZD NW of Deane Solomon Rd & Lori Dr. (Underwood Dev.) 246-285\03 PC\ Planning Commission June 8.2020 Agenda Item 5 20-7093 Underwood Page 8 of 59 Agenda Item 5 20-7093 Underwood Page 56 of 59 PZD20-7093 Close Up View UNDERWOOD-RAZORBACK GC -CRYSTAL-DR-,z;j VANIKE DR — I z > TIGER o E DEY R r-1 w F— aTOPAZ�� ■ R- ■ • • • • • • ♦ • RSF-a RSF-I • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■was a Nei a jIF ■ U/ w to a z w Y Legend Planning Area — _ Fayetteville City Limits Shared Use Paved Trail Trail (Proposed) Design Overlay District Building Footprint 2 z 0 QUAIL --DR Z � a Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1 inch = 600 feet HARR\e 0 z —O 2 O .J O U) LU FLO Q o CCU PURPLEa PN�,ax LIV ( P/11 ILLS • DR' PINE WOE PRIVATE RUN D� 2580 I J LORI DR MILLION ) LN IMOORE LN—MORE EMIL DR LN A& NORTH 8N Residential -Agricultural RSF-1 RSF-4 RI-12 .sill RMF-24 C-2 - Neighborhood Services - Ltd. 1 ,%6� Neighborhood Services - Gen. Neighborhood Conservation Commercial, Industrial. Residential nos P-1 Planning � I., Fe 8. 2020 Agenda Item 5 20-7093 Underwood Page 57 of 59 PZD20-7093 UNDERWOOD-RAZORBACK GC _ Current Land Use NORTH t CRYSTAL-DR'p Z ! -- Single -Family Residential DR - �. e Z iil W> 1 - TIGER_ -` -'EYE DR i -OPAZ DR �` ♦ 'j r r ' FLORA4 , �► J, Air uRPLE4 �I'LTA Subject Property Jr CRANE , .- ' t ji CT I Mixed -Density +rl,, Residential Undeveloped r - .R Z ILLS DR PRIVATE=RjN DR -, ' F.GOYO a ;A- t MILLION +► �. L N LORI DR t OZ M00RE LN—JMOORE s W r :; V . EMIL ? DR o w p r_ p QUAIL DR Q Z Mixed -Density Residential Shared Use Paved Trail "fill, Trail (Proposed) _; Planning Area Fayetteville City Limits Design Overlay District Feet 0 220 440 880 1.320 1 inch = 600 feet 1,760 FEMA Flood Hazard Data . 100-Year Floodplain Floodway Planning CoInmission 8, 2020 Agenda Item 5 20-7093 Underwood Page 58 of 59 PZD20-7093 Future Land Use CRYSTAL Q ..I LLI w TIGER Q EYE DR C a I rTOPAZ DR' UNDERWOOD-RAZORBACK Natural s� ResideA I Neighborhiod ■■■ man ■■Mel 9 Civic Institutional VANIKE DR r-Q—QUAIL-DR IZ Z D Q1J Legend Planning Area ' Fayetteville City Limits L__� Trail (Proposed) Design Overlay District Building Footprint Subject Property City Neighborhood OOYOT� Feet 0 220 440 880 1,320 1 inch = 600 feet NORTH — HAF-0 Q 0' z O O -J O 0 w Q,F 04.YYc 0,1 PHLOX LN C RAt CT 9 N DRl HILLS9�,M DANI WOLF � PRIVATE RUN D,q LN 2580 1. MILLION L N MOORE LN—MOORE LN EMIL D R City Neighborhood zCivic Institutional Civic and Private Open Space Industrial I♦ Natural Non -Municipal Government 1,760 Residential Neighborhood Rural Residential Urban Center Planning C mission 101 8.2020 Agenda Item 5 20-7093 Underwood Page 59 of 59 Curth, Jonathan From: Jessica Adler <jsscarbt@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 2:54 PM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. For the consideration of the Fayetteville Planning Department - The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. We cannot continue to build more and more housing to bring in more and more people without considering the addition on greenspace (or schools) to go along with it. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Regards, Jessica Adler Curth, Jonathan From: Janie Baber <janie.baber@my.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 6:51 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Development of Razorback Golf Course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Curth, My husband Mark and I have lived fir six years in The Pines at Springwoods condominium complex off Deane Solomon Rd. We love Fayetteville. We urge you and the Planning Commission to support the current 65-acre park development of the Razorback Golf Course in its current form and move it forward from the Planning Commission to the City Council. A park on this side of town would truly be a gift to all local residents. Please do not delay this proposal. Thank you, Janie & Mark Baber 870-208-6879 Sent from myMail for iOS From: Marty Brown To: Planning Shared Subject: Underwood Development. Date: Saturday, June 6, 2020 2:19:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. I have known The Underwood family for over 30 years and they always put the City of Fayetteville first. Please support this. Sent from my Whone. Marty Curth, Jonathan From: Stacey Buff <staceybuff@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 12:32 PM Subject: Underwood Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Stacey Buff Curth, Jonathan From: Pam Burton <pamelarburton@att.net> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 2:54 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Community Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Our family hopes that the Planning Commission will vote in favor of the 65 acre park on the site of the Razorback Golf Club. Please move this proposal to the City Council for their vote. Pam Burton Fayetteville resident Sent from my Whone Curth, Jonathan From: Vonita Carpenter <vcarpe2n@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 9:46 PM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: 65-Acre Community Park for West Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Planning Commission and Jonathan Curth Please vote yes for the proposed 65-acre community park for west Fayetteville. This will be a good addition for our neighborhood. Please accept the PZD as it currently stands. Vonita Carpenter 2419 W Bordeaux Fayetteville, AR 72704 Curth, Jonathan From: Seth Carter <ws.carter@live.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 2:35 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: RZB Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Curth, The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Sent from my iPhone Curth, Jonathan From: Dorothy Cassat <dorothy.cassat@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 2:35 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: proposed development of Razorback Golf Course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Dorothy Cassat Curth, Jonathan From: Sherry Dixon <sherry.a.dixon@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 4:47 PM To: Planning Shared Cc: Curth, Jonathan; Turk, Teresa; Smith, Kyle Subject: Support for PZD / Community Park on old Razorback Golf Course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Members of the Fayetteville Planning Commission - I ask that the Planning Commission fully support the Underwood's PZD proposal which includes a 65 acre community park on the former Razorback Golf Course. As a resident of the Clabber Creek neighborhood, I believe a city park / protected green space in West Fayetteville would be invaluable to my family and neighbors. A private gift of this magnitude is very rare and it would be a shame if the city fails to take advantage of the opportunity to enhance our community with the proposed park and instead chooses to pursue the highest possible density of residential development on this property. My personal opinion is that additional development in W Fayetteville should be mindful of balancing use of the existing land here. Simply building as many houses and apartments as possible is problematic. We are then in a situation where there is no place for amenities and businesses that add tremendous value to the neighborhoods and make the area more enjoyable for the residents. There is also a lot of concern among the neighbors regarding traffic and storm water runoff if this property were to be developed with the intent to maximize residential units. I hope you will consider voices like mine and support this proposed community park in W Fayetteville. Thank you for your time - Sherry Dixon Curth, Jonathan From: Vickie Estes <vickienell@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 8:30 PM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: 65-acre Community Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Our family hopes you (our Planning Commission) will make the best decision for our city and vote in favor of the 65-acre Community Park and PZD - Underwood Development. Please move this project forward to the City Council with your 100% approval. Sincerely, Vickie Estes Curth, Jonathan From: Wendy Florick <jwlflorick@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 11:03 AM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Park for west Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Curth, My family moved from the Wilson Park area to west Fayetteville two years ago. As much as we love our new neighborhood, a community park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. In the time we have lived here, permission for several new residential developments has already been passed by the city council. To delay the proposal for the 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is to squander the incredible gift to the community that the Underwoods have generously granted. To insist on a new PZD proposal that would increase the housing on the north side of the park separates the current neighbors from the park, shrinks the park, adds population density and adds cost to the project. Please do not delay the current proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to consider your constituents and accept the proposed PZD-Underwood Development. Sincerely, Wendy Florick 3068 N. Bentley Rdg. Curth, Jonathan From: Kimberly Gasner <kimgasner@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 10:56 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Proposed 65-Acre Community Park in West Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Curth. My name is Kim Gasner. I live at 2335 West Crane Court. I am asking that you please move the proposal of the 65-acre Community Park in West Fayetteville to the City Council without further hesitation. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in West Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been researched and developed for many months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted. The Underwood's have welcomed input in order to make this proposal acceptable. Developers in the past have proposed plans that were never acceptable. This is the only plan that has received wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. My family and I are in favor of the proposed PZD- Underwood Development. Sincerely, Kim Gasner Curth, Jonathan From: Cathy Hairston <cathyhairston365@gmai1.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 5:48 PM To: Curth, Jonathan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Cathy Hairston <cathyhairston365(a,gmail.com> 5:46 PM (( The westside of town is filled with young families that could benefit from a large planned park for multiple activities. We live beside Wilson Park and witness the enjoyment of a park space daily, year round. Please vote in favor of the proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville. Bill and Cathy Hairston 657 N Wilson ave Fayetteville, ar 72701 Curth, Jonathan From: Jeb Joyce <jjoyce@qgtlaw.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 7:51 AM To: Curth, Jonathan; Planning Shared Subject: Underwood Community Park proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Fayetteville Planning Commission: The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Thank you! Jeb Joyce Jeb H. Joyce 479.444.5202 1 Fax: 479.444.5252 1 jjoyce@ggtlaw.com I vcard Larrissa Huff I Paralegal 479.444.5215 1 Fax: 479.444.5275 1 Ihuff@ggtlaw.com I vcard Q &T 4100 Corporate Center Drive Suite 310 Springdale; Arkansas 72726 IX AT ,EE tAi GROG ARS A tt LL PLLC www.qgtlaw.com This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message. Curth, Jonathan From: Sandra Kilpatrick <ksandra610@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 1:17 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Birdhaven homeowner CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Johnathan Curth, The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Sincerely, from a concerned citizen of West Fayetteville, Gary and Sandra Kilpatrick Curth, Jonathan From: Hannah Lee <hannahlee@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 8:27 AM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: West Fayetteville Community Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please vote in favor of the 65 acre west Fayetteville community park so that it will go before the city council. Hannah Lee Sent from my iPad Curth, Jonathan From: Shannon Lee-Tran <slee215@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 10:10 PM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: Please vote in favor of the proposed 65-acre Community Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, We live in right by old razorback golf course, our family REALLY hope you (our Planning Commission) will make the best decision for our city and vote in favor of the 65-acre Community Park and PZD. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. We don't have any nice park in west side of the Fayetteville. It would be a perfect!! Please move this project forward to the City Council with your 100% approval. Thank you, Shannon Curth, Jonathan From: Linda Marquess <lindamarquess@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 4:15 PM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: 65 Acres Community Park in West Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Thank you, John & Linda Marquess 479-841-6216 Curth, Jonathan From: Darin W. Nutter <dnutter@uark.edu> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 4:35 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Cc: Jeanne Nutter (normal nut@me.com) Subject: FW: In support of the 65-acre community park in west Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Curth: Please see my below email to the Planning Commission. We want you to know our opinions. Thanks, Darin and Jeanne Nutter From: Darin W. Nutter Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 4:33 PM To:'planning@fayetteville-ar.gov' <planning@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: In support of the 65-acre community park in west Fayetteville Dear Planning Commission: My wife and I (Fayetteville residents) would like to communicate to you that we are in support of keeping the planned 65-acre community park on the west side of Fayetteville. We are not in support of reducing the park size. We most certainly are against the idea of adding residential properties beyond the current proposal. This would cause even more road congestion, further increase population density, and negatively impact wildlife. Sincerely, Darin and Jeanne Nutter Curth, Jonathan From: Deborah Ogg <deborahgogg@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 3:43 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: The Underwood Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Curth, Please vote in favor of the proposed 65-acre community park in west Fayetteville. Our parks are a definite asset to the city and this particular proposal appears to have been thoroughly researched. We hope you will move this project forward without delay. Thank you for your commitment to this great city. Debbie and Tim Ogg Sent from my iPad Curth, Jonathan From: Neal Pendergraft <zippy@33st.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 2:28 PM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: Underwood PZD CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners and Mr. Curth - I was visiting with Craig Underwood on his proposed PZD project. I believe this is a great project for western Fayetteville and deserves your support to move it on to the City Council. I know the process has included neighbors and others in the area. It appears to have good community support. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and would appreciate your vote to move the project on to the City Council. Respectfully, Neal R. Pendergraft Neal R. Pendergraft Thirty Third Street, LLC 310 W. Dickson Street, Suite 215 P.O. Box 4245 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Telephone: 479-443-3301 Facsimile: 479-443-3305 Curth, Jonathan From: Barbara Prichard <barbara.prichard@outlook.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 10:07 AM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: Community Park Project/West Fayetteville Importance: High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My husband and I both strongly support the proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville. As a 38 year Fayetteville Public School administrator, I know the need for this park proposal in that part of our growing city and the benefit it would bring to the children and families who reside in that area or other parts of Fayetteville. I am aware of past proposals and am pleased to see the strong support and acceptance of this proposal. It is a forward -looking, inclusive proposal that will enhance our city. Please vote in favor of this visionary plan so it may move forward for the City Council vote. Thank you for you time and service to Fayetteville. Barbara Prichard: Ret. Fayetteville Schools Lt. Col. (ret.) Doug Prichard Curth, Jonathan From: susan0807@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 5:14 PM To: Curth, Jonathan; Planning Shared Subject: Proposed PDZ - Underwood Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. 1 strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Royce and Susan Robertson 479-530-4991 or 479-530-7793 Curth, Jonathan From: Harlen Sams <harlen@lprimered.com> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 10:24 AM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Old Razorback Golf Course Development ?? Attachments: IMG_1894.JPG; IMG_1893.1PG; IMG_1896.JPG F UTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize sender and know the content is safe. Jonathan, I am sending you this email to ask that our concerns about how this possible development might affect the our property located at 2493 & 2495 Jeremiah P1 which also borders next to Lori St on the north side. With our property line already being to the center of Lori St and is as close as 10 to 15 ft of the house, (please see attached pictures) we would like the City Planning to consider moving the street to the north giving us back the use of our property to the property line, which then any traffic on Lori St would be a little farther from our front door (yes even though our address is Jeremiah Pl, our front porch and front door is actually on the Lori St side and is where visitors come in at). (We wish we had the address for 2493 Jeremiah PI done as Lori St since the front is actually on that side. In addition to this input/request, it would be nice if the development does happen, that there could be some type of concrete/brick wall between our property and the proposed apartment complexes I Love Referrals! "Who Do" You Know Needing to Buy or Sell Real Estate? Harlen Sams 479-957-2126 1 Curth, Jonathan From: Jan Smith <jansmith1010@att.net> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 3:43 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Old Razorback Golf course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwoods have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Thank you! Curth, Jonathan From: Brian Sorensen <arklebs@att.net> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 6:53 AM To: Planning Shared Cc: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Razorback Golf Course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning, My name is Brian Sorensen and I live at 2882 N. Purple Phlox Ln. My home is in the Prairie View Acres neighborhood directly across Deane Solomon Road from the old golf course. Along with John Scott Bull, I was responsible for creating the Facebook group supporting "responsible" development of the property when Lindsey was attempting to develop a massive number of apartments there. It was a highly contentious time for the community, which unequivocally opposed the development as proposed. The concerns shared at that time were common when faced with large-scale development —crime, traffic, environmental, etc. I'm sure this comes as no surprise to you. Since then the Underwood family has created a vision for the property that has gained support from the surrounding community. As proposed, their plan balances responsible development on the property's south end with a crown jewel of a park on the north end. To gain consensus among a diverse group of neighbors was no small feat. The city's park board eagerly approved the plan and sent it to you for consideration. I've been made aware that the planning commission is reluctant to approved the project unless additional homes are added to the plan. I did not attend or view the last meeting of the commission, so I am not sure what the rationale is for that viewpoint. Yet I implore you —PLEASE DON'T MAKE A GRAVE MISTAKE! This is a once -in -a -lifetime opportunity to create a crown jewel of a park on the westside of the city. A much needed park on the west side! I can assure you that the community does not want more housing on this property. And given the fact the community and the developer are in sync, why would the city wish to put this project at risk? The developer doesn't want it, your constituents don't want it. I beg that you reconsider any misgivings you have regarding this project and approve it as presented. The city council needs to also approve this project as soon as possible. I appreciate you taking the time to read this. Brian Sorensen (479)263-2678 Curth, Jonathan From: Julie Tran <jptran1218@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 6:31 PM To: Curth, Jonathan; Planning Shared Subject: Razorback golf course vote recommendation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Our family hopes you (our Planning Commission) will make the best decision for our city and vote in favor of the 65-acre Community Park and PZD. Please move this project forward to the City Council with your 100% approval. Thank you! Julie Curth, Jonathan From: JenandEric Whitehead <jenericw@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 4:40 PM To: planning@fayettevilIe-ark.gov; Curth, Jonathan Subject: West Fayetteville Community Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please vote in favor of the proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville. We need to move this proposal to City Council, so they can vote on it. Curth, Jonathan From: Rick Wimpee <rickwimpee@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 11:29 AM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Underwood Development Community Park in West Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Curth: I have been reading about and trying to educate myself regarding the proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville. From what I can tell, the proposal for this community park makes a lot of sense. It appears the Underwood's have solicited input from various groups in the city in an attempt to make the park proposal widely acceptable. Obviously, the park is needed by folks who live and work in west Fayetteville. I encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development and send it on to the city council for approval. Thank you for your consideration. Rick and Terri Wimpee 704 E Maple St Fayetteville Curth, Jonathan From: Lynda Yoon <Lynda_T_Tran@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2020 12:35 PM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: Razorback Golf Course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I own a home right by Holcomb Elementary and we are excited about the potential of a large park in the area. Please vote in favor of the proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville. We need to move this proposal to City Council, so they can vote on it. Lynda Yoon Curth, Jonathan From: Amanda Barker <abmspt@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 11:21 AM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: Underwood development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Amanda and Neil Barker 2422 W Pierre Xing Curth, Jonathan From: JS Bull <jsb@jsbull.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 202010:26 AM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: Underwood Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident who lives adjacent to the old Razorback Golf Course, I want to show my support for the Underwoods' PZD plan, AS -IS. I understand that it has only been heard at one Planning Commission meeting, but I'm disheartened that the Planning Commission is already trying to revise a plan that has been so well put together from the input of the community and city. This is a tremendous gift to the city of Fayetteville and I will be furious if the Planning Commission continues to hold it hostage to further some utopian agenda. No plans are perfect, but this one is excellent. A lot of time and cost have gone into it and it should be sent to City Council with Planning Commission approval and support right away. Please don't screw this up for the people of Fayetteville, especially the citizens on the west side of Fayetteville. Sincerely, JS and Amy Bull 2821 N Floral Ct Fayetteville, AR 72704 Curth, Jonathan From: Jack Butt <jbutt@dbtcfirm.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 9:59 AM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Cc: Craig Underwood Subject: Razorback Golf Course Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Given the limited amount of land in Fayetteville for any purpose, with its correlated skyrocketing prices, It seems the willingness of the Underwoods to give a large part of the former Razorback Golf Course for parkland, in an area that will be fully grown out in the near future with Fayettevillians who will need, want, and certainly use a park like this, is an opportunity Fayetteville should seize for its citizens. I hope you will vote for this proposal so it can be duly considered by the City council. Thanks for your service on the Commission. Jack Butt William Jackson Butt, II Davis, Butt, Taylor & Clark, PLC 19 E. Mountain PO Box 1224 Fayetteville, AR 72702-1224 479-521-7600 (o) 479-521-7661 (f) www.dbtcfirm.com Curth, Jonathan From: Gloria Tran <gloria.k.tran@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 3:54 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: West Fayetteville Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. Curth: 3:50 PM (0 rninutf The proposed 65-acre park in West Fayetteville is desperately needed. Except for a few small specialty parks such as ball fields, there is no large public park in this area of town. We need a park in this area of town which is growing in population. Gulley Park and Wilson Park are not enough for all of our current and future residents' outdoor recreational needs. Please do not add any more housing to this proposed park. Please vote FOR the 65-acre west Fayetteville Park. Thank you. Gloria Williams Tran Clabber Creek resident From: chris(d)athleteplus.net To: Planning Shared Subject: RE: 65 acre park at Razorback Golf Course Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 9:21:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Our family hopes you (our Planning Commission) will make the best decision for our city and vote in favor of the 65-acre Community Park and PZD. Please move this project forward to the City Council with your 100% approval. Dr. D. Chris Cothern PT, CES, PES AthletePlus Physical Therapy & Spine Curth, Jonathan From: Jim Erwin <jim_e_erwin@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 11:18 AM To: Planning Shared; Curth, Jonathan Subject: Underwood Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I hopes you (our Planning Commission) will make the best decision for our city and vote in favor of the 65-acre Community Park and PZD. Please move this project forward as is to the City Council with your 100% approval. Thank Jim Erwin Curth, Jonathan From: Jeffrey Goodhart <jeffrey.goodhart@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 202010:32 AM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Fwd: CPZD Underwood Development (6/08 Old Business) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Curth, This is an email I sent to the planning commission this morning. I am in support of today's old business topic, item 6.2020-0434; Underwood Park, being passed as is. Thank you Jeff Goodhart Begin forwarded message: From: Jeffrey Goodhart <ieffrey.goodhart@gmail.com> Date: June 8, 2020 at 9:37:46 AM CDT To: planning-(&fayetteville-ar.gov Subject: CPZD Underwood Development (6/08 Old Business) Good morning, I briefly spoke two weeks ago about the Underwood development in west Fayetteville that was tabled. I'd like to add some comments and make my family's opinion known that we believe you should pass the proposed plan as is. First I would like to thank Commissioner Winston for actively listening and acknowledging some of my comments. After mentioning the short height of my backyard fence, which backs up to the north border of the donated property, I measured the height and it is 3 feet 9 inches tall. My neighbors' on both sides of mine are the same height, as are several other houses' also lining the north end of the proposed park land. I am against putting any houses behind ours for several reasons: there are pros and cons to having front yards or backyards facing the potential park. The cons that come to mind for front yards is cars causing more traffic and being parked on the street in general, trash cans lining the street, and unkempt lawns being at the forefront. Putting more houses at the north end would also take away land from the park, probably at least 1/5 of the land would be needed to provide comparable property size and have a street for these people. This takes away from the habitat for the numerous wildlife that live on that golf course. We are lucky enough to often see deer, hear coyotes and owls, and have dozens of birds visiting our backyard feeders. We look forward to our newly planted shrubs growing and producing flowers next spring that are supposed to attract hummingbirds and butterflies. My wife and I spend several evenings a week eating dinner on our back porch and looking out at the land behind us. It is a gift I value very much. It reminds me of growing up and visiting my grandparents, who lived on a golf course in rural Mississippi. They had deer, foxes, and all kinds of other wildlife we could sit out on the back porch and watch. Having houses built behind us would steal this cherished gift from us. It would take our first home purchased and make it something entirely different than what we wanted. It would make us want to move and find our place elsewhere, possibly outside of Fayetteville. I had a discussion with my neighbor the other day. She is close to my parents' age and has lived with her husband next to the golf course since the subdivision was being built about 10 years ago. We had a Home Improvement moment, which means a nice conversation talking from our backyards, over the short fence. She told me about their plans for adding rose bushes to their well landscaped backyard and how she was against houses being built behind theirs. As our conversation ended she told me she has enjoyed being our neighbor but that if houses go up behind us she and her husband would be moving. I echoed the statement then we went back to our gardens. Commissioners, I do not believe there is a perfect way to proceed with a plan for this land, but what the Underwoods have graciously proposed is as close as I could hope for one. In my opinion the size of the land donated could make this exactly what the city needs to have a park that exhibits what the Natural State is all about. We as citizens of this city and neighbors of the proposed plan are fully behind this, and as a representative of my family ask you to approve what has been presented to you. Thank you Jeff Goodhart From: Chadwick Harmon To: Planning Shared Subject: Support for 65-acre community park Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 9:30:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We moved to Fayetteville around 7 years ago and love the opportunities to go outside as a family. Our family hopes you (our Planning Commission) will make the best decision for our city and vote in favor of the 65-acre Community Park and PZD. Please move this project forward to the City Council with your 100% approval. Thanks for you support, Chad Harmon Curth, Jonathan From: Lauren Keszeg <lauren.keszeg@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 1:32 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Cc: Johnathan Keszeg; Lori Sherman; Phillip Sherman; Phillip Sherman Subject: Razorback Golf Course- Underwood Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jonathan, The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Thanks, Lauren Keszeg Cobblestone Neighborhood Resident Fayetteville, AR Sent from my iPhone Curth, Jonathan From: Hank McCollum <hank.mccollum@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 2:19 PM To: Curth, Jonathan; Planning Shared Subject: Community Park in West Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please approve the 65 acre park and PZD as proposed and move this project on to the City Council. We live in the area, and feel that this would be a huge benefit to the neighbors of the park and the rest of the city. Henry & Alexis McCollum Sent from my iPhone Curth, Jonathan From: Lori Sherman <1orisherman17@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 3:03 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: The future Underwood Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jonathan, The proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville is desperately needed. The PZD proposal accompanying this potential community park has been thoroughly researched and developed over the past 9 months. Stakeholders from various city groups have been consulted and the Underwood's have welcomed input in their attempt to make this proposal as widely acceptable as possible. While several past developments have come and gone, this is the only one that has achieved wide -spread acceptance. Please do not delay this proposal any further. I strongly encourage you to accept the proposed PZD — Underwood Development. Lori Sherman Creek Meadow Subsivision Fayetteville, AR null Curth, Jonathan From: Garland Thorn-JR <thornfamily@cox.net> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 9:51 AM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: PZD Underwood Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Jonathan, Our family hopes you (our Planning Commission) will make the best decision for our city and vote in favor of the 65-acre Community Park and PZD. Please move this project forward to the City Council with your 100% approval. Thanking you in advance, Julia Thorn Curth, Jonathan From: Debra Dunn <debradunn@cox.net> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 8:43 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Razorback park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Our family hopes you (our Planning Commission) will make the best decision for our city and vote in favor of the 65-acre Community Park and PZD. Please move this project forward to the City Council with your 100% approval Respectfully submitted, Debra Dunn Fayetteville Sent from my Whone Curth, Jonathan From: Dorrie Vaughan Goodwin <dorriegoodwin@live.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 6:35 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: New community park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My family and I are residents of west Fayetteville (near Holcomb Elementary). We are outdoors all the time and desperately want a great park nearby for us and our two toddlers to use often. We urge the planning commission to vote in favor of the new 65-acre Community Park and to move the project forward to the city council with your full support. Thank you, Dorothy Goodwin Curth, Jonathan From: Kay Magness <kbmagness@cox.net> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 4:34 PM To: Curth, Jonathan Subject: Underwood Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please vote in favor of the proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville. We need to move this proposal to City Council, so they can vote on it. Thank you, Kay Magness Sent from my iPhone Curth, Jonathan From: Richard Osborne <rpo@rpolaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:37 PM To: Planning Shared Cc: Curth, Jonathan; Laura Underwood; Dr. Pierce Osborne (pierceosb@aol.com) Subject: Underwood Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I write as a former member of the Fayetteville Board of Directors and Vice Mayor of Fayetteville to voice my support for the proposed 65-acre community park in west Fayetteville. That part of our city is in need of such a park and would benefit the residents of that area as well as the entire city. I ask that you move the proposal to the Fayetteville City Council with a favorable recommendation. If you have any questions please contact me. I appreciate your time. Thanks. Rick Richard P. Osborne Attorney at Law 26 East Center Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Office 479-521-5555 Fax 479-444-0000 E-Mail rpo@rpolaw.com TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Underwood Development PZD Fayetteville, Arkansas Prepared for: KTB Limited Partnership April 14, 2020 Prepared by: Traffic Engineering Consultants, Inc. ARKANSAS *** REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ..� j9Ily signed by •.� •'��, an Becknell `. -� te : 2020.04.14 �,•'1020:53:08-05'00' EC Traffic Impact Analysis ' kBIT, OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................1 3.0 TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION........................................................................................3 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC...................................................................................................4 4.1 Existing Generated Traffic .................................................................................................4 4.2 Off -Site Generated Traffic.................................................................................................5 4.3 Site Generated Traffic......................................................................................................9 5.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................................13 6.0 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................17 LIST OF FIGURES Following Page Figure 1: Project Location Map....................................................................................................I Figure2: Proposed Site Plan........................................................................................................I Figure 3: 2019 Existing Traffic.......................................................................................................3 Figure 4: 2019 Distribution of Existing Generated Traffic......................................................................3 Figure 5: 2019 Combined Existing Traffic.........................................................................................3 Figure 6: 2022 Projected Background Traffic.....................................................................................3 Figure 7: 2030 Projected Background Traffic....................................................................................3 Figure 8: 2022 Distribution of Off -Site Generated Traffic......................................................................8 Figure 9: 2030 Distribution of Off -Site Generated Traffic.....................................................................8 Figure 10: 2022 Projected Background With Off -Site Traffic..................................................................8 Figure]]: 2030 Projected Background With Off -Site Traffic.................................................................8 Figure 12: 2022 Distribution of Site Generated Traffic.........................................................................12 Figure 13 2030 Distribution of Site Generated Traffic.........................................................................12 Figure 14: 2022 Projected Combined Traffic....................................................................................12 Figure 15: 2030 Projected Combined Traffic.....................................................................................12 LIST OF TABLES On Page Table 1: 2019 Existing Off -Site Generated Traffic Volumes...................................................................4 Table 2: 2022 Projected Off -Site Generated Traffic Volumes..................................................................6 Table 3: 2030 Projected Off -Site Generated Traffic Volumes..................................................................6 Table 4: 2022 Projected Site Generated Traffic Volumes.......................................................................9 Table 5: Capacity Analysis Summary ............................................................................................10 F-1 17 i April 14, 2020 EQ, Traffic Impact Anal sis 1.0 INTRODUCTION Traffic Engineering Consultants, Inc. (TEC) was retained by KTB Limited Partnership to perform a traffic impact analysis for a proposed planned zoning district (PZD) to be located in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The study was requested to determine the effects the proposed development would have on the adjacent street system, to review the available access to the development and to provide recommendations for improvements that may be necessary to accommodate the traffic expected to be generated by the development. 2.0 BACKGROUND The site of the proposed development is located west of Deane Solomon Road between Shiloh Drive and Vanike Drive in Fayetteville, Arkansas as shown in Figure 1. The development is proposed to include four planning areas and a park dedication. Planning area 1 is 16.1 acres, is planned as small scale business, and is estimated to be complete in approximately ten years. Planning area 2 is 16.1 acres, is planned as small scale business, and is estimated to be complete in approximately two years. Planning area 3 is 15.0 acres and is planned as detention pond area. Planning area 4 is 28.0 acres, is planned as residential multi- family with a maximum of 602 units, and is estimated to be complete in approximately two years. The park area is 50.0 acres, is planned for dedication to the City of Fayetteville, and is estimated to be complete in approximately two years. Access to the new development, as shown in Figure 2 is proposed as follows: planning area 1 — from the south to planning area 4 and from the east Deane Solomon Road by way of the access to the park area; planning area 2 — from the east at two locations to Deane Solomon Road, one not currently shown and one being the access to the park area; planning area 3 — not applicable; planning area 4 from the south to Emil Drive, from the west at two locations into the proposed Crystal Springs Development, from the north at planning area 1, from the east to Deane Solomon Road; park area — from the west to planning area 1, from the east through planning area 2 to Deane Solomon Road. The western edge of planning area 4 is bordered the Crystal Springs Development. Crystal Springs Development is a two -phased residential development, with the first phase estimated to open in two years and the second phase estimated to open in ten years. The site will connect with the Crystal Springs Development at three locations as shown in Figure 2. Deane Solomon Road is a two-lane Neighborhood Link Street with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It carries an approximate average daily traffic (ADT) of 2,300 vehicles per day. Additionally, Shiloh Road F-1 17 1 April 14. 2020 m NMiramar-Dr vet r ' . WO,>: .ell 1 i PROJECT ;3Dr LOCATION -- c Y 03 I --Quail Dr-l- - r vi Y o. o Dove -Dr t Meadowlark=Dr A _ � l� )EVELOPMENT—PZD _OPMENT STANDARDS I NNING AREA r TM Et[ M. J flti:C AM' ` PL MING AREA 3 t /-4.25;; • r era � ..i b P.APk TANG +/-50 ACRE` ROM PLAW °'""F F::?;dlit+,• N �� RUNT a • PLANNING AREA t,++-1613 AC,FE_ 011 " rid? ' i�1^ _ r ,mm m [m • tw- V. EC i � �A/PA:Cp14 tti lJU (1� � FOP. P*t ENFAWt to w rust 0 Cxw cl PLANNING AREA 3 +/-10.75 ACRES A PLAtN INC ArEA '2 +/-�&13 ACRES / / 1 F''LANNING AREA 4 4/-28 ACR1S t t 1bdx — ..1 _ L L - T FIGURE 2. Proposed Site Plan 'f1fammw",,, EC;: Traffic Impact Analysis is a two-lane Neighborhood Link Street with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It carries an approximate average daily traffic (ADT) of 5,000 vehicles per day. According to the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan Guiding Policies, a Neighborhood Link Street is a two-lane street with parallel parking down one side and greenspace/sidewalks down both sides. In areas where a dedicated turn -lane is warranted, it may be necessary to widen the pavement for the intersection. Removal of the parking lane is considered when adequate parking is provided elsewhere. The intersection of Deane Solomon Road and Shiloh Road is stop controlled for Deane Solomon Road and the opposing commercial drive. Both approaches of Shiloh Drive widen for the addition of a left turn bay with distances of 50-foot for southwestbound and 100-foot for northeastbound turn bays. Mt. Comfort Road is a Regional Link Street with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. It carries an approximate average daily traffic (ADT) of 19,000 vehicles per day. According to the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan Guiding Policies, a Regional Link Street is a four -lane street with a center median and greenspace/sidewalks down both sides. In areas where a dedicated turn -lane is warranted, it may be necessary to remove the center median. The intersection of Mt. Comfort Road and Shiloh Road is signal controlled. All other streets in the study area are Residential Link Streets. According to the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan Guiding Policies, a Residential Link Street is a two-lane street with parallel parking down one side and greenspace/sidewalks down both sides. Removal of the parking lane is considered when adequate parking is provided elsewhere. All four intersection approaches widen for the addition of a left turn bay with distances of 150-foot for eastbound, 250-foot for southbound, 100-foot for westbound, and 100-foot for northbound turn bays. F-1 17 2 April 1 4. 2020 EC Traffic impact Analysis 3.0 TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION Existing traffic volume data was collected adjacent to the proposed development in January of 2019 as part of the Crystal Springs development. Traditionally, more recent data would be collected at the proposed development. Significant changes in traffic patterns are currently present due to the COVID-19 virus restrictions. Due to the extenuating circumstances and the recent data collected for the neighboring Crystal Springs Development, data was pulled from the Traffic Study prepared by Peters & Associates in June 2019, and the data was extended through the use of trip generation as described later in this analysis. Peak hour turning movement volumes were collected at the intersection of Mt. Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive and the intersection of Deane Solomon Road and Shiloh Drive. The data was collected during the a.m. (7:00 to 9:00) and p.m. (4:00 to 6:00) peak hour periods while school was in session, so student traffic is reflected in the traffic data. Given the traffic characteristics in the area and the anticipated trip generation for the proposed development, the weekday peak periods would represent a "worst -case scenario' with regards to traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network. If traffic operations are acceptable during these weekday peak hours, it can be reasoned that conditions would be acceptable throughout the remainder of the day and week. The 2019 existing traffic is summarized in Figure 3 and detailed printouts of all the traffic count data are included in the appendix. The trip generation and distribution of existing development is summarized in Figure 4 and the methodology is described later in this analysis. The data from prior counts and generated counts were combined to create the 2019 combined existing traffic and is summarized in Figure 5. The 2019 combined existing traffic was then utilized to determine the background traffic for 2022 and 2030. The 2022 and 2030 design periods were selected as the years the areas of development are estimated to be completed. The background traffic was determined for the design years by applying an average annual growth rate of 6% to the 2019 combined existing traffic. ARDOT AADT counts on Porter Road and Shiloh Drive indicated a fluctuating growth pattern with large trending growth. An average of annual vehicular growth over the prior twenty years was near 6%, a large background growth rate. The annual growth rate will represent the assumed additional growth in the area in addition to the projected development traffic. The AADT locations and data is summarized in the appendix. The 2022 projected background traffic is summarized in Figure 6 and the 2030 projected background traffic is summarized in Figure 7. This data is the base or background traffic to which the projected development traffic was added for conducting the reviews and analyses. F-1 17 3 April 14, 2020 IEC A CLEAR DIRECTION , LEGEND XXX/XXX \ \- P.M. PEAK HOUR A.M. PEAK HOUR FIGURE 3. 2019 Existing Traffic U- EC . FIGURE 4. 2019 Distribution of Existing Gcncratcd Traffic i l[Q�0 L v.r vFr iqp �r o[r pan FIGURE 5. 2019 Combined Existing Traffic L{1 /� Aw r b V = _ c t < _PP W s d nlq F• ` H/IH innt: ` ` uuJ J (' v i � °„ Daub 8nlofnaf Rd. J -- Wnn � tro/tn a t J — tiatit —isfnn I s L a o J — tssnn —tarn a L a o J tNnm tltnii -1 ��g f ; ✓ J u t1 -J ffnK —» a t = Nnn � a t J fintt —+ a t = d � v aas \ � t.r tEr tqr `t.a ftr ian 15�)-. FIGURE 6. 2022 Projcctcd Background Traffic a or �E �bt i Ilia* Jll""" Shilo Dr. C'M a .Rd. J 1s , —:vns —twnm J �rN/tt9 w Y J tmM OI O J iAnU tx/rm ta/ea Ott} to J `mnto — atY J i t eutw J t ut s r wtn �: as «ate tn/m L l.Y RY tact 61L RY 101 D W t-- w o 2w," ECi FIGURE 7. 2030 Projected Background Traffic EC;: or Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC To determine the effects development will have on an existing street system, the existing or additional traffic must be projected. The latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, was used to determine the amount of traffic the development is expected to generate. The report is a nationally accepted reference which provides trip rates for determining the traffic expected to be generated by different land use types. 4. l Existing Generated Traffic There are three existing residential developments within the study corridor. The traffic generated by these existing developments is reflected in the 2019 existing traffic data, but it is necessary to extend the envelope of the study area to the north along Deane Solomon Rd. Aerial photography was utilized to count the number of units in each existing residential development. Development on Jeremiah Pl. consists of 32 multi -family units, development on Pinehills Dr. consists of 46 multi -family units, and development on Crane Ct. consists of 5 single-family units. Existing Moore Ln. is present within the study area, but has no established development areas near the project and was excluded from trip generation. The resulting traffic volumes projected to be generated by the existing developments are indicated in Table 1. TABLE 1 2019 EXISTING OFF -SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES I htp Ruex It— "TRIP UFNFRATION M.4NVAV, 10th H., Volume _: Data, lnsitutc ofTwspomtion FnSmccrs. 2 F aang(7ana( t. houamg t Faeaingh-hilh Dr h,,—g 4. Fusing Jeremiah PI. ho % F-117 4 April 14, 2020 n Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic generated by the existing development was then distributed among study intersections for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The distribution of the generated traffic was based on anticipated usage of the sites and traffic patterns in the area which were obtained from the traffic data that was collected for this study. The existing generated traffic volumes travelling through each study intersection are summarized in Figures 4. The directional distribution of the generated traffic for existing development is: • 20% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. north of the development • 80% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. south of the development o Distribution ended at the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd., as the data includes existing developments. The existing generated traffic was then added to the existing traffic from 2019 and balanced through the study intersections. The 2019 combined existing traffic (2019 existing traffic balanced with 2019 existing generated traffic) is summarized in Figure 5. 4.2 Off -Site Generated Traffic There is a proposed residential development neighboring this proposed development. There is additionally a proposed park dedication as part of this proposed development that is considered off -site for the purposes of this analysis. The traffic expected to be generated by these developments is not reflected in the existing traffic data and must be generated and included in the analysis to properly model future conditions. The information from a previously submitted traffic impact study for the Crystal Springs development project was utilized in this study. The development consists of 168 single family units being developed in two phases. It was assumed that 50% of the development would be completed in 2022 and 50% of the development would be completed in 2030. The proposed park dedication is 50 acres in size and was assumed to be complete in 2022. The resulting traffic volumes projected to be generated by the off -site developments are indicated in Table 2 and Table 3. F-I 17 5 April 14.2020 EC Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 2 2022 PROJECTED OFF -SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES I Trip Rats iri- -MIPGf NF RATION MANUAL.', 100 Ed. Votume 2: Dala, Institute ofTraospuM[io Fngineers. 2. 121)9.1 SI-0i D—l"p-1 . 50F. build esrma[ed for 2022. 3. Prory,.d Undv ursIs Park - 100%hui1d estimated fur'-02'-. TABLE 3 2030 PROJECTED OFF -SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES Trip Rate ,, iuclloguelsi 9.98 a -- 1.00 S,*V-Family _. 0.?5 0.75 31 93 0.63 0.37 105 62 Iklachcd flotwng 1676 .? 167 Trip Rate' .a.resi 2.41 25.60 Public Park 0.59 0.41 1 0 0.55 0.45 14 12 �n 120 26 1. Trip Rees fr+ "TRIP GFNh RA I'ION MANUAL'. IOrh FA, Volume 2: De, Ins[i[u[c of Transportation Fngineers. '-. Crystal Spririjp Oeselupmem - I W. build cgimated for''-030. 3. Proposed Undc—Is Park - 100%build estimated for'_030. The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed off -site developments was then distributed among study intersections for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The distribution of the off -site generated traffic was based on anticipated usage of the sites and traffic patterns in the area which were obtained from the traffic data that was collected for this study. The off -site generated traffic volumes travelling through each study intersection are summarized in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The directional distribution of the site generated traffic for the proposed development is expected to be: F-1 17 6 April 14.2020 EQ Aw Traffic Impact Analysis 2022 Crystal Springs development: • 30% to the intersection of Mt. Comfort Rd. and Shiloh Dr. south and east of the development • 50% to Deane Solomon Rd. by way of Emil Dr. east of the development 0 20% to Deane Solomon Rd. north of Emil Dr. 0 80% to Deane Solomon Rd. south of Emil Dr. ■ 20% to Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. • 55% from the intersection of Mt. Comfort Rd. and Shiloh Dr. south and east of the development • 35% from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of Emil Dr. east of the development 0 20% from Deane Solomon Rd. north of Emil Dr. 0 80% from Deane Solomon Rd. south of Emil Dr. ■ 20% from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. 2030 Crystal Springs development: • 30% to the intersection of Mt. Comfort Rd. and Shiloh Dr. south and east of the development • 25% to Deane Solomon Rd. by way of Emil Dr. east of the development 0 20% to Deane Solomon Rd. north of Emil Dr. 0 80% to Deane Solomon Rd. south of Emil Dr. ■ 20% to Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. • 25% to Deane Solomon Rd. by way of a drive through planning area 4 east of the development 0 20% to Deane Solomon Rd. north of the drive 0 80% to Deane Solomon Rd. south of the drive ■ 20% to Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. F-I 17 7 April 14, 2020 nTraffic Impact Analysis • 35% from the intersection of Mt. Comfort Rd. and Shiloh Dr. south and east of the development • 20% from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of Emil Dr. east of the development 0 20% from Deane Solomon Rd. north of Emil Dr. 0 80% from Deane Solomon Rd. south of Emil Dr. ■ 20% from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. • 15% from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of a drive through planning area 4 east of the development o 20% from Deane Solomon Rd. north of the drive 0 80% from Deane Solomon Rd. south of the drive ■ 20% from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. Park Dedication: • 40% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. north of park entrance • 60% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. south of park entrance 0 25% to/from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. 0 75% to/from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. The future off -site generated traffic was then added to the projected background traffic for 2022 and 2030. The 2022 projected background traffic with off -site traffic (2022 projected background traffic + 2022 off -site generated traffic) is summarized in Figure 10. The 2030 projected background traffic with off -site traffic (2030 projected background traffic + 2030 off -site generated traffic) is summarized in Figure 11. F-I 17 8 April 14, 2020 2022 Distribution of Off -Site Gcncratcd Traffic l[Q� 0/lII `�.Y RY IYq `LY RY IqA MC FIGURE 9. 2030 Distribution of Off -Site Gcncratcd Traffic t[QR L/.Y RY Idl LY Rr MW EC i FIGURE 10. 2022 Projected Background With Ot%Sitc Traffic a � �EQ W b = Ci L O g NE �Az um JI `32'1' (' Deane Solomon Rd. J `T,si,f� --MW J `tiv,i �(Po� ,,, r51R1] ✓�j J a ��, IQ/!o Q�4 I.S1R , dbc// 5 ,erne — a o J Y S d 5� L — S"a t[ae mnv L r.r rEr IIOYI s.r Rr MN EC ; FIGURE 11. 2030 Projected Background 1k ith Off -Site Generated Traffic Traffic Impact Analysis 4.3 Site Generated Traffic Available information was utilized regarding the anticipated land use to determine the site generated traffic. A combination of Multi -Family Housing, Shopping Center, and Office Park categories were selected to determine the trip generation for the proposed development. The resulting traffic volumes projected to be generated by the site once it is fully developed are indicated in Table 4 and Table 5. TABLE 4 2022 PROJECTED SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES I. Trip Rates from "ntlP GENTRAMN MANUAL", 10th Ed., Volume'_: Data, Institute ofTranslwnntion Fnginecrs. '_. Planning Area 4 - 1 t41% build estimated for'_0:'_. 3. Planning Arta'_ - 100 build estimated for 2022. As anted 20•. C ss Floor Arm to 1 nt Six. 4. Reduction amounts are from Planning Area'_, then applied to Planning Ama 4. F-117 9 April 14, 2020 EOI Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 5 2030 PROJECTED SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES I •, r Rues It— " MIP(IFNERAMN MANUAL'. I1hh FA.. Valu.ne'_: nata, Institute ufTrenspo tion Fnginecrs. 2 Plannng Ana 4 - 100': budd c+l nd 4 -1030. 3. Platmmg Arch 1 - 1(10%Budd cstnmtcd far 2030. Awmcd 20'. Goss Fluor Area to l.ot Sin. 4. Planning A— 2 - 1(10%build cairmted fur 2030. Assumed 20'. C.— Flaar Ana to L.n Sin. 5. Reduction arnoums are intro Planning A— 2, then aFplied to Planning Ana 4. The top portion of the Multi -Family Housing portion of Tables 4-5 indicates the total unadjusted traffic volumes for the land uses proposed for each development phase. Due to the types of facilities and access they share, a reduction adjustment to the total trips is recommended. It is expected that a percentage of apartment vehicles will also visit the retail and office businesses and should; therefore, not be counted as new trips for each business. These site generated trips are commonly referred to as internal capture trips. Internal capture trips will affect both the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site as well as the vehicles added to the surrounding street system. Utilizing information from other sites located nationally, it was determined that an internal capture reduction of 10% of apartment trips for the shopping center and 15% of apartment trips for a combination of the shopping center and office park traffic volumes. The internal capture reduction percentage gradually increases as office buildings are constructed in the later phases due to an increasing number of people drawn to the area because of the apartment complex and office space which have the option of visiting the shopping center businesses. F-1 17 10 April 14.2020 EC; Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development was then distributed among study intersections for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The distribution of the site generated traffic was based on anticipated usage of the site and traffic patterns in the area which were obtained from the traffic data that was collected for this study. The site generated traffic volumes travelling through each study intersection are summarized in Figure 12 and Figure 13. The directional distribution of the site generated traffic for the proposed development is expected to be: Planning Area 1 (Office Park in 2030): • 80% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of the park entrance east of the development o 20% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. north of the park entrance o 80% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. south of the park entrance ■ 20% to/from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to/from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to/from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. • 20% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of planning area 2 east of the development o 20% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. north of planning area 2 o 80% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. south of planning area 2 • 20% to/from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to/from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to/from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. Planning Area 2 (Shopping Center in 2022 and 2030): • 50% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of the park entrance east of the development o 20% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. north of the park entrance o 80% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. south of the park entrance ■ 20% to/from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to/from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to/from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. • 50% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of planning area 2 east of the development 0 20% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. north of planning area 2 0 80% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. south of planning area 2 ■ 20% to/from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to/from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to/from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. F-I 17 11 April 14. 2020 EQ Traffic Impact Analysis Planning Area 4 (Multi -Family Housing in 2022 and 2030): • 60% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of planning area 4 east of the development 0 20% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. north of planning area 4 0 80% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. south of planning area 4 ■ 20% to/from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to/from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to/from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. • 40% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. by way of Emil Dr. east of the development 0 20% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. north of Emil Dr. 0 80% to/from Deane Solomon Rd. south of Emil Dr. ■ 20% to/from Shiloh Dr. east of Deane Solomon Rd. ■ 70% to/from Mt. Comfort Rd. east of Shiloh Dr. ■ 10% to/from Mt. Comfort west of Shiloh Dr. The projected site generated traffic was then added to the projected combined traffic for 2022 and 2030. The 2022 projected combined traffic (2022 projected background traffic + 2022 proposed site generated traffic) is summarized in Figure 14. The 2030 projected combined traffic (2030 projected background traffic + 2030 proposed site generated traffic) is summarized in Figure 15. F-I 17 12 April 14, 2020 �-v.r rtr ww �.r rtr tOp ECFIGURE 12. 2022 Distribution of Site J. Gcncratcd Traffic QW W V r `nvlsu a5 �a _ J ttt w n5nN J u,t:, J 1-3 J ^x, a Dan. Solomon Rd. — '}, M 11 = — 115,11] — Holt J —,al a 170/l0, — tt n' N„« J — anr. 755,a1, — ono MT,'Q J ✓��\ u «mn wm L P.Y PEY 1qp I.Y PFY ,OP EC FIGURE 13. 2030 Distribution dSitc Gcncratcd Traffic i �q. 1 rsivsro 71Nn6 UL Comfort Rd. 5_ it aza z Emil Dr. ►r 3 Moore UL 1 i Lqw, 1 ni s Planning Area 4 Entrance it Pinehllle Dr. J 1 nnr 1 ._ "J T = H/r15 1 v a Planning Area 2 Entrance ^' t r n c n, Crane CL J 1 �^ Rp vat aF a e Q to 1 L „v"O s Park Entrance it � �s d s v to J e` Deane Solomon Rd.—s+s„as — sH/eee J — MA i/ r II, t7—fir tNn» -1 -a� �ti b � t d, J1/�lt J ereK77 —� K/t5} J Iei/K6 Ti M/1% J It0/100 —+ r a� rab 1)�C e.Y RY lap rams J 5))FIGURE 15. 2030 Projected Combined Traffic nEC� Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 CAPACITY ANALYSIS The capacity analyses for signals and stop controlled intersections were conducted using Synchro 10, which is a software package for modeling and optimizing traffic signal timings at signalized intersections and analyzing unsignalized intersections in accordance with the methodology of the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The roundabout capacity analyses were conducted using Highway Capacity Software, which is a software package for analyzing intersections in accordance with the methodology of the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The Highway Capacity Manual is published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, Washington, D.C. The information has been widely accepted throughout the U.S. as a guide for defining and solving transportation challenges. The information is approved and distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The capacity analysis provides a measure of the amount of traffic that a given facility can accommodate. Traffic facilities generally operate poorly at or near capacity. The analysis is intended to estimate the maximum amount of traffic that can be accommodated by a facility while maintaining prescribed operational qualities. The definition of operational criteria is accomplished using levels -of -service. The concept of levels -of -service is defined as a qualitative measure and describes operational conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. Six levels -of -service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations, from "A" to "F", with level -of -service "A" representing the best operating conditions and level -of -service "F" the worst. The average control delay for signalized intersections is estimated for each lane group and aggregated for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. The level -of -service for this type of traffic control is directly related to the control delay value. The level -of -service criteria for signalized intersections are indicated below. f-1 17 13 April 14, 2020 EC, Traffic Impact Analysis SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -Service Control Delay per Vehicle (s/veh) A 0-10 B > 10-20 C > 20-35 D > 35-55 E > 55-80 F > 80 The criteria for stop controlled or unsignalized intersections have different threshold values than do those for signalized intersections. A higher level of control delay has been determined to be acceptable at a signalized intersection for the same level -of -service. The level -of -service criteria for unsignalized intersections are indicated below. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -Service Control Delay per Vehicle (s/veh) A 0- l 0 B > 10-15 C > 15-25 D > 25-35 E > 35-50 F > 50 Capacity analyses were conducted for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at the intersections of Deane Solomon Rd. with Shiloh Dr., Emil Dr., planning area 4 north entrance, Pinehills Dr., planning area 2 south entrance, Crane Ct., and the park entrance. The intersections were analyzed and reviewed under the 2019 existing traffic, 2022 projected background traffic, 2030 projected background traffic, 2022 projected combined traffic, and 2030 projected combined traffic. For purposes of this report, an overall intersection level -of -service "D" or better and a critical approach (approach with the lowest level -of -service) level -of - service "E" or better was considered an acceptable level -of -service. The results of the capacity analyses conducted are summarized in Table 6 and the raw data sheets have been included in the appendix. F-117 14 April 14, 2020 nEC Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE 6 Capacity Analysis Summary ®� Shiloh Dr. & Deane Solomon Rd. 1 Unsi malized7WB()6 A 4.2 A NWB 18.8 lFQ�;7c SI nR EmilDr. n."nah7cA 0.4 A EB 9.1 A Deane Solomon Rd. & Pinchills Dr. Unsi alizcdA 0.8 A WB 9.7 A Bane Solorrxn Rd. & Crane Ct. Unsi malizedA 0.3 A WB 9.8 A Projectcd Shiloh Dr. Deane Solomon Rd. Background nsi h7ed Traffic EBW2BFA (Future Background + Off -Site Development)2022 NWR 26.4 D 4.9 A cane Solomon Rd. & Emil Dr. Unsi malized EB EB 9.5 A 1.4 A cane Solomon Rd. & Pinchills Dr. Unsi malized WB WB 10.2 B 0.6 A cane Solomon Rd. & Crane Ct. Unsi alined WB WB 10.2 B 0.1 A 1 non R P• rk Entrance Unsi malized EB . ER I hiloh Dr. & Dcanc Solomon Rd. Development) NWB 72.6 F 7.2 A Unsi nalized SF.R 13.3 R 6.1 A Deane Solomon Rd. & Emil Dr. Unsirnalized EB 10.8 B 1.5 A EB 10.2 B 1.3 A Deane Solown R PA4 North Entrance i liz •d EB 103 B 1.2 A EB 9.9 A 0.6 A Deane Solomon Rd. & Pinchills Dr. Unsiprialized WB 10.9 B 0.9 A WB 11.2 B 0.6 A Deane Solomon Rd. & Crane Ct. Unsi malized WB 10.7 B 0.3 A WB 1 1. I B 0.1 A Deane Solomon Rd. & Park Entrance Unsi malized EB 0.0 A 0.0 A EB u. I B 0.5 A Shiloh Dr. & Deane Solomon Rd. Projected ( ombined Sisinalized Traffic SWB (Future 29 8 Background C + 17.4 Development)2022 B SEB 41.2 D 32.4 C Shiloh Dr. & Deane Solomon Rd. Roundabout NEB 6 ° A 6.2 A SWB 13.5 B 10.9 B Deane Solomcm R Emil Dr. Unsikriali7ed EB 12.5 B 2.3 A EB I ° fi C 1.5 A Deane Sol n R.& PA4 Norih Entrance Unsi malized EB 1 1 4 B 2.4 A EB 14.6 B 1.2 A Deane Solomon Rd. & Pinchills De Unsignalized WB 11.8 B 0.5 A WB 17.4 C 0.3 A cane Solomon Rd. & PA2 South Entrance Unsi lined EB 10.4 B 1.7 A EB 15.5 C 4.7 A e• • Solomon Rd. & Crane •t. Unsi alizcd WB 11.2 B 0.2 A WH 14.2 0.0 A cane Solomon R Park Entrance nsi malized EB 10.1 B 2.0 A EB 2R.R D 1 1.5 B hiloh Dr. & Deane Solown Rd. Si oalized SWB 24.1 C 17.7 B NEB 50.5 D 43.4 D hil h Dr. & Deane Solomon Rd. Roundabout NEB 12 B 9.6 A SEB 23.0 C 18.6 c • Solo R Emil Dr. UnsiLnafi7ed EB 27 D 4.9 A EB 32.3 D 2.6 A cane Solomon Rd. & PA4 North Entrance Unsignalized EB 20.6 C 5.5 A EB 28.4 D 2.9 A cane Solomon Rd. & Pinchills Dr. Unsignalized WB 16.3 C 0.6 A WB 23.7 C 0.4 A Deaneof mon R PA2 South Entrance n i liz E 124.4 B LS A EB 22. 6.1 A e Sul n R r a t. i ze WB 1 B 0.2 A WB 18.4 .1 A cane Solomn Rd. & Park Entrance Unsignali7ed F.R 1 13.2 13 1 3.3 1 A EA 22.4 C The analyses conducted under the 2019 existing traffic indicated that each existing study intersection currently operates at excellent levels -of -service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Under the 2022 projected background traffic the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd. would operate at acceptable levels -of -service. Under the 2030 projected background traffic the non -critical northwestbound approach, representing a commercial drive for a car dealership, at the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd. would operate at level -of -service "F". This result likely indicates that while the overall intersection may be operating with an acceptable level -of -service, it may be nearing the need for improvements to maintain those levels in the future. All other intersections would continue operating at excellent levels -of -service with single lane entries and stop control on the minor street. F-I 17 15 April 14. 2020 nEC� Traffic Impact Analysis Once the site generated traffic was added to the 2022 projected background traffic, the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd. would operate at acceptable levels -of -service if signalized with existing geometry or converted to a single lane roundabout. With 2030 projected combined traffic, the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd. would operate at acceptable levels -of -service if signalized with a southwestbound right turn bay and southeastbound right turn bay or converted to a single lane roundabout with a yield entry southwestbound right turn bay and yield entry southeastbound right turn bay. All other intersections would continue operating at acceptable levels -of -service with single lane entries and stop control on the minor street. The southbound approach of the intersection of Mt. Comfort Rd. and Shiloh Dr. was analyzed for both 2030 projected background traffic and 2030 projected combined traffic. The results indicate that the improvements necessary to provide acceptable level -of -service for the 2030 projected background traffic also provide acceptable level -of -service for the 2030 projected combined traffic. F-117 16 April 14, 2020 nEC Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 CONCLUSIONS TEC was requested to conduct a traffic impact analysis on a proposed planned zoning district (PZD) development in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Existing traffic volume data was collected adjacent to the proposed development. The 2019 existing traffic was utilized to determine the background traffic for 2022 and 2030 by applying an average annual growth rate of 6%. The 2022 and 2030 design periods were selected as the years the development is estimated to be completed. The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development was determined and distributed among the points of access to the development, as well as the adjacent street intersections. The proposed development traffic was added to the 2022 and 2030 projected background traffic for conducting the reviews and analyses. The analyses conducted under the 2019 existing traffic, 2022 projected background traffic, and 2030 projected background traffic scenarios indicated that the intersections of Deane Solomon Rd. with Emil Dr., Pinehills Dr., and Crane Ct. currently operate and would be expected to continue operating at acceptable levels -of -service during peak hours. Once the proposed site generated traffic was added to the 2022 and 2030 projected background traffic, the intersections and additional development drives would be expected to operate at acceptable levels -of -service with single lane entries and stop control on the minor street. The analyses conducted under the 2022 projected background traffic and 2030 projected background traffic scenarios indicated that the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd. would be expected to operate at acceptable levels -of -service during peak hours. The non -critical northwestbound approach, representing a commercial drive for a car dealership, at the intersection would operate at level -of -service "P. This result likely indicates that while the overall intersection may be operating with an acceptable level -of -service, it may be nearing the need for improvements to maintain those levels in the future. When the proposed site generated traffic was added to the 2022 projected background traffic, the intersection of Shiloh Dr. and Deane Solomon Rd. would need to be signalized with existing geometry or converted to a single lane roundabout to operate at acceptable levels -of -service. Once the proposed site generated traffic was added to the 2030 projected background traffic, the intersection would need to be signalized with a southwestbound right turn bay and southeastbound right turn bay or converted to a single lane roundabout with a yield entry southwestbound right turn bay and yield entry southeastbound right turn bay to operate at acceptable levels -of -service. F-1 17 17 April 14. 2020 APPENDIX TRAFFIC DATA Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Data AM Hour Turning Movement Count Data File Name : AM-Shi Mt. Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive Site Code : 00000000 Fayetteville, AR Start Date : 01/30/2019 P1962 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- AM Count Data Shiloh Dr. Mt. Comfort Rd. Shiloh Dr. M L Comfort Rd. From North From East From South From West Start Time Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Int. t s Total t s Total t s Total t s Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 8 1 19 0 28 6 48 5 0 59 20 0 3 1 24 11 180 24 0 215 _ 326 07:15 AM 6 2 16 1 25' 8 79 22 0 109 26 6 1 0 33 5 314 42 0 361 528 07:30 AM 14 6 31 0 51 9 91 13 0 113 19 11 1 0 31 12 384 48 0 444 639 07:45 AM 9 3 26 0 _38 17 54 17 0 _ 88 33 1 1 0 35 13 341 55 0 409 570 Total 37 12 92 1 1421 40 272 57 0 369 98 18 6 1 1231 41 1211 169 0 1429 2063 08:00 AM 3 8 36 0 47 18 63 12 0 93 24 1 0 1 26 6 243 26 0 275 441 08:15 AM 8 1 21 0 30 11 52 9 0 721 23 4 0 0 27 0 203 22 0 225 354 08:30 AM 12 1 20 0 33 22 66 13 0 101 16 0 1 0 17 3 148 8 0 159 310 08:45 AM 9 2 22 0 33 18 53 1 0 72 13 2 0 0 15 3 143 18 0 164 284 Total 32 12 99 0 1431 69 234 35 0 3381 76 7 1 1 85 12 737 74 0 823 1389 Grand 69 24 191 1 285 109 506 92 0 707 174 25 7 2 208 53 196 243 0 2252 3452 Total A rch PP % 24 8.4 67 0.4 15. 71. 13. 0.0 83. 12. 3.4 1.0 2.4 86. 10. 0.0 2 0 4 6 0 7 0 9 8 Total % 2.0 0.7 5.5 0.0 8.3 3.2 14. 2.7 0.0 20.5 5.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 6.0 1.5 56 7.0 0.0 65.2 Shiloh Dr. Out In Total 377 285 662 69T 24J 1911 1 Right Thru Lel eft Peds Om NwyJNQ H N 'a InNorth L K ^ c ~-2 0 0 _O 1 /30/2019 7:00:00 AM °i 3 U _ L 1/,30/2019 8:45:00 AM r } o o w AM Count Data to c a 1v a wo 4-► Left Thru Right Peds 7 25 174 2 1169 206 377 Out In Total Shiloh Dr. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Data AM Hour Turning Movement Count Data File Name : AM-Shi Mt. Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive Site Code : 00000000 Fayetteville, AR Start Date : 01 /30/2019 P1962 Page No :2 Shiloh Dr. Mt. Comfort Rd. Shiloh Dr. Mt. Comfort Rd. From North From East From South From West Start Time Righ Thru i Left Ped s App. Total Righ t Thru Left Ped s App• Righ Thru Total t Left Ped s App• Total Righ It Thru Left Ped s App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersects 07:15 AM on Volume 32 19 109 1 161 52 287 64 0 403 102 19 3 1 125 36 128 171 0 1489 2178 Percent 19. 11. 67. 0.6 12. 71. 15. 0.0 81. 15. 2.4 0.8 2.4 86. 11. 0.0 9 8 7 9 2 9 6 2 1 5 07:30 14 6 31 0 51 9 91 13 0 113 19 11 1 0 31 12 384 48 0 444 639 Volume Peak 0.852 Factor High Int. 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 07:30 AM Volume 14 6 31 0 51 9 91 13 0 113 33 1 1 0 35 12 384 48 0 444 Peak 0.78 0.89 0.89 0.83 Factor 9 2 3 8 Shiloh . Out In Total 242_ 161 403 32 19 109 1 Right Thru Left Peds 0 a N North /30/2019 7:15:00 AM a 3 D E— CO L 19 8:00:00 AM =urvt r g N or � � Data o a m c rn— F► Left Thru Right Peds 3 19 102 1 119 125 244 Out In Total Shiloh r. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Data PM Hour Turning Movement Count Data File Name : PM-Shi Mt. Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive Site Code : 00000000 Fayetteville, AR Start Date : 01/29/2019 P1962 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- PM Count Data Shiloh Dr. Mt. Comfort Rd. Shiloh Dr. Mt. Comfort Rd. _ From North From East From South From West Start Tme Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Int. t $ Total t s Total t s Total t s Total Total Factor 1.01 1.01 1.0 1.01 1.0 1 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.0 03:00 PM 14 4 26 0 44 15 87 8 0 110 15 2 5 0 22 3 111 11 0 125 301 03:15 PM 28 2 27 0 57 14 86 15 0 115 16 1 3 0 20 3 96 19 0 118 310 03:30 PM 23 2 21 0 46 20 92 7 0 119 11 2 1 0 14 2 73 6 0 81 260 03:45 PM 39 1 18 0 58 12 148 18 0 178 13 1 3 0 17 3 95 15 0 113 366 Total 104 9 92 0 205 61 413 48 0 522 55 6 12 0 73 11 375 51 0 437 1237 04:00 PM 36 1 21 0 58 13 114 12 0 139 14 3 3 1 21 2 111 18 0 131 349 04:15 PM 39 3 20 0 62 21 154 14 0 189 12 1 0 0 13 2 69 8 0 79 343 04:30 PM 55 4 29 0 88 23 181 13 0 217 18 0 6 0 24 2 125 9 1 137 466 04:45 PM 39 4 27 0 70 19 250 14 0 283 I 28 0 0 0 28 5 88 20 1 114 495 Total 169 12 97 0 278 76 699 53 0 828 72 4 9 1 86 11 393 55 2 461 1653 05:00 PM 75 8 49 0 132 15 269 21 0 305 28 6 6 0 40 3 92 8 0 103 580 05:15 PM 70 4 33 0 107 20 341 16 0 377 24 2 5 0 31 2 146 15 0 163 678 05:30 PM 48 4 45 0 97 22 280 15 0 317 23 0 0 0 23 2 157 16 0 175 612 05:45 PM 23 7 31 0 61 21 78 208 1098 16 68 0 0 245 1244' 23 98 0 8 4 15 0 0 27 121i 4 11 134 7 0 529 46 0 145 586 478 2348 Total 216 23 158 0 397 Grand 489 44 347 0 880 215 221 169 0 2594 225 18 36 1 280 33 129 152 2 1484 5238 Total 0 7 Apprch % 55 5.0 39 0.0 8.3 85 6.5 0.0 80. 6.4 12 0.4 2.2 87. 10. 0.1 6 4 2 4 9 4 2 Total % 9.3 0.8 6.6 0.0 16.8 4.1 42. 3.2 0.0 49.5 4.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 5.3 0.6 24. 2.9 0.0 28.3 Shiloh r. Out In Total ® 8W1 L1265 489 441 347 0 Right Thru Left Peds FTI N Tr O N m J r j O a J ^N mS a ^ North N o OC NJE_-'� ~'2 O N O 1/29/2019 3:00:00 PM B)00 PMcr) } 1/29/2019 : : CD O A N + PM Count Data " a N Q �O d a wd a Ho Tr Left Thru Right Peds 36 181 2251 1 246 280 526 Out In Total Shiloh Dr. Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Data PM Hour Turning Movement Count Data Mt. Comfort Road and Shiloh Drive Fayetteville, AR P1962 Shiloh Ur Rig Ped App. Start Timd e � Thru Left Total Peak Hour From 03:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti 04:45 PM on Volume 232 20 154 0 406 Percent 57. 4.9 37. 0.0 05:15 70 4 33 0 107 Volume Peak Factor High Int. 05:00 PM Volume 75 8 49 0 132 Peak 0.76 Factor 9 Mt. Comfort Rd. File Name : PM-Shi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 01 /29/2019 Page No :2 Ped . App. Int. s Total Total 76 1144 66 0 1282 103 8 11 0 122 12 483 59 1 555 2365 5.9 88. 5.1 0.0 8 . 6.6 9.0 0.0 2.2 87. 10. 1 20 341 16 0 377 24 2 5 0 31I 2 146 15 0 163 678 05:15 PM 1 05:00 PM 1 05:30 PM 1 20 341 16 0 377 28 6 6 0 40 2 157 16 0 175 0.85 0.76 0.79 0 3 3 Shiloh r. Out In Total 143 406 549 232 20 154 0 Right Thru Left Pods tJr 1 '-► o oo N m - —+o �O FOR w ~2 0 c — 1/29/2019 4:45:00 PM J 3 c L4+— 1/29/2019 5:30:00 PM r 215 io i PM Count Data r a 0� a m p o a m N N O' N _ Left Tt Riht Pads 111 8 103 0 98 122 _ 22 0' Out In Total Shiloh Dr. 0.872 Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Data AM Hour Turning Movement Count Data File Name : AM -Dean Shiloh Drive and Deane Solomon Road Site Code : 00000000 Fayetteville, AR Start Date : 01 /31 /2019 P1962 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- AM Count Data Deane Solomon Rd. Shiloh Dr. access drive Shiloh Dr. From North From East From South From West Start Time Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Fed App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Int. t s Total t s Total t s Total t s Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 24 0 2 0 26 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 10 0 35 69 07:15 AM 30 0 0 0 30 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 33 16 0 51 88 07:30 AM 42 0 3 0 45 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 44 18 0 63 121 07:45 AM 34 0 5 0 39 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 77 29 0 111 160 Total 130 0 10 0 140 0 38 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 9 178 73 0 260 438 08:00 AM 33 1 1 0 35 1 15 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 7 40 21 0 68 120 08:15 AM 22 1 1 0 24 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 0 26 13 0 39 75 08:30 AM 29 0 0 0 29 3 13 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 27 13 0 41 86 08:45 AM 28 0 1 0 29 4 11 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 6 28 12 0 46 90 Total 112 2 3 0 1178 50 1 0 59 0 0 1 0 1 14 121 59 0 194 371 Grand 242 2 13 0 257 8 88 1 0 97 0 0 1 0 it 23 299 132 0 454 809 Total A rch % pp 94 2 0.8 5.1 0.0 90. 100 8.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65. 5.1 29. 0.0 7 0 9 1 Total % 29. 0.2 1.6 0.0 31.8 1.0 10. 0.1 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.8 37. 16. 0.0 56.1 3 Deane Solomon Rd. In Total _Out -140 257 397 242 21 131 0 Right Thru Left Pads 4 L+ � m S2 1I �O rn North ^' 0 113' /2019 7:00:00 AM 7 t a 1/31 /20, 9 8:45:00 AM rr- .Oi AM Count Data Q O p O O L� Thru Right 1 0 0 0 26 1 27 Out In Total drive Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Data AM Hour Turning Movement Count Data Shiloh Drive and Deane Solomon Road Fayetteville, AR P1962 Deane Solomon Rd. Shiloh Dr. access drive From North From East From South Righ Ped _ App. Righ Ped App. Rig' Ped Appl Start Time Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left I s Total t s_ Total t _ sTo_ta Peak Hour From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti 07:15 AM on Volume 139 1 9 0 149 1 45 1 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 93. 0.7 6.0 0.0 2.1 95. 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 07:45 34 0 5 0 39 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Peak Factor High Int. 07:30 AM 08 00 AM 6:45:00 AM Volume 42 0 3 0 45 1 15 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 Peak 0.82 0.69 Factor 8 1 File Name : AM -Dean Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 01 /31 /2019 Page No : 2 Ped App. Int. t Thru Left s Total Total 15 194 84 0 293 489 5.1 66. 28. 0.0 2 7 5 77 29 0 111 160 0.764 07:45 AM 0 5 77 29 0 111 0.66 0 Deane Solomon Rd. Out In Total ® 149 234 t 1 1391 1 9 0 Right Thru Left Peds North Cn S 1 /31/2019 7:15:00 AM rn 113 1/2019 8:00:00 AM W � v p O g� m AM Count Data �� a m c r Left Thru Ri ht Peds 0 0 01 0 17 0 17 Out In Total access drive rn �OT.- m O O O O N O O O O m O O r- 'J O Z U p Z Q) 0) a) tT IM iicnina l� U 0 C +-• C O �U C C C W O to > 4) O U O O .0 to Q ` L m L O 0 Y N�O aU O E _O C O () Q) > C O (Z () m C � � C: m M a) i O 0 a>) N =o>,� �L COr a_ (1) LL a_ c o O u7 (D CD (D N 0) (D O Go O CIO OO WM OCD �2 H Q F M�'rCMM MQ CNf)171) C17�mv ¢ r y Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Vl O_ 0 3 o r P co co r` a CD O r O E J N N N r 00 r N Ch N O N L LDr O LL C? N O V CO N CD 00 0)Cfl 00 r N--(D O N r NOV N00 NNOr 1D yrr CD Qg {0 OITNrr NNOOV 'V LID N ct Q � 00000 00000 0000 >�o tn0 QOMNr CD rr OON 'R ON N U O N LL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r O O N G O O N Icn, r 00— O O O O O O O O O 0- 00 RMNN�0OO O NM -4MV CO CD00 D CD No00000 OC)CDCm) j0 0000 a O � LW Or r r OCh r r OON Or 00 ° E J .L O rn QN A Pr,- O 0V Or Oct NM � N N M !7 4 C`) V u7 CO O O I- CD CD MNONO NNNN 00 V Cn rN nnm Ntq CDOr OCD �n 0)w Q N N N N O N N N O N N M N N C?00000 OOO OIO OOOO 0 E 0 0 fn d C d O +J✓ IRIO N N OIv N N CV OCD N r O O J 2 000000 O O O O FE —C" C, �Of� tp RNr- CCD —NNNNCD NCI) N �aaaa o ao_aa LL O Lin O H 0 0 pp O Or Mef 9r(h O O O O O 8888 O O O O O r` O O O N N C7 N c aao_0- CD Lim O CC7 O r M O O O 0 O ri CM O O O O O GGo �rD'a N 00 M M 0)- 0) N w Go N r 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 v N 00 r V Uj 7 ch r O r 0 m CD C0i m cT v O o 0 0 0 0 CO O V O O O O V LO 00 O O r N CD N N CD V N o 00 C� O CV O O O O CD CD M CI) M O R O O O O O O 6 M L, r-- cyi 0 CD N O O Do o e [2O U U n F- f1 Shiloh Dr. Out In Total 202] 6361 837 29 6001 61 01 Right Thru Left Peds 1 L, c° O y a y O a I� o 0 m OCD 'Il�0 C m c 2—► Z _rnrn_ 1 Ri Ri 4-2� u m 0 0 � 11-1 Cg a a - N J I�I to nJ41 t4o!L! SPad Val B9i 991 19Z 10 Fool-i 96b Zm6 Idol of 1no J0 4ol!4S Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Data PM Hour Turning Movement Count Data File Name : PM -Dean Shiloh Drive and Deane Solomon Road Site Code : 00000000 Fayetteville, AR Start Date : 01/30/2019 P1962 Page No :2 Deane Solomon Rd. Shiloh Dr. access drive Shiloh Dr. From North From East From South From West Righ Ped App. Righ Ped App. Righ Ped App. Righ Ped App. Int. Start Time Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left I_ s Total t s Total t s Total t s Total Total Peak Hour From 03:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersecti 04:30 PM on Volume 111 0 5 0 116 13 278 1 0 292 0 0 9 0 9 6 62 120 0 188 605 Percent 95. 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.5 95. 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 3.2 33. 63. 0.0 7 2 0 0 8 05.00 Volume 27 0 2 0 29 4 90 0 0 94 0 0 4 0 4 4 21 29 0 54 181 Peak 0.836 Factor High Int. 04:30 PM 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 04:30 PM Volume 32 0 2 0 34 4 90 0 0 94 0 0 5 0 5 0 19 36 0 55 Peak 0.85 0.77 0.45 0.85 Factor 3 7 0 5 Deane Solomon d. Out In Total 133 1161 249 1111 0 5 0 Right Thru Left Peds �Fw_1 N�� O MC N North —2 v o' c� o —' iD 1/30/2019 4:30:00 PM co ro 5-0 L �� 1/30/2019 5:15:00 PM �� Np . rn' O PM Count Data __. a coo LJ d m a w c �� 41, T F* Left Thru Ri ht Pods 9 0 01 0 9 16 Out In Total access drive HISTORICAL AADT AADT TABLE HISTORICAL TRAFFIC GROWTH RATES Portcr Road Shiloh Drive Sum year AAD T Growth % to final year Growth % to next year 19881 3530 14.61% 10.20% 1989 3890 13.39% 9.25% 1990 4250 12.39% -8.24% 1991 3900 14.34% 15.38% 1992 4500 12.39% 0.00% 1993 4500 12.89% 13.33% 1994 5100 11.36% 3.92% 1995 5300 11.24% 15.09% 1996 6100 9.61% 4.92% 1997 6400 9.38% 0.00% 19981 6400 9.84% 15.63% 1999 7400 8.25% 10.81% 2000 8200 7.32% -6.10% 2001 7700 8.63% 9.09% 2002 8400 7.89% -4.76% 2003 8000 9.17% 11.25% 2004 8900 8.11% 22.47% 2005 10900 5.72% 11.01% 2006 12100 4.75% 3.31% 200712500 4.73% 4.0008 2008 130001 4.62% 0.00% 2009 13000 5.13% 0.00% 201013000 5.77% 7.69% 201114000 5.10% 7.14% 2012 15000 4.44% 0.00% 2013.150001 5.33% 0.00% 201415000 6.67% 0.00% 2015 15000 8.89% 6.67% 201616000 9.38% 6.25% 2017 17000 11.76% 11.76% 2018 19000 year AAD T Growth % to final year Growth % to next year 1988 140 115.71% 35.71% 1989 190 87.30% 0.00% 1990 190 90.41% 26.32% 1991 240 73.46% 43.75% 1992 345 51.90% 0.00% 1993 345 53.97% 30.43% 1994 450 42.13% 22.22% 1995 550 35.18% 34.55% 1996 740 26.17% -13.51% 1997 640 32.44% -6.25% 1998 600 36.67% 31.67% 1999 790 28.05% 15.19% 2000 910 24.97% -5.49% 2001 860 28.32% 27.91% 2002 1100 22.16% -12.73% 2003 960 28.06% 14.58% 2004 1100 25.32% -33.64% 2005 730 44.99% 105.48% 2006 1500 19.44% 0.00% 2007 1500 21.21% 6.67% 20081 16001 21.25% -6.25% 2009 1500 25.93% 53.33% 2010 2300 14.67% -30.43% 2011 1600 30.36% 106.25% 2012 3300 8.59% 18.18% 2013 3900 5.64% -48.72% 2014 2000 37.50% 135.00% 2015 4700 2.13% 14.89% 2016 5400 -3.70% 5.56% 2017 5700 -12.28% -12.28% 2018 5000 year AAD T Growth ° o to final year Growth % to next year 1988 3670 18.47% 11.17% 1989 4080 16.84% 8.82% 1990 4440 15.73% -6.76% 1991 4140 17.77% 17.03% 1992 4845 15.21% 0.00% 1993 4845 15.81% 14.55% 1994 5550 13.85% 5.41% 1995 5850 13.49% 16.92% 1996 6840 11.40% 2.92% 1997 7040 11.47% -0.57% 1998 7000 12.14% 17.00% 1999 8190 10.16% 11.23% 2000 9110 9.08% -6.04% 2001 8560 10.61% 10.98% 2002 9500 9.54% -5.68% 2003 8960 11.19% 11.61% 2004 10000 10.00% 16.30% 2005 11630 8.18% 16.94% 2006 13600 6.37% 2.94% 2007 14000 6.49% 4.29% 2008 146001 6.44% -0.68% 2009 14500 7.28% 5.52% 2010 15300 7.11% 1.96% 2011 15600 7.69% 17.31% 2012 18300 5.19% 3.28% 2013 189001 5.40% -10.05% 201417000 10.29% 15.88% 2015 19700 7.28% 8.63% 2016 21400 6.07% 6.07% 2017 22700 5.73% 5.73% 2018 24000 6.00% Selected growth rate Grey indicates average value from neighboring years. a W ptn��lt• 0r � � rrr W Woll Run U, W Live Oak Dr 0 `oyore o — y W Lori 0, o t � W Moore Ln p 6 2 W E mlt 0, 4� W Ouai 0, �rY.•fMe tr , - ` J J 'Rcvnarooe sf, i � � Y • $ 3 z0 z W Ye•dOrYlxM Or Z W Westbury St z W Yr Comfort qd e n i < v z i Matarn.�ty f.rw• �. t 3 Wtidrooa pr W MenQwn adgy. O 6F,e O, W Potnl West 3i 6 ci � k t o IEC R` ,,, � Q. `p y, 4c W - 4. tnomP•ar . ,er 41 > a 4 < d . 19,000 rot 2017 Al)T 17.000 t J = 2016 Al1T 16.000 a y 2015 AI.)1 15,000 E _ - 2014 AD t 15,000 t 2013 AU i 1 S.000 �,. 2012 Al)? 15,M) ,... 2011 AD 14.000 2010 AL) 1 11,000 2009 All', 13,000 2004 AG1 13,000 M7 API 12,500 ;-W. All? 12, M) 200S AI?' 10.900 t.t 2r"AnI ZZOM 2, A9m ... r t Fayetteville, Arkansas Porter Road Historic Count Location W Opmt Or Dlakaatpna St 't W Day* Dr r feanEaooa Stb � $ i 6 G � C7 = W Yydowlwk Or W WtrotWty St ;w11dWtpd or W m kf Qq. y do* O FFa O, W pant Witt dt U O O P W—dn i C now W 40py O pt ¢ W W off Rao p. 9300 W Yoorp In S,Ooi7 5, 7W 5,400 4,1(M) 2.0w -1.*0 3,300 1,600 2.3cw 1.S(IU t.60D t 500 1.SOD 7V ^ r W ble Oak Ur - fa, W Knapp 31 vap Snd"'. St � ip t 4 3 v O i Fayetteville, Arkansas Shiloh Drive Historic Count Location Intersection Capacity Analysis Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR Volumes 04/14/2020 Underwoods Develop6a11111P%jgetYEiitld7AIbiimaouog AM%Mbmlkment - Fayetteville, AR\Synchrol01 Existing AM Peak.syn Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM 6th TWSC 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations .+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 1 139 0 0 0 84 194 15 1 45 1 Future Vol, veh/h 9 1 139 0 0 0 84 194 15 1 45 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 0 - 100 - 50 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade. % - 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 1 151 0 0 0 91 211 16 1 49 1 Ma &MMinor iiilinor2 Minorl> M8i'lorl Maja2 Conflicting Flow All 453 461 50 529 453 219 50 0 0 227 0 0 Stage 1 52 52 - 401 401 - - - - - - - Stage 2 401 409 - 128 52 - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 517 497 1018 460 503 821 1557 - - 1341 - - Stage 1 961 852 - 626 601 - - - Stage 2 626 596 - 876 852 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 494 468 1018 374 473 821 1557 - - 1341 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 494 468 374 473 - - - - - Stage 1 905 851 - 590 566 - - - - - - - Stage 2 589 561 744 851 - Approach SE NW NE HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0 2.1 0.2 HCM LOS A A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLnlNWLn2 SELn1 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 1557 950 1341 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 059 C 17 C 0111 HCM Control Delay (s) T5 0 0 9.6 T7 HCM Lane LOS A A A, A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.6 0 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 6 3 82 143 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 6 3 82 143 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 7 3 89 155 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 251 156 156 0 0 Stage 1 156 - - - - - Stage 2 95 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 738 890 1424 - Stage 1 872 - Stage 2 929 - - - - - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 737 890 1424 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 737 - - Stage 1 870 - - - - - Stage 2 929 - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 0.3 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1424 846 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.01 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile O(veh) 0 - 0 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.8 WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 4 80 4 1 130 Future Vol. vehlh 14 4 80 4 1 130 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 4 87 4 1 141 MaIWinor Minorl - Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 232 89 0 0 91 0 Stage 1 89 - - - - - Stage 2 143 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 756 969 - - 1504 - Stage 1 934 - - - Stage 2 884 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 755 969 - 1504 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 755 - - Stage 1 934 - - - Stage 2 883 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0 0.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 794 1504 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, slveh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations `;' +' Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 1 82 2 0 126 Future Vol, veh/h 5 1 82 2 0 126 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 1 89 2 0 137 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 227 90 0 0 91 0 Stage 1 90 - - - - - Stage 2 137 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - CriGcal Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 761 968 - - 1504 - Stage 1 934 - - - Stage 2 890 - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 761 968 - - 1504 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 761 - - Stage 1 934 - - - - Stage 2 890 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 789 1504 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 008 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 Existing AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR Volume Underwoods Develop®iit11Pr44yetifiViII67ARbff isib NMTa epment - Fayetteville, AR\Synchro102 Existing PM Peak.syn Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM 6th TWSC 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 4.1 SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 4 T, 11� T. Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 0 111 9 0 0 120 62 6 1 278 13 Future Vol, veh/h 5 0 111 9 0 0 120 62 6 1 278 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 0 - 100 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 0 121 10 0 0 130 67 7 1 302 14 Major/Minor ' Minor2 Minori Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 642 645 309 703 649 71 316 0 0 74 0 0 Stage 1 311 311 - 331 331 - - - - - - - Stage 2 331 334 - 372 318 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 387 391 731 352 389 991 1244 - - 1526 - - Stage1 699 658 - 682 645 - - - - Stage 2 682 643 - 648 654 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 356 350 731 270 348 991 1244 - - 1526 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 356 350 - 270 348 - - - - Stage 1 626 657 - 610 577 - - - - Stage 2 611 575 541 653 Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 11.3 18.8 5.3 0 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SELn1 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 1244 270 699 1526 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.105 - 0.036 0.18 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 18.8 0 11.3 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A C A B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0.1 - 0.7 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 10 11 122 106 2 Future Vol, veh/h 2 10 11 122 106 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 11 12 133 115 2 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 273 116 117 0 0 Stage 1 116 - - - - Stage 2 157 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3 518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 716 936 1471 Stage 1 909 - Stage 2 871 - - - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 710 936 1471 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 710 - Stage 1 901 Stage 2 871 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0.6 0 HCM LOS ;I Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1471 889 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 :' S HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T #1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 2 109 15 4 99 Future Vol, veh/h 9 2 109 15 4 99 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 2 118 16 4 108 M"nor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 242 126 0 0 134 0 Stage 1 126 - - - - - Stage 2 116 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 746 924 - - 1451 - Stage 1 900 - - Stage 2 909 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 744 924 - - 1451 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 744 - - Stage 1 900 - - - Stage 2 906 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.7 0 0.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 771 1451 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 0.003 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay slveh Movement 0.1 WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ' Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 0 108 3 1 101 Future Vol. veh/h 2 0 108 3 1 101 Conflicting Peds, #mr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 0 117 3 1 110 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 231 119 0 0 120 0 Stage 1 119 - - - - - Stage 2 112 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 757 933 - 1468 - Stage 1 906 - Stage 2 913 - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 756 933 1468 Mcv Cap-2 Maneuver 756 - - Stage 1 906 Stage 2 912 - Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay. s 9.8 0 0.1 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 756 1468 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.8 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 Existing PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR U PWOW Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM 6th TWSC 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.6 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations + *i T 11� 11� Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 1 179 0 0 0 104 229 18 1 53 2 Future Vol, veh/h 15 1 179 0 0 0 104 229 18 1 53 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 0 100 - 50 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade. % - 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 1 195 0 0 0 113 249 20 1 58 2 Majod minor Mites Minor (: - Mal'or1 lajci ` Conflicting Flow All 546 556 59 644 547 259 60 0 0 269 0 0 Stage 1 61 61 - 485 485 - - - - - - - Stage 2 485 495 - 159 62 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 - PotCap-1 Maneuver 448 439 1007 386 445 780 1544 - - 1295 - - Stage 1 950 844 - 563 552 - - - Stage 2 563 546 - 843 843 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked. % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 422 407 1007 293 412 780 1544 - - 1295 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 422 407 - 293 412 - - - Stage 1 881 843 - 522 512 - - - - - - Stage 2 522 506 679 842 - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 0 2.2 0.1 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SELn1 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 1544 904 1295 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.073 0.234 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 - 0 0 10.2 7.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - - 0.9 0 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.2 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 T Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 26 9 98 169 2 Future Vol, veh/h 7 26 9 98 169 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 8 28 10 107 184 2 hitajorlMinar (inor MOO M0jor2 Conflicting Flow All 312 185 186 0 0 Stage 1 185 - - - - - Stage 2 127 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - PotCap-1 Maneuver 681 857 1388 - - - Stage 1 847 - - Stage 2 899 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 676 857 1388 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 676 - - Stage 1 840 - - - Stage 2 899 - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0.6 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1388 811 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 0.044 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 9.6 - HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT' Lane Configurations Y I +T Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 5 100 5 1 154, o Future Vol. veh/h 17 5 100 5 1 154 Conflicting Peds, Whir 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 - Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 18 5 109 5 1 167 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2- — Conflicting Flow All 281 112 0 0 114 0 Stage 1 112 - - - - - Stage 2 169 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 709 941 - 1475 Stage 1 913 - - Stage 2 861 - Platoon blocked. °% - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 708 941 1475 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 708 - - Stage 1 913 Stage 2 860 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 750 1475 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background AM Peak Synchm 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y 1� 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 103 2 0 150 Future Vol, vehlh 6 1 103 2 0 150 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - 0 Grade. % 0 0 - C Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 1 112 2 0 163 Moor/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 276 113 0 0 114 0 Stage 1 113 - - - - - Stage 2 163 - - - - - Cri6cal Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 714 940 - 1475 Stage 1 912 - Stage 2 866 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 714 940 - 1475 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 714 - - Stage 1 912 - Stage 2 866 - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 739 1475 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 01 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 0 HCM Lane LOS A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Deane Solomon Rd & Park Ent 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 103 150 0 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 1 103 150 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 112 163 0 Maior]Minpr "' �Minor2 M j4 r Conflicting Flow All 277 163 163 0 0 Stage 1 163 - - - - - Stage 2 114 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 713 882 1416 - Stage 1 866 - - - - Stage 2 911 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 712 882 1416 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 712 - - Stage 1 865 - - - - - Stage 2 911 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1416 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001, - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th °/stile Q(veh) 0 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 7 Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR Volumes birig U raEAYdla*dbiWeldtirtilarderFAujmdt@eWWpolb@0t2 EkvdtWeiiaOMNIS�aB ro104 2022 Traffic Engineering Consultants 04/14/2020 Projected Background PM Peak.syn HCM 6th TWSC 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 Intersection Irt Delay slveh Movement = . 9 SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 414 1. '' T I. Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 0 148 11 0 0 162 73 7 1 328 18 Future Vol, veh/h 9 0 148 11 0 0 162 73 7 1 328 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 0 - 100 - - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade. % - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 0 161 12 0 0 176 79 8 1 357 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Conflicting Flow All 804 808 367 885 814 83 377 0 0 87 0 0 Stage 1 369 369 - 435 435 - - - - - - - Stage 2 435 439 - 450 379 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 301 315 678 266 312 976 1181 - - 1509 - - Stage 1 651 621 - 600 580 - Stage 2 600 578 - 589 615 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 266 268 678 180 265 976 1181 - - 1509 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 266 268 - 180 265 - - - Stage 1 554 620 - 511 494 - - - - - - - Stage 2 511 492 449 614 - Approach SE NW NE HCM Control Delay, s 12.9 26.4 5.7 0 HCM LOS B D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SELn1 SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 1181 180 623 1509 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.14E 066 0.274 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 26A 0 12.9 7.4 HCM Lane LOS A D A B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.2 - 1.1 0 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +1 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 25 28 152 132 6 Future Vol, veh/h 5 25 28 152 132 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 27 30 165 143 7 Major/Minor Minor2 MBjorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 372 147 150 0 0 Stage 1 147 - - - - - Stage 2 225 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 629 900 1431 - - - Stage 1 880 - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Platoon blocked. % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 615 900 1431 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 615 - - Stage 1 860 - - - - - Stage 2 812 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.5 1.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1431 835 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 0.039 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 9.5 - HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T +T Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 2 140 18 5 128 Future Vol; veh/h 11 2 140 18 5 128 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 12 2 152 20 5 139 04/14/2020 Conflicting Flow All 311 162 0 0 172 0 Stage 1 162 - - - - - Stage 2 149 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 681 883 - - 1405 - Stage 1 867 - - Stage 2 879 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 678 883 - - 1405 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 678 - - Stage 1 867 - - - - - Stage 2 875 - Approach WB NB SB v HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 0 0.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 703 1405 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.02 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 10.2 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 0 138 4 1 130 Future Vol, veh/h 2 0 138 4 1 130 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 0 150 4 1 141 Major/Minor Minorl Majors Major2" Conflicting Flow All 295 152 0 0 154 0 Stage 1 152 - - - - - Stage 2 143 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 696 894 - 1426 - Stage 1 876 - Stage 2 884 - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 695 894 - - 1426 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 695 - - Stage 1 876 -- Stage 2 883 - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 0 0.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 695 1426 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Deane Solomon Rd & Park Ent Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 04/14/2020 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +1 T Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 7 8 130 124 6 Future Vol, veh/h 5 7 8 130 124 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 8 9 141 135 7 Major/Minor iiilinoi2 t a W s*jor2All Conflicting Flow All 298 139 142 0 0 Stage 1 139 - - - - - Stage 2 159 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 693 909 1441 - - - Stage 1 888 - - Stage 2 870 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 688 909 1441 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 688 - - Stage 1 882 - - - Stage 2 870 Approach EB NB SB:` HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 0.4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EB1_n1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1441 802 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.016 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.6 - HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 7 Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR Volumes Park Ent South 04/14/2020 UndGrWd6WejDelsFoatr7elihdFnyettd4UwAW 0. Cbo*MedilWARMynchro105 2022 Projected Combined AM Peak.syn Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 11-0 �l 1r-1 f x - 1t.1 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWIL SWT SWR Lane Configurations +T+ Vi li, T. T+ Traffic Volume (vph) 60 1 357 0 0 0 222 229 18 1 53 31 Future Volume (vph) 60 1 357 0 0 0 222 229 18 1 53 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.88 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1636 1770 1842 1770 1759 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.46 1.00 0.59 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 866 1842 1106 1759 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1 388 0 0 0 241 249 20 1 58 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 222 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 29 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 232 0 0 0 0 241 265 0 1 63 0 Turn Type custom NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 33.0 26.9 11.1 10.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 33.0 26.9 11.1 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.44 0.36 0.15 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 674 598 660 173 234 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.14 0.00 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 c0.08 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 14.4 13.8 18.0 27.2 29.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.6 Delay (s) 15.8 14.3 18.4 27.3 29.8 Level of Service B B B C C Approach Delay (s) 15.8 0.0 16.5 29.8 Approach LOS B A B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 General Information Site Information Analyst NB Intersection Shiloh and Deane Solomon Agency or Co. TEC E/W Street Name Shiloh Date Performed 4/14/2020 N/S Street Name Deane Solomon Analysis Year 2022 Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Time Analyzed AM Peak - Combined Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Underwoods Development Jurisdiction Fayetteville Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 222 229 18 0 1 53 31 0 0 0 0 0 60 1 357 Percent Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Flow Rate (vPce), pc/h 0 244 251 20 0 1 58 34 0 0 0 0 0 66 1 392 Right -Turn Bypass None None None None Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow -Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s) 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow -Up Headway (s) 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (v,), pe/h 515.00 93.00 0.00 459.00 Entry Volume veh/h 509.90 92.08 0.00 454.46 Circulating Flow (w), pc/h 68 2" 561 59 Exiting Flow (we ), pe/h 317 450 278 22 Capacity (c,), pe/h 1287.53 1075.95 778.70 1299.40 Capacity (c), veh/h 1274.78 1065.30 770.99 1286.53 v/c Ratio (x) 0.40 0.09 0.00 0.35 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 6.7 4.1 4.7 6.1 Lane LOS A A A A 95% Queue, veh 2.0 0.3 0.0 1.6 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.7 4.1 6.1 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay, s/veh I LOS 6.2 A Copyright (c�i 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM Roundabouts Version 7.7 Generated: 4/14/2020 3:53:33 PM 05 2022 Projected Combined AM Peak.xro HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. slveh 2.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 88 24 230 330 6 Future Vol, veh/h 23 88 24 230 330 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 25 96 26 250 359 7 Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 665 363 366 363 - - 302 - - 6.42 6.22 4.12 5.42 - - 5.42 - - 3.518 3.318 2.218 425 682 1193 704 - - 750 - - 414 682 1193 414 686 - - 750 - - 0 0 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 12.5 0.8 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1193 601 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 0.201 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 12.5 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.7 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 4: Deane Solomon Rd & PA4 North 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 2.4 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +1 j� Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 93 22 231 243 6 Future Vol, veh/h 23 93 22 231 243 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 25 101 24 251 264 7 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 567 268 271 0 0 Stage 1 268 - - - - Stage 2 299 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 485 771 1292 - Stage 1 777 - - Stage 2 752 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 474 771 1292 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 474 - - Stage 1 760 - - - - - Stage 2 752 - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay. s 11.4 0.7 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1292 686 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 0.184 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 11.4 - HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.7 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T T Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 5 249 5 1 232 Future Vol. veh/h 17 5 249 5 1 232 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 18 5 271 5 1 252 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 528 274 0 0 276 0 Stage 1 274 - - - - - Stage 2 254 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Sig 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 511 765 - - 1287 - Stage 1 772 - - - - Stage 2 788 - - - - - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 510 765 - - 1287 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 510 - - Stage 1 772 - - - - - Stage 2 787 Approach WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 552 1287 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.8 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 6: Deane Solomon Rd & PA2 South 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 34 55 199 200 14 Future Vol, veh/h 8 34 55 199 200 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 37 60 216 217 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 561 225 232 0 0 Stage 1 225 - - - - - Stage 2 336 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 489 814 1336 - - Stage 1 812 - - - Stage 2 724 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 464 814 1336 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 464 - - Stage 1 771 - - - - - Stage 2 724 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay. s 10.4 1.7 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1336 712 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.045 0.064 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 10.4 - HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T +T Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 205 2 0 208 Future Vol, veh/h 6 1 205 2 0 208 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 1 223 2 0 226 MajorlNlmor Minorl Ma°or1 Conflicting Flow All 450 224 0 0 225 0 Stage 1 224 - - - - - Stage 2 226 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 567 815 1344 - Stage 1 813 - - Stage 2 812 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 567 815 - - 1344 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 567 - - Stage 1 813 - - - - - Stage 2 812 - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 593 1344 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - HCM Control Delay (s) - 11.2 0 - HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Deane Solomon Rd & Park Ent 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 34 56 150 174 14 Future Vol, veh/h 8 34 56 150 174 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 37 61 163 189 15 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 482 197 204 0 0 Stage 1 197 - - - - - Stage 2 285 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 543 844 1368 - - - Stage 1 836 - - Stage 2 763 - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 516 844 1368 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 516 - - Stage 1 795 - - - Stage 2 763 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 2.1 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1368 753 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.061 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 10.1 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR Volumes 04/14/2020 UndGr4ffl&Fej®e69Foplr7etindEayetfd\fflha;eWDOOR CSBe tetlediHWANOynchro1062022 Projected Combined PM Peak.syn Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL - NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 4 1 T4 ►j T Traffic Volume (vph) 79 0 425 11 0 0 472 73 7 1 328 96 Future Volume (vph) 79 0 425 11 0 0 472 73 7 1 328 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Fit Protected 0.99 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1638 1770 1770 1837 1770 1800 Fit Permitted 0.94 0.23 0.19 1.00 0.70 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1559 433 360 1837 1305 1800 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 86 0 462 12 0 0 513 79 8 1 357 104 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 276 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 272 0 12 0 0 513 83 0 1 448 0 Turn Type custom NA Perm pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Protected Phases 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2` ': 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.2 17.2 47.8 41.7 24.9 23.8 Effective Green, g (s) 17.2 17.2 47.8 41.7 24.9 23.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.64 0.56 0.33 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 357 99 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.12 Uniform Delay, dl 27.0 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.3 2.5 Delay (s) 41.2 25.4 Level of Service D C Approach Delay (s) 41.2 Approach LOS D Intersection Summa 586 1021 440 571 c0.22 0.05 0.00 0.25 c0.34 0.00 0.88 0.08 0.00 0.78 15.6 7.7 16.7 23.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13.7 0.0 0.0 7.0 29.3 7.8 16.7 30.3 C A B C 25.4 26.2 30.2 C C C HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time is) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCS7 Roundabouts Report General Information Site Information Analyst NB Intersection Shiloh and Deane Solomon Agency or Co. TEC E/W Street Name Shiloh Date Performed 4/14/2020 N/S Street Name Deane Solomon Analysis Year 2022 Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Time Analyzed PM Peak - Combined Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Underwoods Development Jurisdiction Fayetteville Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 472 73 7 0 1 328 96 0 11 0 1 0 0 79 0 425 Percent Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Flow Rate (vac[), pc/h 0 518 80 8 0 t 360 105 0 12 0 0 0 87 0 467 Right -Turn Bypass None None None None Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow -Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s) 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow -Up Headway (s) 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (v,), pc/h 606.00 466.00 12.00 554.00 Entry Volume veh/h 600.00 461.39 11.88 548.51 Circulating Flow (w), pc/h 88 530 685 373 Exiting Flow (w.), pc/h 167 839 623 9 Capacity (ca ), pc/h 1261.53 803.71 686.18 943.30 Capacity (c), veh/h 1249.04 795.76 679.39 933.96 v/c Ratio (x) 0.48 0.58 0.02 0.59 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 7.9 13.5 5.5 12.1 Lane LOS A B A B 95% Queue, veh 2.7 3.8 0.1 3.9 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 13.5 S.5 12.1 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Delay, s/veh I LOS 10.9 B Copyright @ 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS1iW Roundabouts Version 7.7 Generated: 4/14/2020 4:00:35 PM 06 2022 Projected Combined PM Peak.xro HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +1 T Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 48 76 492 456 18 Future Vol, veh/h 11 48 76 492 456 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 12 52 83 535 496 20 MAjodMinor , ,�..: Minor2 . ji. ; MAJor1 Ma1or2 Conflicting Flow All 1207 506 516 0 0 Stage 1 506 - - - - - Stage 2 701 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Sig 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 203 566 1050 - - Stage 1 606 - - Stage 2 492 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 180 566 1050 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 180 - - - Stage 1 538 - - - - Stage 2 492 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.6 1.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1050 404 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.079 0.159 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 0 15.6 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.6 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 4: Deane Solomon Rd & PA4 North Intersection 04/14/2020 Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 14 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 34 72 431 440 18 Future Vol; veh/h 9 34 72 431 440 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 37 78 468 478 20 Conflicting Flow All 1112 488 498 0 0 Stage 1 488 - - - - - Stage 2 624 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - _:- Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 231 580 1066 - - Stage 1 617 - - - - Stage 2 534 - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 208 580 1066 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 208 - - - - - Stage 1 556 - - - Stage 2 534 - - EB NB SB HCM Control Delay.. s 14.6 1.2 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1066 422 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.073 0.111 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 0 14.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - 0.4 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y li� Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 2 423 18 5 448 Future Vol, veh/h 11 2 423 18 5 448 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 12 2 460 20 5 487 Migor1Min0 . ,; . .. Minorl -Majorl Major2_ Conflicting Flow All 967 470 0 0 480 0 Stage 1 470 - - - - - Stage 2 497 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 282 594 - 1082 - Stage 1 629 - Stage 2 611 - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 280 594 - - 1082 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 280 - Stage 1 629 - - - - - Stage 2 607 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay. s 17.4 0 0.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 305 1082 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) - 17.4 8.3 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 6: Deane Solomon Rd & PA2 South 04/14/2020 Intersection ,. Int Delay. s/veh 4 7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +1 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 145 134 191 308 33 Future Vol, veh/h 36 145 134 191 308 33 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 39 158 146 208 335 36 Wiorftnor, , Minor2 , Major! Major2 Conflicting Flow All 853 353 371 0 0 Stage 1 353 - - - - - Stage 2 500 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6,22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 330 691 1188 - - Stage 1 711 - - Stage 2 609 - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 284 691 1188 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 284 - - Stage 1 612 - - - Stage 2 609 - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay. s 15.5 3.5 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1188 538 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.123 0.366 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 15.5 - HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th °/stile Q(veh) 0.4 - 1.7 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y '+ +T Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 0 323 4 1 338 Future Vol, vehlh 2 0 323 4 1 338 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 0 351 4 1 367 tyl�jorlMinot.,, Minorl Majorl . M0jor2 Conflicting Flow All 722 353 0 0 355 0 Stage 1 353 - - - - - Stage 2 369 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 394 691 - 1204 Stage 1 711 - - Stage 2 699 - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 394 691 - - 1204 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 394 - Stage 1 711 - - - Stage 2 698 - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay. s 14.2 0 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 394 1204 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.2 8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Deane Solomon Rd & Park Ent Intersection Int Delay, slveh 11.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR 04/14/2020 Lane Configurations Y *1 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 150 152 150 181 187 40 Future Vol. veh/h 150 152 150 181 187 40 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 163 165 163 197 203 43 Conflicting Flow All 748 225 246 0 0 Stage 1 225 - - - - - Stage 2 523 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 380 814 1320 - - Stage 1 812 - - Stage 2 595 - - - - - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 327 814 1320 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 327 - Stage 1 699 - Stage 2 595 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay. s 28.8 3.7 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1320 468 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.124 0.701 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 28.8 HCM Lane LOS A A D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 5.4 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2022 Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR Volumes 04/14/2020 UrQtWW&WsdIlWietdIT- p#lib@68AEkyattraii oOAHM%vdbro107 2030 Projected Background AM Peak.syn Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Shiloh Rd & Mt Comfort Rd 04/14/2020 '_* 'r *-- t 4\ I / I t Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBl NBT. NBR : SBIL SST SBR Lane Configurations Vii tT tT. ►j 1 1 +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 287 2185 60 106 490 93 5 32 169 233 32 61 Future Volume (vph) 287 2185 60 106 490 93 5 32 169 233 32 61 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3525 1770 3455 1770 1628 1681 1705 1583 Fit Permitted 0.34 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 633 3525 93 3455 1770 1628 1681 1705 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 312 2375 65 115 533 101 5 35 184 253 35 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 110 0 0 0 59 Lane Group Flow (vph) 312 2439 0 115 625 0 5 109 0 144 144 7 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 100.3 86.2 89.1 80.0 13.6 13.6 16.1 16.1 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 100.3 86.2 89.1 80.0 13.6 13.6 16.1 16.1 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.59 0.61 0.55 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 557 2095 162 1906 166 152 186 189 175 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.69 0.04 0.18 0.00 c0.07 c0.09 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 0.39 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.56 1.16 0.71 0.33 0.03 0.72 0.77 0.76 0.04 Uniform Delay, dl 9.6 29.4 39.0 17.8 59.7 63.8 62.7 62.6 57.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 79.5 13.3 0.5 0.1 15.0 18.0 16.5 0.1 Delay (s) 10.9 108.9 52.3 18.2 59.8 78.9 80.7 79.1 57.7 Level of Service B F D B E E F E E Approach Delay (s) 97.8 23.5 78.5 75.7 Approach LOS F C E E tntersedion Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 81.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 6.1 SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 4 Vi T T T. Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 2 291 0 0 0 149 322 25 2 75 4 Future Vol, veh/h 31 2 291 0 0 0 149 322 25 2 75 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 0 100 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade. % - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 34 2 316 0 0 0 162 350 27 2 82 4 Maior/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major? Conflicting Flow All 776 789 84 935 778 364 86 0 0 377 0 0 Stage 1 88 88 - 688 688 - - - - - - - Stage 2 688 701 - 247 90 - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 315 323 975 246 328 681 1510 - - 1181 - - Stage 1 920 822 - 436 447 - - - Stage 2 436 441 - 757 820 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 289 288 975 152 292 681 1510 - - 1181 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 289 288 - 152 292 - - - Stage 1 822 820 - 389 399 - - - - - - - Stage 2 389 394 - 509 818 - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay. s 13.3 0 2.3 0.2 HCM LOS E A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLnlNWLn2 SEW SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 1510 785 1181 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.107 0.449 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 77 0 0 13.3 8.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 2.3 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y f; jk Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 48 11 142 275 4 Future Vol, veh/h 12 48 11 142 275 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 52 12 154 299 4 Major/Minor , Minor2 Major, "Maj6r2 Conflicting Flow All 479 301 303 0 0 Stage 1 301 - - - - Stage 2 178 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 545 739 1258 - - - Stage 1 751 - - Stage 2 853 - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 540 739 1258 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 540 - - Stage 1 743 - - - - - Stage 2 853 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay.. s 10.8 0.6 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1258 688 HCM Lane V/C Ratio C 01 C.095 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 10.8 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th °/stile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 4: Deane Solomon Rd & PA4 North 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 38 5 149 241 1 Future Vol. veh/h 9 38 5 149 241 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 41 5 162 262 1 - .. . Ma`drlMioor; .:. MinoQ .,.. -,: ' Wjor1 `�. R . Conflicting Flow All 435 263 263 0 - 0 Stage 1 263 - - - - - Stage 2 172 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 578 776 1301 - - - Stage 1 781 - - - Stage 2 858 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 576 776 1301 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 576 - - - Stage 1 778 - - - - - Stage 2 858 - Approach EB NB SB AM HCM Control Delay s 10.3 0.3 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1301 728 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 0.07 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 10.3 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14/2020 Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations *if I, +' Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 7 152 7 2 219 Future Vol, veh/h 23 7 152 7 2 219 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 25 8 165 8 2 238 Major/Minor � Minort Majorl � MalW Conflicting Flow All 411 169 0 0 173 0 Stage 1 169 - - - - - Stage 2 242 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 597 875 - - 1404 - Stage 1 861 - - Stage 2 798 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 596 875 - - 1404 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 596 - - Stage 1 861 - - - - Stage 2 796 Approach WB NB SB�., HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 0 0.1 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 644 1404 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) - 10.9 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection" Int Delay, slveh 13 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y '1r +' Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 2 155 3 0 212 Future Vol, veh/h 8 2 155 3 0 212 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 2 168 3 0 230 a IMInG� Miit6d �VI6ij Conflicting Flow All 400 170 0 0 171 0 Stage 1 170 - - - - - Stage 2 230 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 606 874 - - 1406 - Stage 1 860 - - Stage 2 808 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 606 874 - - 1406 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 606 - - - Stage 1 860 - - - Stage 2 808 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.7 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 646 1406 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 017 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Deane Solomon Rd & Park Ent 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +1 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 156 212 0 Future Vol. vehlh 0 0 1 156 212 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage.. # 0 - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 170 230 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 402 230 230 0 0 Stage 1 230 - - - - Stage 2 172 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 604 809 1338 - - Stage 1 808 - - Stage 2 858 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 603 809 1338 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 603 - Stage 1 807 - Stage 2 858 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SB Capacity (veh/h) 1338 „ HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A A - HCM 95th °/stile Q(veh) 0 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 7 Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR Volumes 04/14/2020 U edftietdrTrh�Dpedt@�Fbdi)89BB)cdtgoNedAWSjaaihro108 2030 Projected Background PM Peak.syn Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Shiloh Rd & Mt Comfort Rd 04/14/2020 � � � i- t 4,\ 1 Movement EBL EST IM WBL WBT WBR NBL' NBT ` NBR"' SBL` `5$ " 'MR Lane Configurations tT+ ti, ►j T+ ►j ft rr Traffic Volume (vph) 109 818 20 110 1939 155 18 13 171 274 33 392 Future Volume (vph) 109 818 20 110 1939 155 18 13 171 274 33 392 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3526 1770 3500 1770 1603 1681 1703 1583 At Permitted 0.05 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 92 3526 453 3500 1770 1603 1681 1703 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 118 889 22 120 2108 168 20 14 186 298 36 426 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 174 0 0 0 209 Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 910 0 120 2272 0 20 26 0 167 167 217 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 90.0 80.9 89.4 80.6 9.0 9.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 Effective Green, g (s) 90.0 80.9 89.4 80.6 9.0 9.0 26.3 26.3 26.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.56 0.62 0.56 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 162 1967 359 1945 109 99 304 308 287 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.26 0.02 c0.65 0.01 c0.02 0.10 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.40 0.19 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.46 0.33 1.17 0.18 0.26 0.55 0.54 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 40.2 19.1 12.8 32.2 64.5 64.8 54.0 53.9 56.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.1 0.8 0.6 81.6 0.8 1.4 2.0 1.9 10.8 Delay (s) 55.2 19.9 13.4 113.8 65.3 66.2 56.0 55.8 67.2 Level of Service E B B F E E E E E Approach Delay (s) 23.9 108.8 66.1 62.2 Approach LOS C F E E HCM 2000 Control Delay 78.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.2 Movement SEL SET SER NWL NWT NWR NEL NET NER SWL SWT SWR Lane Configurations 4 Vi I T�' j* Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 0 209 15 0 0 238 103 10 2 461 29 Future Vol, veh/h 12 0 209 15 0 0 238 103 10 2 461 29 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 0 100 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 0 227 16 0 0 259 112 11 2 501 32 MajorlMinor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1157 1162 517 1271 1173 118 533 0 0 123 0 0 Stage 1 521 521 - 636 636 - - - - - - - Stage 2 636 641 - 635 537 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 173 195 558 145 192 934 1035 - - 1464 - - Stage 1 539 532 - 466 472 - - Stage 2 466 469 - 467 523 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 139 146 558 69 144 934 1035 - - 1464 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 139 146 - 69 144 - - - Stage 1 404 531 - 350 354 - - - - - - - Stage 2 349 352 - 276 522 - Approach SE NW NE SW HCM Control Delay, s 19.8 72.6 6.5 0 HCM LOS C F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NEL NET NERNWLn1NWLn2 SEW SWL SWT SWR Capacity (veh/h) 1035 69 480 1464 HCM Lane V/C Ratio C 25 0.236 0.5 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 72.6 0 19.8 7.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A F A C A - HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 1 - 0.8 - 2.8 0 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14,2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 28 40 227 194 8 Future Vol veh/h 6 28 40 227 194 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade. % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 30 43 247 211 9 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 549 216 220 0 0 Stage 1 216 - - - - Stage 2 333 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 497 824 1349 - Stage 1 820 - - Stage 2 726 - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 479 824 1349 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 479 - - Stage 1 790 Stage 2 726 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 1.2 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1349 731 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 6.051 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 10.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - HCM 95th %tile 0(veh) 0.1 - 0.2 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 4: Deane Solomon Rd & PA4 North 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +1 T Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 11 16 217 186 4 Future Vol. veh/h 3 11 16 217 186 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade. % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles. % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 12 17 236 202 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 474 204 206 0 0 Stage 1 204 - - - - Stage 2 270 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 549 837 1365 - Stage 1 830 - - Stage 2 775 - - Platoon blocked. °/o Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 541 837 1365 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 541 - - Stage 1 818 - Stage 2 775 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 0.5 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1365 749 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 0.02 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 9.9 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14,2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh Movement 0.6 WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T +T Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 3 195 25 7 180 Future Vol, vehlh 15 3 195 25 7 180 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade. % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles. % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 3 212 27 8 196 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 438 226 0 0 239 0 Stage 1 226 - - - - Stage 2 212 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 576 813 - - 1328 - Stage 1 812 - - - Stage 2 823 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 572 813 - - 1328 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 572 - - - - Stage 1 812 - - - - - Stage 2 817 - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 0 0.3 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 602 1328 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, slveh Movement 0.1 WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 0 193 5 2 184 Future Vol, veh/h 3 0 193 5 2 184 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 0 210 5 2 200 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 417 213 0 0 215 0 Stage 1 213 - - - - - Stage 2 204 - - Cri6cal Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 592 827 - - 1355 - Stage 1 823 - - - Stage 2 830 - - - - - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 591 827 1355 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 591 - Stage 1 823 - - - - Stage 2 828 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.1 0 0.? HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 591 1355 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Deane Solomon Rd & Park Ent 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.5 EBL EBR Lane Configurations Tr` Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 7 Future Vol veh/h 5 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop RT Channelized - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Grade. % 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 8 NBL NBT SBT SBR 4 T 8 185 178 0 8 185 178 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Free None - None 0 0 - 0 0 92 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 9 201 193 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 412 193 193 0 0 Stage 1 193 - - - - Stage 2 219 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 596 849 1380 - Stage 1 840 - - Stage 2 817 - - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 592 849 1380 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 592 Stage 1 834 - Stage 2 817 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 0.3 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (vehlh) 1380 719 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.018 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 0 10.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B - HCM 95th %tile C(veh) 0 - 0.1 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Background PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 7 Map - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR Volumes 04/14/2020 UndoOdej@eksfoph%1itidEnyetid\Blba;eW@ftffU P"VetbgdtiOerAift#ntUrOMWO30 Projected Combined AM Peak.syn Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Shiloh Rd & Mt Comfort Rd 04/14/2020 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) W4 ti� ►j T. *T r Traffic Volume (vph) 320 2185 60 106 490 318 5 32 169 509 32 98 Future Volume (vph) 320 2185 60 106 490 318 5 32 169 509 32 98 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5065 1770 3330 1770 1628 1681 1695 1583 Fit Permitted 0.17 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 309 5065 140 3330 1770 1628 1681 1695 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 348 2375 65 115 533 346 5 35 184 553 35 107 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 73 0 0 111 0 0 0 86 Lane Group Flow (vph) 348 2438 0 115 806 0 5 108 0 293 295 21 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 80.0 66.0 62.2 53.2 13.0 13.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 80.0 66.0 62.2 53.2 13.0 13.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.49 0.46 0.39 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 419 2476 173 1312 170 156 336 339 316 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.48 0.04 0.24 0.00 c0.07 c0.17 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.36 0.26 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.98 0.66 0.61 0.03 0.69 0.87 0.87 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 24.1 34.0 30.5 32.7 55.3 59.1 52.3 52.3 43.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.1 14.8 9.3 2.2 0.1 12.4 21.1 20.8 0.1 Delay (s) 37.2 48.8 39.8 34.9 55.4 71.5 73.5 73.1 43.9 Level of Service D D D C E E E E D Approach Delay (s) 47.4 35.4 71.1 68.8 Approach LOS D D E E fr�ea�eC�oti $ut�rrt�ry =N- HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 135.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.1 % ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 JI) t r ' t es t/ Movement NBL NBT NOR SBL . ` SBT" SBR , _ NEL : NET NOR ,,' SWT Lane Configurations T +T r 1� I t r Traffic Volume (vph) 15 0 0 109 2 604 407 322 25 2 75 141 Future Volume (vph) 15 0 0 109 2 604 407 322 25 2 75 141 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1775 1583 1770 1843 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.68 0.74 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1266 1373 1583 945 1843 1002 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 0 0 118 2 657 442 350 27 2 82 153 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 431 0 3 0 0 0 125 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 0 0 0 120 226 442 374 0 2 82 28 Turn Type Perm custom NA custom pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 6 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 24.1 24.1 35.9 29.8 14.0 12.9 12.9 Effective Green, g (s) 24.1 24.1 24.1 35.9 29.8 14.0 12.9 12.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.51 0.43 0.20 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 435 472 545 696 784 212 343 291 vis Ratio Prot c0.16 0.20 0.00 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 c0.14 c0.16 0.00 0.02 vic Ratio 0.04 0.25 0.42 0.64 0.48 0.01 0.24 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 15.2 16.5 17.6 11.3 14.5 22.4 24.4 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.3 2.3 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) 15.4 17.8 19.9 13.2 14.9 22.4 24.7 23.9 Level of Service B B B B B C C C Approach Delay (s) 15.4 19.6 14.0 24.1 Approach LOS B B B C ("n�rsectiori Suri<iri>a� ry a... , . , HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 M Al�� General Information Site Information Analyst NS Intersectioc Shiloh and Deane Solomon Agency or Co. TEC E/W Street Name Shiloh Date Performed 4/14/2020 N/S Street Name Deane Solomon Analysis Year 2030 Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Time Analyzed AM Peak - Combined Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Underwoods Development Jurisdiction Fayetteville Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T I R U L T R U L T I R U L T R Number of Lanes (N) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 407 322 2S 0 2 75 141 0 0 0 0 0 109 2 604 Percent Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Flow Rate (vpce), pc/h 0 447 354 27 0 2 82 155 0 0 0 0 0 120 2 663 Right -Turn Bypass None Yielding None Yielding Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow -Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s; 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4,9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow -Up Headway (s) 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and v/c Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (w), pc/h 828.00 84.00 155.00 0.00 122.00 663.00 Entry Volume veh/h 819.80 83.17 153.47 0.00 120.79 656.44 Circulating Flow (w), pc/h 124 447 921 84 Exiting Flow (v..), pc/h 474 82 447 31 Capacity (c,,), pe/h 1216.04 874.72 874.72 539.39 1266.68 1269.27 Capacity (c), veh/h 1204.00 866.06 866.06 534.04 1254.14 1256.70 v/c Ratio (x) 0.68 0.10 0.18 0.00 0.10 0.52 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 12.5 5.1 5.9 6.7 3.7 8.6 Lane LOS B A A A A A 9S% Queue, veh 5.7 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.1 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.5 S.6 7.8 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Delay, s/veh I LOS 9.6 A lopyrignt Cc) LULU University of Honda. All Kights Keserved HCS M Roundabouts Version 1.7 Generated: 4/14/2020 4:18:23 PM 09 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak.xro HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. slveh 4.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y #1 1+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 171 39 436 543 11 Future Vol, vehlh 43 171 39 436 543 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 47 186 42 474 590 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1154 596 602 0 0 Stage 1 596 - - - - - Stage 2 558 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 218 504 975 - - Stage 1 550 - Stage 2 573 - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 205 504 975 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 205 - - Stage 1 518 - - - - - Stage 2 573 - B NB SB ,. HCM Control Delay, s 27 0.7 0 HCM LOS D Minor LanelMetj Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn9 -SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 975 - 390 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - 0.596 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 0 27 - - HCM Lane LOS A A D - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 3.7 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 4: Deane Solomon Rd & PA4 North 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh Movement 5.5 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y + Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 221 46 433 333 12 Future Vol. veh/h 55 221 46 433 333 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 60 240 50 471 362 13 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Maj . Conflicting Flow All 940 369 375 0 0 Stage 1 369 - - - - Stage 2 571 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 293 677 1183 - - - Stage 1 699 - - - - - Stage 2 565 - - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 276 677 1183 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 276 - Stage 1 659 - - - - - Stage 2 565 - - HCM Control Delay, s 20.6 0.8 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1183 525 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 0.571 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 20.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile O(veh) 0.1 - 3.6 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y T Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 7 482 7 2 322 Future Vol, veh/h 23 7 482 7 2 322 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 25 8 524 8 2 350 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 882 528 0 0 532 0 Stage 1 528 - - - - - Stage 2 354 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 317 550 - - 1036 - Stage 1 592 - - Stage 2 710 - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 316 550 - 1036 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 316 - - Stage 1 592 - - - Stage 2 709 Approach WS NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.3 0 0.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 351 1036 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.093 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.3 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 6: Deane Solomon Rd & PA2 South 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh Movement 1.5 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 T, Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 37 84 404 286 21 Future Vol, veh/h 9 37 84 404 286 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade. % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 10 40 91 439 311 23 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 944 323 334 0 0 Stage 1 323 - - - Stage 2 621 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 291 718 1225 Stage 1 734 - - Stage 2 536 - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 262 718 1225 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 262 - - Stage 1 662 Stage 2 536 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 12.4 1.4 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1225 536 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.075 C 093 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 12.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.3 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Int Delay, s/veh 0010 f;: 0.2 ym " Na NBI7 SBL $BT Lane Configurations *' Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 2 410 3 0 299 Future Vol, veh/h 8 2 410 3 0 299 Conflicting Peds, Whir 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 2 446 3 0 325 Conflicting Flow All 773 448 0 0 449 0 Stage 1 448 - - - - - Stage 2 325 - - - - Cribcal Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 367 611 - - 1111 - Stage 1 644 - - Stage 2 732 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 367 611 - - 1111 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 367 - Stage 1 644 - - - - - Stage 2 732 App WB `NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.3 0 0 HCM LOS B MirW LanelMaior Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 399 1111 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.027 - - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS - - B A HCM 95th We Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Deane Solomon Rd & Park Ent 04/14/2020 Intersection I'�t Delw siveh 3.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y +1 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 48 208 204 251 43 Future Vol, veh/h 12 48 208 204 251 43 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 52 226 222 273 47 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 971 297 320 0 0 Stage 1 297 - - - Stage 2 674 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 280 742 1240 Stage 1 754 - - Stage 2 506 - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 222 742 1240 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 222 Stage 1 597 - Stage 2 506 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 4.3 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1240 505 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 182 0.129 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 13.2 - HCM Lane LOS A A B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 0.4 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined AM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 Map - Volume: Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR • • Und&.4W& fej FootryetitidEayettd\MtwoWMIaQPFi jyettBdtlDom oMilrPAArBbt&2030 Projected Combined PM Peak.syn Traffic Engineering Consultants HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Shiloh Rd & Mt Comfort Rd 04/14/2020 Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR 'NBL NBT NBIR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ti ►j tT+ T. +T r Traffic Volume (vph) 158 818 20 110 1939 508 18 13 171 624 33 443 Future Volume (vph) 158 818 20 110 1939 508 18 13 171 624 33 443 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3526 1770 3429 1770 1603 1681 1694 1583 Fit Permitted 0.05 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 102 3526 419 3429 1770 1603 1681 1694 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 172 889 22 120 2108 552 20 14 186 678 36 482 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 16 0 0 159 0 0 0 209 Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 910 0 120 2644 0 20 41 0 359 355 273 Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Split NA Split NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 2 6 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 82.9 72.9 81.1 72.0 9.8 9.8 33.2 33.2 33.2 Effective Green, g (s) 82.9 72.9 81.1 72.0 9.8 9.8 33.2 33.2 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.50 0.56 0.50 0.07 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 1772 319 1702 119 108 384 387 362 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.26 0.02 c0.77 0.01 c0.03 c0.21 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.50 0.19 0.17 vlc Ratio 0.99 0.51 0.38 1.55 0.17 0.38 0.93 0.92 0.75 Uniform Delay, dl 46.8 24.2 16.9 36.5 63.8 64.7 54.8 54.6 52.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 66.4 1.1 0.7 252.0 0.7 2.2 29.7 26.0 8.6 Delay (s) 113.2 25.2 17.6 288.5 64.4 66.9 84.5 80.6 60.7 Level of Service F C B F E E F F E Approach Delay (s) 39.2 276.8 66.6 73.8 Approach LOS D F E E Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 173.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 124.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Shiloh Rd & Deane Solomon Rd 04/14/2020 A`1 1 i' 10 /i ti Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL 88T SBR NEL NET NER SWL _ SWT - SWIG Lane Configurations 1. 4 r I. t r Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 113 0 610 640 103 10 2 461 130 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 113 0 610 640 103 10 2 461 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 1838 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.76 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1410 1583 275 1838 1263 1863 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 123 0 663 696 112 11 2 501 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 489 0 3 0 0 0 96 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 123 174 696 120 0 2 501 45 Turn Type Perm custom NA custom pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 6 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 64.0 57.9 30.1 29.0 29.0 Effective Green, g Is) 16.0 16.0 64.0 57.9 30.1 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.71 0.64 0.33 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 250 281 693 1182 428 600 510 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.07 0.00 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.11 c0.38 0.00 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.62 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.83 0.09 Uniform Delay, dl 33.3 34.2 23.0 6.1 20.0 28.3 21.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 9.8 35.2 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.1 Delay (s) 40.1 44.0 58.3 6.2 20.0 38.0 21.4 Level of Service D D E A B D C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 43.4 50.5 34.3 Approach LOS A D D C interne ai►'$U- im HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 General Information Site Information Analyst NB Intersection Shiloh and Deane Solomon Agency or Co. TEC E/W Street Name Shiloh Date Performed 4/14/2020 N/S Street Name Deane Solomon Analysis Year 2030 Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Time Analyzed PM Peak - Combined Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Project Description Underwoods Development Jurisdiction Fayetteville Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach EB WB NB SB Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Number of Lanes (N) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Assignment LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (V), veh/h 0 640 103 10 0 2 461 130 0 15 0 0 0 113 0 610 Percent Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Flow Rate (v,a), pc/h 0 703 113 11 0 2 506 143 0 16 0 0 0 124 0 670 Right -Turn Bypass None Yielding None Yielding Conflicting Lanes 1 1 1 1 Pedestrians Crossing, p/h 0 0 0 0 Critical and Follow -Up Headway Adjustment Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Critical Headway (s; 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 4.9763 Follow -Up Headway (s) 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 2.6087 Flow Computations, Capacity and We Ratios Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Entry Flow (w), pc/h 827.00 508.00 143.00 16.00 124.00 670.00 Entry Volume veh/h 818.81 502.97 141.58 15.84 122.77 663.37 Circulating Flow (vc), pc/h 126 719 940 524 Exiting Flow (v«), pc/h 237 522 703 13 Capacity (c,e), pc/h 1213.57 662.80 673.70 529.03 808.65 810.30 Capacity (c), veh/h 1201.55 656.23 667.03 523.79 800.64 802.28 v/c Ratio (x) 0.68 0.77 0.21 0.03 0.15 0.83 Delay and Level of Service Approach EB WB NB SB Lane Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Left Right Bypass Lane Control Delay (d), s/veh 12.5 25.0 7.9 7.2 6.1 26.1 Lane LOS B C A A A D 95% Queue, veh 5.7 7.2 0.8 0.1 0.5 9.3 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.5 21.2 7.2 23.0 Approach LOS B C A C Intersection Delay, s/veh I LOS 18.6 C Copyright P 2020 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS'W Roundabouts Version 7.7 Generated: 4/14/2020 4.24:24 PM 10 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak.xro HCM 6th TWSC 3: Deane Solomon Rd & Emil Dr 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay s/veh 2.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 T. Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 69 131 639 655 31 Future Vol. veh/h 16 69 131 639 655 31 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 - Grade. % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles. % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 17 75 142 695 712 34 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1708 729 746 0 0 Stage 1 729 - - - - Stage 2 979 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 100 423 862 Stage 1 477 - - Stage 2 364 - - - Platoon blocked. o Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 73 423 862 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 73 - - Stage 1 349 Stage 2 364 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 32.3 1.7 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 862 222 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.165 0.416 HCM Control Delay (s) 10 0 32.3 HCM Lane LOS B A D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.9 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 1 HCM 6th TWSC 4: Deane Solomon Rd & PA4 North 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh Movement 2.9 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 71 152 503 610 38 Future Vol, veh/h 18 71 152 503 610 38 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 20 77 165 547 663 41 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1561 684 704 0 0 Stage 1 684 - - - - - Stage 2 877 - - Cntical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 123 449 894 - - Stage 1 501 - - Stage 2 407 - - - - - Platoon blocked. % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 90 449 894 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 90 - - Stage 1 368 - - - - - Stage 2 407 - Approach EB NB HCM Control Delay, s 28.4 2.3 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 894 249 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.185 0.389 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.9 0 28.4 - HCM Lane LOS A A D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 1.7 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 2 HCM 6th TWSC 5: Deane Solomon Rd & Pinehills Dr 04/14/2020 Int Delay, s/veh Mdvemetrf ``'`' 0.4 WBL WBR NOT N612 $BL SBT Lane Configurations Y I F; Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 3 496 25 4 638 Future Vol, veh/h 15 3 496 25 4 638 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 3 539 27 4 693 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl M9jor2 Conflicting Flow All 1254 553 0 0 566 0 Stage 1 553 - - - - - Stage 2 701 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 190 533 - - 1006 - Stage 1 576 - - - Stage 2 492 - - - - Platoon blocked, Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 189 533 - 1006 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 189 - - Stage 1 576 - - - Stage 2 489 Approach WB NB SB ..... ....... HCM Control Delay, s 23.7 0 0.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 212 1006 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.092 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) - 23.7 8.6 0 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.3 0 - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 3 HCM 6th TWSC 6: Deane Solomon Rd & PA2 South 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Moveme' Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 167 136 363 478 33 Future Vol, veh/h 42 167 136 363 478 33 Conflicting Peds, Whir 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade. % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 46 182 148 395 520 36 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1229 538 556 0 0 Stage 1 538 - - - - - Stage 2 691 - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 196 543 1015 - - - Stage 1 585 - - - Stage 2 497 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 159 543 1015 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 159 - - - Stage 1 476 - - - - - Stage 2 497 HCM Control Delay, s 29.6 2.5 0 HCM LOS D Capadty (veh/h) 1015 - 366 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.146 0.621 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 0 29.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A D HCM 95th %tile O(veh) 0.5 - 4 - - Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 4 HCM 6th TWSC 7: Deane Solomon Rd & Crane Ct 04/14/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y I Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 0 400 5 2 508 Future Vol, veh/h 0 400 5 2 508 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade. % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 0 435 5 2 552 Mao f dlor Mihad (Najo►i lajOr2 Conflicting Flow All 994 438 0 0 440 0 Stage 1 438 - - - - - Stage 2 556 - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 272 619 - - 1120 - Stage 1 651 - Stage 2 574 - - - - - Platoon blocked. Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 271 619 - 1120 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 271 - - Stage 1 651 - - - Stage 2 572 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.4 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLnl SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) 271 1120 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 18.4 8.2 0 Underwoods Development -Fayetteville, AR 04/1312020 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 5 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Deane Solomon Rd & Park Ent 04/14/12020 Intersection Int Delay. s/veh 8 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 63 241 148 252 268 36 Future Vol. veh/h 63 241 148 252 268 36 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - _ _ Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0 Grade % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 68 262 161 274 291 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 907 311 330 0 0 Stage 1 311 - - Stage 2 596 - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 306 729 1229 Stage 1 743 - - Stage 2 550 - - Platoon blocked. % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 259 729 1229 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 259 - Stage 1 628 Stage 2 550 Approach EB NB SIB HCM Control Delay. s 22.4 3.1 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR „- Capacity (veh/h) 1229 530 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 131 0.623 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 0 22.4 HCM Lane LOS A A C HCM 95th %tile O(veh) 0.5 - 4.2 Underwoods Development - Fayetteville, AR 04/13/2020 2030 Projected Combined PM Peak Synchro 10 Report Traffic Engineering Consultants Page 6 U) Crafton Tull CityClerk From: CityClerk Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 11:01 AM To: Bolinger, Bonnie; Pennington, Blake; CityClerk; citycouncil@matthewpetty.org; Eads, Gail; Roberts, Gina; Batker, Jodi; Johnson, Kimberly; Rogers, Kristin; Williams, Kit; Branson, Lisa; Jordan, Lioneld; Mathis, Jeana; Paxton, Kara; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Thurber, Lisa; Gutierrez, Sonia; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Scroggin, Sloan; Bunch, Sarah; Turk, Teresa; Smith, Kyle Cc: Curth, Jonathan Subject: FW: 65 acre Park Fayetteville Good Morning, Please find below an additional public comment regarding C.7 on the 7/7 Council Agenda for the Underwood PZD. Thanks, Jonathan Curth, AICP Development Review Manager City Planning Division City of Fayetteville, Arkansas icurth()favetteville-ar.eov 479.575.8308 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Youtube From: MARGARET WHILLOCK[mailto:margaretwhillock@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2020 8:44 AM To: Curth, Jonathan <jcurth@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Gutierrez, Sonia <wardl posl@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: 65 acre Park Fayetteville CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please vote in favor of the proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville. This is a much needed park in the western region of the city Thank You for your consideration, Margaret Whillock Sent from my Whone CityClerk From: CityClerk Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 7:04 PM To: Bolinger, Bonnie; Pennington, Blake; CityClerk; citycouncil@matthewpetty.org; Eads, Gail; Roberts, Gina; Batker, Jodi; Johnson, Kimberly; Rogers, Kristin; Williams, Kit; Branson, Lisa; Jordan, Lioneld; Mathis, Jeana; Paxton, Kara; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Thurber, Lisa; Gutierrez, Sonia; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Scroggin, Sloan; Bunch, Sarah; Turk, Teresa; Smith, Kyle Cc: dpayne25526@hotmail.com Subject: FW: Underwood Park Good Evening, Please see the email below from Brad and Debbie Payne. Thank you, Kara. Pa-y-to-vv City Clerk Treasurer City of Fayetteville, Arkansas kapaxton(cDfayetteville-ar.gov T 479.575.8323 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS From: Curth, Jonathan <jcurth@fayetteville-ar.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 5:00 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: dpayne25526@hotmail.com Subject: FW: Underwood Park Good afternoon, Unless it was forwarded separately, please convey the public comment below to the Mayor and City Council regarding the Underwood PZD on Council's agenda forJuly 7, 2020. Thanks, Jonathan Curth, AICP Development Review Manager City Planning Division City of Fayetteville, Arkansas icurth@fayetteville-ar.gov 479.575.8308 Website I Facebook I Twitter I Youtube From: Debbie Payne[mailto:dpayne25526@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 4:SS PM To: Curth, Jonathan <icurth@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Underwood Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor and Council Members: Please vote in favor of the proposed 65-acre Community Park in west Fayetteville. This is a much needed park in the western region of the city. We are thankful the Underwood family is willing to donate this generous gift of property to the city for the communities enjoyment as a 65-acre park. Thank you, Brad and Debbie Payne 2790 N Purple Phlox Lane Fayetteville, AR 72704 Sent from my Whone ' w *-.W ft".Iftv e • -, .fin a •_'� _ �!1�►�+� �' ` AM 4 t • T^ 4 5 z J w. e W-� i N CITY OF .� FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKAAS � ' , DR Q 0' oq�''I E LN M� EMIL DR P Z D 2 0 - 7 0 9 3 Request to rezone the property to CPZD for a mixed -use development that includes city parkland and 602 multi -family units with associated parking. 9 Legend Fayetteville City Limits Feet 0 15CB0015060CV5CD00,05(200 J& NORTH —ram s.r.... — ....,, 4 Mi . Ir p )EVELOPMENT-PZD .E�. LOPMENT STANDARDS- NN1NG AREA I`1t Y ' PLANNINI .1 Wot ` �, • PA-1: Offices and residential • PA-2: Nonresidential and residential _ PA-3: Pond and - - - future parkland 01100a , I oEc or�� (7C7C�E Moo�PA-4: Multi -family Parkland CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSRKAAS )EVELOPMENT-PZD LOPMENT STANDARD`, NNING AREA CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS �" --Nlmq 4 INN P- Mom 9u rr ��R ooll�ill miss sman ... mmm GL GC. -- 3rr.rr, . ON r■ as as GG "1 r ■ �� d_d� r r lr7 III ____ . rr rr ■� �a�r�r_d� ® �i �� ■■ ■r as as rr r® I N rrrr� INA '.Do Hu n u111 rr or i ■■ rrN rr 111 rd rritrrrrr rr■G co u O � o0 : w ss ss ull eaa. ol MV,r ll a �' oa aa' as u u as � �-.... rr err `� Gi rr ■r r-- ` •�� • �� or Ian; ago an !O f■ rw ■■ �rr�rrR rr rr rr -- rr rr _ +r�r` � rya �- I ��! a� u I I� h,aa as :,aa. ��■ GG ca I�I�aal !O !■ one ��■ ,iwnr•m•��w. �dAeA Miami a�•a il"�.. BIG od'e6 =wwa cc .:ol uo��., Au00 ss to to III GG as ar 6 ■fl MIN OQ -. ADOPTED PLANS • Complete development • Greenspace • Future Land Use Map • City Neighborhood Area • Residential Neighborhood area • Natural Area CITY OF 9�ARKANS EVILLE 6 RKANSAS Natural Area Rural Area Residential Neighborhood Area City Neighborhood Area Urban Center Area Industrial Complete Neighborhood Plan Civic and Private Open Space/Parks Civic Institutional Non -Municipal Government Q Fayetteville City Limits CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE ARKANS ARKANSAS ISSUES • Conditions of approval: • Tree preservation • Planning Area 1 density • Requested street improvement waiver • Planning Commission conditions • Park perimeter frontage • Minimum buildable street frontage CITY OF W4. FAYETTEVILLE 8 ARKANSAS ISSUES • Tree preservation • PZD minimum canopy is 25% • Applicant proposes 20-25% CITY OF 19 FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS ISSUES • Planning Area 1 density • 0-10 Years after approval: 4units/ac. • After 10 years.- 24 units/ac. CITY OF 19 FAYETTEVILLE 10 ARKANSAS ISSUES • Requested street improvement waiver • Development submittal • Street improvement determination • Cost -share; parkland donation `credit' CITY OF 9�FAYETARKANS EVILLE RKANSAS �� ISSUES • Planning Commission conditions • Park perimeter frontage Parkland Street 50% of the park's perimeter shall include lots and buildings that front on to the parkland, either directly or across a street. CITY OF .� EVILLE ARKANS t ARKANSAS ISSUES • Planning Commission conditions • Minimum buildable street frontage 50% of a lot's park or street frontage shall include buildings within a 0-25' build -to zone, with prioritization on parkland. Street Parkland Street CITY OF WFAYETTEVILLE 13 ARKANSAS RECOMMENDATION • Approve the rezoning as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission CITY OF 19 FAYETTEVILLE 14 ARKANSAS rv.i N y r . yjo �Vr A�'� # Yn- .,,.tt •:% l O Subject Properly „r ' . W . � ;. Z., ., THY - � .•e +ice'""^ �.."r.. ',+Ms= •, � t tA Ai Pk LORI DR Q + ♦' r _ MOORE LN MQO ` ► �,, ,' _ MIL DR R�`'♦! QUAIL DR ' CITY OF ` FAYETTEVILLE ARKANSAS PZD20-7093 Request to rezone the property to CPZD for a mixed -use development that includes city parkland and 602 multi -family units with associated parking. Legend Fayetteville City Limits Feet 0 15CBOO$5CBOCV5CBOU,05(1?00 ,A& NORTH 15 This is a shorter presentation then was given to PRAB, where there was unanimous approval for recommending accepting this park land. Please let me know if there is additional information you would like to see. �IL North ems} Park Site 50ac + 15ac Land to be developed Mai •rN Deane Solomon Road s * WO ', The proposed park site would have 50acres at first, then the last 15ac around the ponds would be donated after the developer has integrated their storm water work into the lake or lakes. The developer will do work, mainly around the big pond, to help meet their stormwater requirements, but they have assured us that any work done would be done in a way that benefits and does not detract from the park. i Lierly Lane Neigh Park 1 I I I S*m NeiE j I i i i Clabber Creek Trails W con \- North Site Location and Nearby Parks 3 Agr When we look at land proposed for PLD, the service radius is very important. We have limited resources and getting an equitable distribution of parks is a critical goal. Too many parks in one area, dilutes our resources and weakens our ability to serve areas that do not have good park coverage. Typically, we look at a 1 mile service radius for neighborhood parks — but what is really needed here is not a neighborhood park, but a larger community park which have a larger service radius. n4� Community and Regional Parks: oW'S Five Minute Drive Time a V Bryce Davis Park Gulley Park Walker Park Wilson Park Centennial Park - Millsap Mountain Kessler Mt Regional Park Lake Fayetteville Park Lake Sequoyan Park Note Drive Times are approximate from ESRI Business Analyst PwrAnivlu• ARKAM*A• Site PARKS & RECREATION STRATEGIC PLANNING C_ This is a Gap Analysis map we did during the first phase of our Image Tomorrows Parks planning effort that helped with defining the bond projects. The gap analysis shows our Community and Regional Parks, which are where most of the recreation in the city is occurring. You can see some weak areas around the city and that this site is geographically an efficient and effective place to put a community park. The site has other things going for it besides location. One strength is that it is on the Clabber Creek trail which greatly strengthens access and helps make the trail part of what can be a strong liner park. Clabber Creek i North Floodway V 100 year floodplain P11,i�r:. ,fv"r f.�''r i w yr A�. a;,tt7'1 .3 MA61 III. Another asset is Clabber Creek itself. The site does have significant water related impacts from the Creek, but parks can be well suited to handle water. With the upcoming flood study, timing is good to influence the design so that the work helps build a stronger park for the citizens who visit and the many flora and fauna, some rare that live here. :� 44 .IiNmawcx'�?a ` 'tom'' (ItyryaYtt7!'d+ 4 }Mb r_'4ib Parcel Pit, 765-23606.000 - -- — wnz NORTHWEST ARKANSAS LAND M TRUST Site r ;as 122.0 :iRI. More info R �h 01 y 122ac Wilson Springs Preserve is directly to the east What is around a park is important and there are some great assets around this site, besides just the many people living nearby, we have Wilson Springs Preserve which is a 122 ac natural area diligently being restored and enhanced by the NW Arkansas Land Trust. People have told us that one of the main things they want the park department to provide is access to nature and a park here can work well with and benefit from its next -door neighbor. For example, we could host summer camps that use the park and can also easily walk over to the nature preserve. Gary Hampton 21.6ac Clabber Creek 50.2ac • " Mn mny Most ly. -�• � Site +/- 65ac _.— _J i aac IONA \eV look A Strong Conservation — Corridor Along Clabber Creek R Wiltow S Preserve f 122ac i When you start to pull all of this together, we are getting something akin to what are some of the special places existing in other cities, such as Boston's Emerald Necklace. With the park we will be able to enjoy a 2.2 mile conservation corridor and linear park that has the potential to grow. One of our citizens, Ben Henbest, has brought to our attention that the site has an interesting history related to the origins of higher education which is a story that could be told at the park. When you are designing a park interpreting some of the history that may be specific to the site is a great way to add more layers and value so this becomes another positive. One of the structures on the site was a spring house for furnishing water for the planned Far West Seminary. Today it is not so idealistic as shown in the early photo, but that is easy to fix. Thankfully the spring is still going. I think you can see that this could be a great place to tell some of the cultural stories related to the site. Taken all together this site lends itself to the creation of a community park, possibly with a conservation theme, that can provide a variety of recreational benefits to those that live in Fayetteville and visitors. This site's varied resources will help in creating a unique community park which is important. Neighborhood parks tend to be much smaller and simpler offering similar opportunities, but the Community Parks ideally will be unique destinations giving residents even from across the city the desire to visit. Contact with Nature and being able to have an Active Living Lifestyle were the two most important values Citizens had for the park system. Var l(wtl,x, and Interest m V8r1K4-'. r,,t m tNed Abt twi OJ Ia r `x.rvey Surveyed 57 Recreational Activities During the first phase of the Imagine Tomorrow's Park planning effort we did a lot of surveying working to understand what the people of Fayetteville wanted in their park system. We got feedback on 57 recreational activities and asked people if they participated in those activities or were interested in participating. You can't read the information on the slide very well, but the highlighted items in the graph are activities that could work well at this site. Many of these activities deal with providing contact with nature and supporting a healthy living lifestyle which were the two strongest values people wanted overall for the park system to pursue. The full graph is included in this packet of information. SC L1 �t 1W I We will go through a public master planning process to hear more and refine what the public wants in this park if this becomes a reality, but here are some images of things we see as sympathetic to the type of park this could be. - Canoeing The lake is a great feature that can be used many ways. One way is for that we surveyed in our strategic planning efforts. Lakes make great recreational features. We see a walking path around this one, people fishing and just enjoying being by water. Kayaking and canoeing scored fifth out of the 57 recreational activities. This lake reminds me a of a park project I worked on in Louisiana where the lake became a great summer camp destination for teaching kayaking and canoeing. This lake could do something similar though at a smaller scale, perhaps something more like this boat house at the Woodlands, Texas. *,Walking & Jogging 7 C iT�7!1 �7!!T7i111llk 29/57�� AM ,Birdwatchinga Here are some more activities well suited to this site with their scores. This is a view looking north towards the large lake which here has steam coming off of it early in the morning. As Fayetteville gets more developed these types of views and places nestled into the city will become more valuable. Of the 65 acres that will become park, 37.5 acres is being donated by the Underwoods. The Underwoods have supported parks and Fayetteville Public Schools for a long time. At the 97-acre Mount Sequoyah Woods, that park seems bigger than it is, because the Underwood Family for many years has allowed us to use 50 ac of land adjacent to the park at no cost to the people of Fayetteville. Laura Underwood has supported the Yvonne Richardson Community Center, serving for over five years on the Board of Directors and for those efforts was named the 2018 Arkansas Recreation and Parks Association volunteer of the year. For these reasons and other community efforts staff and PRAB are recommending naming this park Underwood Park. Thank You! Recap: • Site is geographically in an area of weak park service. • The area is growing fast with lots of residential. • The land lends itself to a unique and effective park for the community. • Synergy - The land builds on existing assets. (Clabber Creek, Wilson Preserve, Conservation Corridor) • It will have strong hard -surface trail connections. • The public and PRAB have been supportive. • The donation of land beyond requirements allows for a large community park recommended to be named Underwood Park. 17 Imagine Tomorrow's Parks Online Survey Question 16 and 17 Graphed 5-Jun-18 Question 16: Several types of active recreational activities are listed below. Please circle the participation level for you or members of your household. Active Participation and Interest in Participating in Listed Activities - Online Survey �A,.O— Partirtpatwn �Intrrestcd if- Participatng —Total "'n—Vrd aw 400 tso soo p ��' i •+�� r ,a a` }w �. �� +,. ' dJ P a°r �'e °�' r' edw +• dr de`o Aid�+ QDr` '�' yC o y, � ��2 °s .tr) Ileos :` Q,fi' stA is Question 17: Of the activities listed in the previous question, what are your four favorite activities? -M() 250 zoo ISO 100 so 0 CITIZENS TOP FOUR FAVORITE ACTIVITIES BASED ON 1762 TOTAL VOTES ONLINE SURVEY 257 e., ram Oa\` oap ��a aoa\\ t ��e °c oa\ o S. e Cat C�°\� to tie 1- Q, `Or a�'� e5 `V, �V, `Q, 4, �t.4, Q, �e'� .�5� P� o`��e o `�ti e 0 i Ito`' ° ins ` oa 5a 0��o:F� aoo�`t a\at aoa�avc�`y \` o Q\aj tea �a ¢t° etoo a a �o atc �Lt` O` eF e ae\ ` tt` Q yeo 0 0a Q a\o a ��a c�a P°a Qa� a��e �`c� c�! mac. roea yoga\��5`¢tP 0a caaa J\�` °`ct �o� �a�y\ �`cc �a� ao°yam �o o f mot Peto yea �'b C, \era C, c `\a\�ee¢o First favorite Second favorite Third favorite � Fourth favorite --*—totals: �(X) 250 200 150 100 ;0 0 PC '.E-FAY=TE,%L'.F.:R 02•479•14:•MS--AX.;30;=fE•!v1aYl.tii'iADS'X: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Brittany Smith, do solemnly swear that I am the Accounting Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, a daily newspaper printed and published in said County, State of Arkansas; that I was so related to this publication at and during the publication of the annexed legal advertisement the matter of. Notice pending in the Court, in said County, and at the dates of the several publications of said advertisement stated below, and that during said periods and at said dates, said newspaper was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County; that said newspaper had been regularly printed and published in said County, and had a bona fide circulation therein for the period of one month before the date of the first publication of said advertisement; and that said advertisement was published in the regular daily issues of said newspaper as stated below. City of Fayetteville Ord 6334 Was inserted in the Regular Edition on: July 26, 2020 Publication Charges: $194.56 -rv,�& Brittany Smith Subscribed and sworn to before me This 20 day of �&Pl 020. � on Notary Public 011 My Commission Expires: Z 2 �/ 6 **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit ' Invoice will be sent. Ordinance: 6334 File Number: 2020-0513 C-PZD 20-7093 (NW OF DEANE SOLOMON R.D. & LORI DR./UNDERWOOD DEV.): AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE A COMMERCIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT ENTITLED C-PZD 20-7093 FOR APPROXIMATELY 128.54 ACRESLOCATED NORTHWEST OF DEANE SOLOMON ROAD AND LORI DRIVE TO ALLOW A MIXED - USE DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES CITY PARKLAND AND 602 MULTI -FAMILY UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves C-PZD 20-7093 as described in Exhibits 'A', 'B' and 'C' attached to the Planning Division's Agenda Memo. Section 2: This C-PZD approval is subject to the following conditions: I . The proposed percent minimum canopy shall be revised to 25% pursuant to § 167.04, Tree Preservation and Protection During Development, which requires a 25% minimum canopy preservation for Planned Zoning Districts, unless the applicant receives approval for on -site mitigation or off -site alternatives. 2. The density allowance in Planning Area I shall be amended to 24 units per acre without the proposed variable density. 3. Removal of language in Section IL noting that "Improvements and/or associated fees for the upgrade of Deane Solomon Road shall not be assessed as a result of the development of Planning Area 4." All final street improvements will be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of development review. An applicant may pursue other avenues to reduce expenses, including a cost -share or similar mechanism that may be considered by City Council. 4. 50% of the park's full perimeter shall have lots that feature buildings fronting the park. Lots may be adjoining the park or separated from the park by a street as long as buildings include front doors to the park. No portion of the perimeter, either developed or undeveloped shall be exempt from this. This shall he a development requirement, with variances subject to Planning Commission consideration. 5. In Planning Areas where conventional building setbacks are proposed, these shall be replaced by 0 to 25-foot build -to zones. All Planning Areas shall have a 50% minimum buildable frontage requirement for lots, with contributing built frontage established by adjacency to either public street or parkland. This shall be a zoning requirement, with reductions subject to staffapproval and variances subject to Board of Adjustment consideration. Section 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby approved to reflect the zoning criteria change provided in Section I above. PASSED and APPROVED on 7/212020 Approved: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor Attest: Kara Paxton, City Clerk Treasurer 75298962 72620