HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8165-A Application 1m
Traffic Study
�J
$AFT
prepared for:
DELTIC TIMBER CORPORATION
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
• CTVIL & TRAFFIC E.NGINPERLVG •
5507 Ranch Drive - Suite 205 (501) 868-3999
tj Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Fax (501) 868-9710
Rahling Road
Little Rock, Arkansas
AT
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER
ERNEST J. PETERS
., No. 4682 ,f{l
Project No.: P-1378
September 26, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Pace
INTRODUCTION
STUDY AREA
1
STREET SYSTEM
3
PROPOSED MASTER STREET PLAN CHANGES
4
LAND -USE PLAN PROPOSED CHANGES
5
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
5
TRIP GENERATION & TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
6
TRAFFIC VOLUME ASSIGNMENTS
11
CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
13
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
14
OTHER ISSUES
20
FINDINGS
24
FIGURES
26
29
APPENDIX
Land -Use and Master Street Plan Items
Trip -Generation Data
Vehicle Turning Movement Count Data
Capacity and Level of Service Calculations
Traffic Signal Warrants and Results
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
E—XWReas, AMC.
F
P SA
I rf=1'I�r r-1•Vff��f
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted a traffic
study for the assessment of an application to the City of
Little Rock by the developer for proposed re -zoning, land -
use changes to the City Land -Use Plan (LUP) and pro-
posed changes to the Master Street Plan (MSP) in Little
Rock, Arkansas. The study area is on the west side of
Rahling Road, just south of Pebble Beach Drive in Little
Rock, Arkansas. The primary issue of this study is traffic
operational conditions for the proposed street network
changes. A copy of maps depicting the existing Land
Use Plan and Zoning Plan in the immediate vicinity of the
study area plus the Land Use Plan Amendment, Area
Zoning and a copy of the Master Street Plan Amendment
are included in the Appendix of this report for reference.
Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were con-
ducted while school was in session (September, 2008) at
the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Road
and at several intersections within the study area. The
existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown
on Figure 1, ""Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak
Hours."
Additionally, existing 24-hour traffic counts were also
made while school was in session (September, 2008) at
the following locations in the vicinity of the site:
• Rahling Road, just north of Pebble Beach Drive
• Rahling Road, just south of Pebble Beach Drive
• Pebble Beach Drive, just east of Rahling Road
• Pebble Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road
• Dorado Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road
• Beckenham Drive, just west of Hinson Road.
The study has involved preparing estimated projected fu-
ture 10-year traffic volumes for the proposed master
street plan amendment, full build -out of the proposed
land -uses of the study tracts. Additionally, ten-year
growth applied to the existing thru traffic volumes on
Rahling Road were also included in projected traffic vol-
L-JPETERS & ASSOCLATES 1 7
i ENGINEERS, INC. Page
PRAF1
r = Y
.ff(f �r
umes used in analysis of this study. Capacity and level of
service (LOS) analysis for existing and for projected traffic
operations for the AM and PM peak hours was conducted.
The 10-year full build -out projected AM and PM peak hours
traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 6, "Projected 10-Year
Traffic Volumes with Full Build -Out of the Site - AM and PM
Peak Hours." The analysis of this study has been con-
ducted for projected traffic conditions for the proposed road-
way network (as depicted in the Appendix of this report).
This is a report of methodology and findings relating to a
traffic engineering study undertaken to:
Evaluate existing traffic conditions and projected traffic
conditions to include full build -out of the proposed land -
uses of the site plus 10-year background growth at the
study intersections.
Identify the effects on traffic operations resulting from
existing traffic (plus 10-year background growth) in com-
bination with full build -out generated traffic associated
with the proposed land -use plan changes and changes
to the MSP. This analysis has account for adjustments
in cut-thru traffic anticipated with the connection of addi-
tional Collector Streets as proposed.
Present findings relative to traffic operations for the pro-
posed street changes and assess developer -proposed
changes to the Master Street Plan.
In the following sections of this report there are presented
traffic data, study methods, findings and recommendations
of this traffic engineering investigation. The traffic engineer-
ing study is technical in nature. Analysis techniques em-
ployed are those most commonly used in the traffic engi-
neering profession for traffic operational analysis. Certain
data and calculations relative to traffic operational analysis
are referenced in the report. Complete calculations and data
are included in the Appendix of the report.
F PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ercrreeRs, Inc.
- - - Page 2
Or
The locations of the study intersections are within the City
of Little Rock in Pulaski County, Arkansas. The study inter-
sections location and vicinity are shown on Figure 1 and
Figure 2, below.
� PETERS & ASSOCIATES
j
1� 3 E,CI.W.FRS, INC. Page 3
tAFT
PO '1 r r �:
I T�"F�i �r
Rahling Road, is proposed to be improved by the devel-
oper to a four -lane median divided roadway with median
breaks and the addition of southbound left -turn lanes at
Pebble Beach Drive, Drive A, Wellington Plantation Drive
and Drive D. This four -lane median divided roadway is
planned to be constructed from the existing four -lane sec-
tion with median in the vicinity of the site, to the north to
tie into the current four -lane roadway. Currently, just
nortth of Pebble Beach Drive, Rahling Road narrows to a
two-lane roadway with the addition of a southbound left -
turn lane at Pebble Beach Drive. Rahling Road is classi-
fied as a Minor Arterial on the City of Little Rock MSP.
The following roadways in the vicinity of the study area
included in this study are classified as Collector Streets:
• Pebble Beach Drive
• Dorado Beach Drive
• Beckenham Drive
• Wellington Plantation Drive.
City of Little Rock service volumes for Collector and Minor
Arterial roadways are as follows:
Collector = 5,000 vehicles per day.
Minor Arterial = 18,000 vehicles per day.
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
RNCINRF.RS. INC.
Page 4
0 a AFT
. I f r. a�i �r r� I TFC- S r
An application for an amendment to the MSP was recently
made to the City regarding alignment of certain streets
within the study which are described as follows:
• The proposed MSP amendment does not include the
elimination of Collector Streets, but rather proposes to
combine them prior to their connection to Rahling Road.
• Re -alignment of the extension of Wellington Plantation
Drive from its present alignment shown on the MSP to
the north, intersecting the proposed realignment of
Beckenham Drive extension just to the east of Rahling
Road.
The extension of Beckenham Drive to not intersect
Rahling Road to the west, but rather align south to inter-
sect the extension of Wellington Plantation Drive.
These proposed changes to the City of Little Rock MSP
have been taken into consideration as a part of this study.
As a part of this study. an assessment of an application to
the City of Little Rock by the developer for proposed land -
use changes has been included in this analysis. The pro-
posed land use changes are as follows:
• R-2 - Proposed 60.1 acres (from 107.0 acres existing)
• MF-18 - Proposed 41.2 acres (from 20.0 acres existing)
• Open Space - 8.0 acres (from 0 acre existing)
• C-3 - 19.9 acres (from 0 acre existing)
• 0-3 - 5.2 acres (from 0 acre existing).
A copy of maps depicting the existing Land Use Plan and
Zoning Plan in the immediate vicinity of the study area plus
the Land Use Plan Amendment, Area Zoning and a copy of
the Master Street Plan Amendment are included in the Ap-
pendix of this report for reference.
�] PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
Page 5
Hourly, 24-hour traffic counts were made at the following
locations in the vicinity of the development and are sum-
marized as follows:
STREET
24-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
TABLE
&
CHART
Rahling Road, Just South of Pebble Beach Drive
11,035
Table 1/Chart 1
Rahling Road, Just North of Pebble Beach Drive
9,320
Table 2/Chart 2
Pebble Beach Drive, Just East of Rahling Road
3,031
Table 3/Chart 3
Pebble Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road
4,426
Table 4/Chart 4
Dorado Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road
1,647
Table 5/Chart 5
Beckenham Drive, Just West of Hinson Road
2,966
Table 6/Chart 6
Hourly, 24-hour traffic count data are summarized on Ta-
bles and Charts 1 through 6 and depicted on Figure 7,
"Existing and Projected 10-Year 24-Hour Weekday Traffic
Volumes."
Other traffic count data collected as a part of this study
includes AM and PM peak hour vehicle turning movement
counts at the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble
Beach Drive. The AM and PM peak hour turning move-
ment count data at this intersection is summarized in the
following peak hour turning movement Charts 7 and 8
and are presented in more detail in the Appendix of this
report.
AM and PM peak hour vehicle turning movement counts
made as a part of this study are shown on Figure 3,
"Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours."
F
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ASSOCIATES
E\CiNEERS, INC.
Page 6
F:or
TIME
Rahling Road, Just South of Pebble Beach Drhm
Northbound
Southbound
NB + SB
01:00 PM
271
342
613
02:00 PM
390
330
720
03:00 PM
379
412
791
04:00 PM
485
411
896
05:00 PM
515
622
1137
06:00 PM
418
452
870
07:00 PM
287
396
683
08:00 PM
247
205
452
09:00 PM
188
127
315
10:00 PM
64
54
118
11:00 PM
23
16
39
12:00 AM
8
8
16
01:00 AM
4
6
10
02:00 AM
2
2
4
03:00 AM
5
4
9
04:00 AM
15
4
19
05:00 AM
45
33
78
06:00 AM
155
171
326
07:00 AM
545
350
895
08:00 AM
320
466
786
09:00 AM
277
311
588
10:00 AM
202
227
429
11:00 AM
352
281
633
12:00 PM
294
314
608
24-Hour Total:
5491
5544
11035
600
500
E 400
o
> 300
o
x° 200
100
Table 2 — Chart 2 24-Hour Traffic Counts
Rahling Road, Just North of Pebble Beach Drive
Rohilno R.d J—t Hnrlh of P hhk� R—h rl W .Traffle. 14—rly Vn1--
e e e e e e et' ems` e e e �p V�` -;' �' �` � -''
.C? J:p S'�S��
Hour
700
600
500
E
Z 400
300
0
zoo
100
Rahllna Road. Jum South 0 PaWo Boach ❑rlrn-TralOc Ho urtlf VohRnei
�e �a�4�e �eao��aa�oaar• d°` e� e`' � e'' e`' e�` e� vk` r� �' e�' e`° r�' e'' c�'
Hour
Table 1 — Chart 1 24-Hour Traffic Counts
Rahling Road, Just South of Pebble Beach Drive
TIME
Rahling Road, Just North of Pebble Beach Dhi e
Northbound
Southbound
NB + SB
01:00 PM
252
289
541
02:00 PM
316
284
600
03:00 PM
328
320
648
04:00 PM
415
362
777
05:00 PM
460
553
1013
06:00 PM
346
381
727
07:00 PM
230
320
550
08:00 PM
193
187
380
09:00 PM
145
114
259
10:00 PM
48
52
100
11:00 PM
17
12
29
12:00 AM
5
7
12
01:00 AM
3
5
8
02:00 AM
3
2
5
03:00 AM
4
4
8
04:00 AM
13
5
18
05:00 AM
39
31
70
06:00 AM
123
148
271
07:00 AM
405
287
692
08:00 AM
265
389
654
09:00 AM
229
262
491
10:00 AM
203
200
403
11:00 AM
315
229
544
12:00 PM
251
269
520
24-Hour Total:
4608
4712
9320
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
MOr�AS, INC.
Page 7
T1ME
Pebble Beach Drive at Rahling Road
Eastbound
Westbound
EB + WB
01:00 PM
83
107
190
02:00 PM
120
102
222
03:00 PM
117
116
232
04:00 PM
117
98
215
05:00 PM
126
122
248
06:00 PM
109
118
227
07:00 PM
85
96
181
08:00 PM
80
74
154
09:00 PM
51
53
104
10:00 PM
22
20
42
11:00 PM
4
20
24
12:00 AM
3
8
11
01:00 AM
2
6
8
02:00 AM
1
3
4
03:00 AM
0
2
2
04:00 AM
2
1
3
05:00 AM
3
12
15
06:00 AM
26
39
65
07:00 AM
172
84
256
08:00 AM
86
107
193
09:00 AM
57
72
128
10:00 AM
59
97
156
11:00 AM
69
88
157
12:00 PM
78
117
194
24-Hour Tota 1:1
1472
1558
3031
450
400
350
E 300
o zso
200
0
x 150
100
50
Table 4 — Chart 4 24-Hour Traffic Counts
Pebble Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road
Pebble Beach Drive. Just West of Hinson Road -Traffic Houilv_Valumes_
ati• ah aa' �• �' O• �s AN [�` d'• 6^' 4 ap 01 Qa 4� 40 M1ti•
Hour
200
180
160
m 140
E 120
0
a 100
`= so
o
= 60
40
zo
0
Pebble Beach Drive at Rahli" Road -Traffic Hourly Volumes _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a`'o-a'scPah� 6vQ�o'� �a: ti•o`"d�a'sC?'o`''oa$�da'��� �h
Hour
Table 3 — Chart 3 24-Hour Traffic Counts
Pebble Beach Drive, Just East of Rahling Road
71ME
Pebble Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road
Eastbound
Westbound
EB + WB
01:00 PM
102
110
212
02:00 PM
172
162
334
03:00 PM
117
194
311
04:00 PM
145
206 1
351
05:00 PM
180
241
421
06:00 PM
104
176
280
07:00 PM
69
161
230
08:00 PM
60
105
165
09:00 PM
40
49
89
10:00 PM
24
31
55
11:00 PM
4
6
10
12:00 AM
1
3
4
01:00 AM
1
2
3
02:00 AM
2
2
4
03:00 AM
0
0
0
04:00 AM
10
4
14
05:00 AM
20
8
28
06:00 AM
87
59
146
07:00 AM
393
226
619
08:00 AM
179
162
341
09:00 AM
102
109
211
10:00 AM
88
81
169
11:00 AM
101
98
199
12:00 PM
111
120
231
24-Hou r Tota 1:112112
1 2314
4426
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC
Page 8
TIME
Dorado Beach Drive at Hinson Road
Eastbound
Westbound
EB + WB
01:00 PM 1
54
41
95
02:00 PM
50
46
96
03:00 PM
42
51
93
04:00 PM
63
72
135
05:00 PM
53
94
147
06:00 PM
51
76
127
07:00 PM
21
45
66
08:00 PM
12
35
47
09:00 PM
6
22
28
10:00 PM
5
15
20
11:00 PM
1
8
9
12:00 AM
0
3
3
01:00 AM
4
0
4
02:00 AM
2
1
3
03:00 AM
1
0
1
04:00 AM
3
0
3
05:00 AM
9
3
12
48
06:00 AM
38
10
07:00 AM
135
31
166
08:00 AM
61
30
91
09:00 AM
65
55
120
10:00 AM
58
58
116
11:00 AM
53
53
106
12:00 PM
58
53
111
24-Hour Total:
845
802
1647
300
250
E 200
o
D 150
0
x 100
50
0
Table 6 — Chart 6 24-Hour Traffic Counts
Beckenham Drive, Just West of Hinson Road
Reckenham Drivo al Hinton Road -Tffic Houdv Volurres
a,•ayoaa' oy� a�•�da �o.`'. o°'dLd'o° ar�•oti a`P�y ti
Hour
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
00 AOrr
�"T r
i f�> > ��' r. f;f rf '. jr
160 Dorado 9each Drive at Hinson Road -Traffic Hourly Volumes
A Eastbound
140
■ westbound
120
E loo
0
> so
T
0 60
JIL
40
20
0
p�- O• �- C� O6j � O7 O� 6� �0 w" w4 04°!'�'' O�'���C��C��o����C'�+'�$\�
Hour
Table 5 — Chart 5 24-Hour Traffic Counts
Dorado Beach Drive, Just West of Hinson Road
TIME
Beckenham Drive at Hinson Road
Eastbound
Westbound
EB + WB
01:00 PM
79
88
167
02:00 PM
93
92
185
03:00 PM
78
130
208
04:00 PM
92
147
239
05:00 PM
112
212
324
06:00 PM
99
127
226
07:00 PM
49
103
152
08:00 PM
45
78
123
09:00 PM
19
42
61
10:00 PM
12
26
38
11:00 PM
13
9
22
12:00 AM
1
6
7
01:00 AM
2
6
8
02:00 AM
0
0
0
03:00 AM
2
0
2
04:00 AM
8
3
11
05:00 AM
26
3
29
06:00 AM
74
12
86
07:00 AM
248
47
295
08:00 AM
144
1 71
215
09:00 AM
67
48
115
10:00 AM
85
92
177
11:00 AM
70
71
141
12:00 PM
59
76
135
24-Hour Total:
1477
1489
2966
Page 9
FT
F%W?ZZRSd Thru
.
FomtEasteRightr F e !n-Right
Rahling Rd
PeWe Beach Dr,
Rahfing Rd.
From North -Lett
From East -Lett
From South-Thru
160
160
140
140
120
120
IMMMM1100
y 100
3
80
80
0
60
60
40
40
20
20
o
o
in-
IR
M v
-R
cn
c
n
i�
r+ �
rio ra
eo
co
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
Time of Day
0
viol
Chart 7
AM Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive.
Chart 8
PM Peak
Hours Turning Movement Count
Data
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive.
BM(rg Rd.
Pebble Beach Rd ��� RNWq RC^
F_m1NMft Thru
From East -Right =1 TlpT 54A -Rlghl
Rahling Rd
Pebble Beach Rd Rahfng Rd
From North -Lett
From East -Lett From South-Thru
160
160
mmmm
140
140
120
120
' 100
100
80
80
a
60
60
40
40
20
120
0
0
aw ®
0
0 0 0 0 0 o
c
Time of Day
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
F-RCIhTF.RS, INC.
—
Rahling Rd. �
� Co
O N
pp t0
98 "
-0
Cr
1 - AM Count Data g
07:30 AM �
m
08:15 AM �.
O
■
174
CD
v
00
00
CNoLt
00v
h'
Rahling Rd. M
Rahling Rd.
CA W �. N
C�71 A
W N
1 - PM Count Data
05:00 PM
05:45 PM
N
N
O
f T
�N O
M
Rd.
rr
101
94
fO
� � North
Page 10
P IRAOr
r ��.
The Trip Generation, an Informational Report (7th Edi-
tion), 2004, published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) and The Trip Generation Software
(Version 5 by Microtrans), were utilized in calculating the
magnitude of traffic volumes expected to be generated
by the existing zoned land use and the proposed land
use changes (aforementioned in a previous section of
this report) in the immediate vicinity of the study intersec-
tions. These are reliable sources for this information and
are universally used in the traffic engineering profession.
Proposed zoning changes have been assumed to be
included in projected 10-year traffic conditions.
There is a planned approximate 120-unit condominium
development to be located on the west side of Rahling
Road, north of Pebble Beach Drive. Expected traffic vol-
umes associated with this development have been in-
cluded in the projected traffic volumes.
Using the selected trip -generation rates, calculations
were made as a part of this study to provide a reliable
estimate of traffic volumes that can be expected to be
associated with the proposed land use of each study
tract. Applying the appropriate trip -generation rates to
the land uses proposed for these tracts makes these cal-
culations. Results of this calculation are summarized on
Table 7, "Trip -Generation Summary."
Residential traffic and office traffic, as will be associated
with some of these tracts, ordinarily does contribute to
the adjacent street traffic conditions during the on -street
AM and PM peak traffic hours. Accordingly, the AM and
PM peak traffic periods of the adjacent streets have war-
ranted primary traffic analysis as a part of this study.
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
IF;'11f ENGINEERS, INC.
Page 11
Fly
oilr— r— r' tr f
ZONINGEXISTING
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
ITE
WEEKDAYAPPROX.
VOLUME
VOLUME
ENTER EXIT
SIZE CODE.
ENTER
EXIT
Residential Single -Fame (R-2) (107 Acres)
214 Lots
210
2,048
41 120
137
79
Residential Muft'rFamiy (MF-18) (20 Acres)
360 Units
220
1,4k9
36 148
144
79
4 467
77 z68
x81
158
IOTA LS:
TOTAL ENTERING + EXITING
345
PROPOSED ZONING
24-HOUR
TWO-WAYPM
PEAK HOUR
'
WEEKDAYVOLUME
VOLUME
ENTER EXIT
►t CODE
.
i ENTER
EXIT
Residential Single -Family (R-2) (60.1 Acres)
120 Lots
210
1,148
23 67
77
44
Residential Mult�Famiy (MF-18) (20 Acres)
300 Units
220
2,016
30 123
120
66
Residential MuftrFamiy (MF-18) (20 Acres)
300 Units
220
2,016
30 123
120
66
*Commercial Tracts (3.48 Acre, 5.7 Acre and 10.7 Acre)
(Neighborhood Co 110,000 Sq. Ft
820
3,778
55 35
158
172
1.56 Acre Office Tract
15,000 Sq. Ft
710
165
20 3
4
19
2.93 Acre Office Tract
28,000 Sq. Ft
1 710
308
38 5
7
35
9 43T
196 356
486
402
TOTALS:
TOTAL ENTERING + EXITING
552
*These volumes adjusted to reflect 20% internal capture
Table 7 — Trip -Generation
Summary
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC
Page 12
FT
Existing traffic volumes have been adjusted to account for
the proposed roadway connections and extension of Beck-
enham Road and Wellington Plantation Drive. These redis-
tributed existing traffic volumes are depicted on Figure 4,
"Redistributed Existing Traffic Volumes with Proposed Con-
nection - AM and PM Peak Hours." These adjusted volumes
account for anticipated redistribution of cut-thru traffic that
currently uses Pebble Beach Drive.
Once projected traffic was estimated for the proposed land
uses in the immediate vicinity, directional distributions were
made to reflect the additional traffic projected by these pro-
posed land uses at the study intersections. These proposed
land use site -generated traffic volumes are depicted on Fig-
ure 5, "Proposed Land Use Site -Generated Traffic Volumes
- AM and PM Peak Hours."
Values shown on Figure 4, "Redistributed Existing Traffic
Volumes with Proposed Connection - AM and PM Peak
Hours," have been combined with projected traffic volumes
shown on Figure 5, "Proposed Land Use Site -Generated
Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours," plus ten-year
growth applied to the existing thru traffic volumes on Rahling
Road to account for 10-year projected traffic volumes.
These 10-year projected traffic volumes are depicted on Fig-
ure 6, "Projected 10-Year Traffic Volumes with Full Build -Out
of Site - AM and PM Peak Hours." There is a planned ap-
proximate 120-unit condominium development to be located
on the west side of Rahling Road, north of Pebble Beach
Drive. Expected traffic volumes associated with this devel-
opment have been included in the projected traffic volumes.
Traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 are the values used in
capacity and level of service calculations conducted as a
part of this study. The effect of existing background traffic
(i.e. the adjacent street non -site traffic which exists), redis-
tributed background traffic as well as projected traffic associ-
ated with the proposed land uses in the immediate vicinity of
the study intersections has thus been accounted for in this
analysis.
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
F ENGINEERS, INC.
Page 13
lr,f
p ItAT,
r ,-fir r ;f
Generally, the "capacity" of a street is a measure of its ability
to accommodate a certain magnitude of moving vehicles. It
is a rate as opposed to a quantity, measured in terms of vehi-
cles per hour. More specifically, street capacity refers to the
maximum number of vehicles that a street element (e.g. an
intersection) can be expected to accommodate in a given
time period under the prevailing roadway and traffic condi-
tions.
Level of Service (LOS) ordinarily has a letter designation rela-
tive to the various operating characteristics, ranging from "A"
as the highest quality to "F" representing considerable delay.
The various Levels of Service are generally described as fol-
lows:
Avg. Total Delay sec./veh. Description
A
<10
This LOS is a free flow condition, with vehicles acting nearly
—
independently to one another. There is little or no delay.
B
>10 and <15
This LOS is slightly restrictive condition with short traffic delays.
The presense of other vehicles is noticeable by the driver.
This LOS is the design level that engineers strive for during the
C
>15 and <25
service life of the facility. LOS C results from an average delay.
The traffic flow is stable, but more restrictive.
This LOS is noticeably more restrictive, and there are long
D
>25 and <35
traffic delays. This LOS results in poor driver comfort and in
greater accident probabilities.
At this LOS, the intersection is operating at capacity with little or
E
>35 and <50
no gaps. There are very long traffic delays and unstable
intersection operation.
F
>50
At this LOS, there are more vehicles arriving at the approach
than can be discharged. Extreme delays will be encountered.
12 PETERS & ASSOCIATES
FTGWEERS' INC. Page 14
■
INTERSECTIONSSIGNALIZED
Av .Total Dela sec./veh. Description
A
<10
This LOS is a free flow condition, with vehicles acting nearly
—
independently to one another. There is little or no delay.
B
>10 and <20
This LOS is slightly restrictive condition with short traffic delays.
—
The presense of other vehicles is noticable by the driver.
This LOS is the design level that engineers strive for during the
C
>20 and <35
service life of the facility. LOS C results from an average delay.
The traffic flow is stable, but more restrictive.
This LOS is noticeably more restrictive, and there are long
D
>35 and <55
traffic delays. This LOS results in poor driver comfort and in
greater accident probabilities.
At this LOS, the intersection is operating at capacity with little or
E
>55 and <80
no gaps. There are very long traffic delays and unstable
intersection operation.
F
>80
At this LOS, there are more vehicles arriving at the approach
than can be discharged. Extreme delays will be encountered.
LOS values that are reported for signalized intersections
based o
i
Traffic operational calculations were performed as a part of this
study for traffic operating conditions of existing and projected
traffic. This analysis was performed using Synchro Version 6,
2003. This computer program has been proven to be reliable
when used to analyze capacity and levels of traffic service under
various operating conditions. Detailed calculations for all capac-
ity calculations are included in the Appendix. The busiest condi-
tion of adjacent street AM and PM peak traffic periods were used
for these calculations. Factors included in the analysis are as
follows:
• Existing traffic patterns.
• Redistributed existing traffic patterns reflecting new street
connections.
• Proposed land uses.
• Directional distribution of projected traffic volumes.
• Proposed intersection geometry (including elements such as
turn lanes, curb radii, etc.).
• Existing background traffic volumes with 10-year growth.
• Proposed MSP roadway changes.
ASSOCIATES • Existing or proposed traffic control.
iF ] FS. G-F,RS, INC.
Page 15
PRAFT
f— ��r7�•
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Level of Service Analysis Results
Existing Traffic Conditions
Capacity and level of service analysis was performed for ex-
isting traffic conditions for the worst -case AM and PM peak
hours for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach
Drive.
As indicated in Table 8, "Level of Service Summary - Existing
Traffic Conditions," for the study intersection, all existing vehi-
cle movements for existing traffic conditions presently oper-
ate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for
the AM and PM peak hours except for the westbound vehicle
movements on Pebble Beach Drive at Rahling Road during
the PM peak hour (LOS "E") with "Stop" sign control. Traffic
volumes used for this analysis are shown on Figure 3,
"Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours."
o
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
0
-°
W
W
W
Z
Z
Z
W
N
(mA
O m
C
INTERSECTION
F
PEAK
•
•
PEAK HR
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive
SIGN
D
D
A
A
A
n!a
PM
E
E
A
A
A
Wad
Table 8 - Level of Service Summary - Existing Traffic Conditions
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
EN°NEFRS' INC. Page 16
FT
PHr 7 I rrltTr
Protected Traffic Conditions
Level of service analysis was performed for the projected
10-year traffic conditions for the following intersections:
• Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive
• Rahling Road and Drive A
• Rahling Road and Drive B
• Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive
• Rahling Road and Drive C
• Rahling Road and Drive D
• Wellington Plantation Drive and Beckenham Drive.
This analysis was performed for AM and PM peak hours
traffic. Traffic volumes used for the projected traffic condi-
tions are shown on Figure 6, "Projected 10-Year Traffic Vol-
umes with Full Build -Out of Site - AM and PM Peak Hours."
The operating conditions projected to exist at these inter-
sections are summarized in Table 9, "Level of Service Sum-
mary - Projected 10-Year Traffic Conditions."
As indicated in Table 9, for the intersections studied, the
only vehicle movements with capacity and LOS results
demonstrating very long to extreme traffic delays (LOS "E"
or "F") for the AM and/or PM peak hours for these projected
traffic conditions are the following:
• Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Pebble
Beach Drive at Rahling Road (LOS "F") during the PM
peak hour with "Stop" sign control. This vehicle move-
ment improves to an acceptable LOS "B" with traffic sig-
nal control.
• Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Drive A at
Rahling Road (LOS "E") during the PM peak hour with
"Stop" sign control. This volume is low (only 8 vehicles)
and the delay should only occur for a short time during
the PM peak hour. Additionally, these vehicles have
the option of using the protected left -turn at the adjacent
proposed signalized intersection of Rahling Road and
Wellington Plantation Drive.
Page 17
FY
Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Wellington
Plantation Drive at Rahling Road (LOS "F") during the
AM and PM peak hours with "Stop" sign control. This
vehicle movement improves to an acceptable LOS "C"
during the AM peak hour and LOS "B" during the PM
peak hour with traffic signal control.
Northbound left -turn vehicle movement on Drive D at
Rahling Road (LOS "E") during the AM and PM peak
hours with "Stop" sign control. This volume is low
(only 30 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 17 ve-
hicles during the PM peak hour) and the delay should
only occur for a short time during the AM and PM
peak hours. Additionally, these vehicles have the op-
tion of using the protected left -turn at the adjacent
proposed signalized intersection of Rahling Road and
Wellington Plantation Drive.
All other vehicle movements for these projected traffic
conditions for the intersections studied are projected to
operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or
better for the AM and PM peak hours.
For these projected traffic conditions, analysis was con-
ducted with the schematic lane geometry as depicted on
Figure 8, "Recommended Schematic Lane Geometry."
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
12, ENCI. ERS, INC.
Page 18
IFT
ORA
o
J
H
R'
J
F-
0:
_o
V
W
W
W
3La
2
2
2
fm
N
y
> m
�
C
- •
F
•
•
AM
SIGN
D
B
A
A
A
A
n/a
SIGNAL
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive
PM
SIGN
F
B
A
A
A
A
n/a
SIGNAL
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
Rahling Road and Drive A
SIGN
D
B
A
A
A
n/a
PM
I E
B
A
I A
I A
I I
nla
Rahling Road and Drive B
SIGN
A
I
I C
I
I B
I
I nla
PM
A
C
I
I C
I
I n/a
AM
SIGN
F
B
A
A
B
A
n/a
SIGNAL
C
B
A
A
A
A
A
Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive
PM
SIGN
F
B
A
A
8
A
n/a
SIGNAL
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
Rahling Road and Drive C
SIGN
I
B
A
A
n/a
PM
B
A
A
n/a
Rahling Road and Drive D
SIGN
A
B
A
E
B
n/a
PM
A
A
A
E
B
n/a
AM
Wellington Plantation Drive and
Beckenham Drive
SIGN
A
A A
A
C
B
C
B
n/a
PM
A
A A
A
C
B
B
B
nla
Table 9 - Level of Service Summary - Projected 10-Year Traffic Conditions
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
EN IN'FF..RS. 1'.YC.
Page 19
o PFAFT
s - r,I ;
I r-;7, ,
In evaluating the need for a traffic signal, certain estab-
lished warrants must be examined by a comprehensive
investigation of traffic conditions and physical characteris-
tics of the location. The decision to install a traffic signal
at a particular location must be evaluated quantitatively
relative to these warrants. Satisfaction of conditions for
only one of the warrants, as specified, is required for sig-
nalization. These warrants, as specified in the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), are described
in detail in the appendix of this report. They are summa-
rized as follows:
♦ Warrant One: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume
♦ Warrant Two: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume
♦ Warrant Three: Peak Hour
♦ Warrant Four: Pedestrian Volume
♦ Warrant Five: School Crossing
I♦
Warrant Six: Coordinated Signal System
Warrant Seven: Crash Experience
Warrant Eight: Roadway Network
SIGNAL WARRANTS RESULTS
Traffic signal warrants analysis was made for existing
traffic conditions for the intersection of Rahling Road and
Pebble Beach Drive and for projected traffic conditions at
this same intersection as well as the intersection of
Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive.
Existing Traffic Conditions
It was found that traffic signal warrants are not currently
met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble
Beach Drive with existing traffic volumes. Volumes are
not currently sufficient at this intersection to satisfy any
warrants. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for
this intersection are summarized in Table 10, "Traffic Sig-
nal Warrants Results - Rahling Road and Pebble Beach
Drive - Existing Traffic Conditions."
FIJPETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC. Page 20
FT
0
Projected Traffic Conditions
It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to
be met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble
Beach Drive for projected 10-year traffic conditions. Vol-
umes for this condition are projected to be sufficient at
this intersection to satisfy Warrants 1 B and 3 and are
short only one hour from satisfying Warrant 2. The traffic
signal warrants analysis results for the intersection of
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive are summarized in
Table 11, "Traffic Signal Warrants Results - Rahling Road
and Pebble Beach Drive - Projected Traffic Conditions."
Traffic signal warrants should be monitored as develop-
ment continues in the vicinity. At which time traffic signal
warrants are met within the next ten years, a traffic signal
should be installed at this intersection.
It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to
be met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Welling-
ton Plantation Drive for projected 10-year traffic condi-
tions. Volumes for this condition are projected to be suffi-
cient at this intersection to satisfy Warrants 1A, 1B, 1AB,
2 and 3. The traffic signal warrants analysis results for
this intersection are summarized in Table 12, "Traffic Sig-
nal Warrants Results - Rahling Road and Wellington
Plantation Drive - Projected Traffic Conditions." A traffic
signal should be constructed to coincide with the develop-
ment of the proposed land uses and master street plan
changes in the study area.
ill PETERS & ASSOCIATES
e.orreeas, INC. - - Page 21
. r—. � e
P11 7-
1'r: � Tr I;FI- , Sr
FINAL RESULTS:
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
Hour
warrant was met:
,MajorSt.:
Rahling Road
iMinorSt.:
Pebble Beach Drive
VOLUME
COMB.
4 Hr.
Existing Conditions
600
900
480
720
150
75
120
60
SUM
MAX.
HOUR
MAJOR
MINOR
1A
1B
1AB
2
7:00
M
—61
...—._ 0
00
0;_-0
1
0
8:00
709
94
0
0
0 0
0
0
9:00
539
59
0
0
0 0
0
0
10:00
402
80
0
0
0 0
0
0
11:00
581
73
0
0
0 0
0
0
Table 10
12:00
563
97
0
0
0 0
0
0
Traffic Signal Warrants Results
13:00
560
89
0
0
0 0
0
0
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive
Existing Traffic Conditions.
14:00
15:00
16:00
674
699
847
85
96
83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
1
0
0
0
17:00
1068
101
0
1
0 0
1
0
18:00
799
98
0
0
0 0
1
0
19:00
607
79
0
0
0 0
0
0
20:00
434
61
0
0
0 0
0
0
21:00
302
44
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 1 0 0
This intersection DOES NOT SATISFY the warrants for signalization
as outlined in the "M.U.T.C.D."
3
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FINAL RESULTS:
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
Hour warrant was met:
Major St.:
Rahling Road
Minor St.:
Pebble Beach Drive
VOLUME
COMB.
4 Hr.
Peak
10-Year Projected
600
900
480
720
Conditions
150
75
120
60
SUM
MAX.
HOUR
MAJOR
MINOR
1A
1B
1AB
2
3
7:00
1303
83
0
1
0 0
1
0
0
8:00
1030
107
0
1
0 0
1
0
0
9:00
793
69
0
0
0 0
1
0
0
10:00
636
90
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
11:00
937
89
0
1
0 0
1
0
0
Table 11
12:00
904
111
0
1
0 0
1
0
0
Traffic Signal Warrants Results
13:00
920
106
0
1
0 0
1
0
a
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive
14:00
1078
102
0
1
0 0
1
0
0
Projected Traffic Conditions.
15:00
1110
113
0
1
0 0
1
0
0
16:00
1314
102
0
1
0 0
1
1
0
17:00
1631
127
0
1
t 1
t
1
18:00
1261
117
0
1
0 0
1
1
0
19:00
983
97
0
1
0 0
1
0
0
20:00
720
74
0
0
0 0
1
0
0
21:00
495
50
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 11 1 3 1
This intersection SATISFIES the warrants for signalization
as outlined in the "M.U.T.C.D."
rere xs assarsas
EE,TrRS, � ]N•rs
C
— — Page 22
FT
FINAL RESULTS:
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
Hour warrant was met:
Major St.:
Rahling Road
Minor St.:
Wellington Plantation
VOLUME
COMB.
4 Hr.
Peak
10-Year Projected
600
900
480
720
Conditions
150
75
120
60
SUM
MAX.
HOUR
MAJOR
MINOR
1A
1B
1AB
2
3
7:00
1454
138
0
1
1 1
1
1
0
8:00
1150
119
0
1
0 0
1
1
0
9:00
865
89
0
0
0 0
1
0
0
10:00
666
121
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
11:00
1008
144
0
1
1 1
1
1
0
12:00
957
164
1
1
1 1
1
1
0
13:00
994
158
1
1
1 1
1
1
0
14:00
1122
168
1
1
1 1
1
1
0
15:00
1219
179
1
1
1 1
1
1
0
16:00
1373
175
1
1
1 1
1
1
0
17:00
1672
220
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
18:00
1351
190
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
19:00
1092
157
1
1
1 1
1
1
0
20:00
724
127
0
0
1 1
1
0
0
21:00
471
104
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
8 11 11 11 2
'This intersection SATISFIES the warrants for signalization
as outlined in the "M.U.T.C.D."
Table 12
Traffic Signal Warrants Results
Rahiing Road and
Wellington Plantation Drive
Projected Traffic Conditions.
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENCMECRS, INC.
Page 23
o IFT
PFAVi r�1' e'
I rr , r +.fr(, �r
Other issues that have been taken into consideration as a
part of this study are as follows:
• Existing and projected 10-year 24-hour traffic volumes
are depicted on Figure 7, "Existing and Projected 10-
year 24-Hour Weekday Traffic Volumes." As depicted
on Figure 7, all of the traffic volumes depicted on the
Collector Street are less than the 5,000 vehicles per
day service volumes per the City of Little Rock MSP.
Existing and 10-year 24—hour projected traffic volume
on Rahling Road in the vicinity of the study area is pro-
jected to be 17,200 vehicles per day. This is less than
the 18,000 vehicles per day service volumes per the
City of Little Rock MSP. Reserve capacity will exist.
• There is a planned approximate 120-unit condominium
development to be located on the west side of Rahling
Road, north of Pebble Beach Drive. Expected traffic
volumes associated with this development have been
included in the projected traffic volumes.
• Traffic signal warrants should be monitored at the inter-
section of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive as
development continues in the vicinity. At which time
traffic signal warrants are met within the next ten years,
a traffic signal should be installed at this intersection.
Although it was not analyzed as a part of this study,
traffic signal warrants are likely already met at the inter-
section of Hinson Road and Pebble Beach Drive with
existing traffic volumes.
There is a planned Little Rock School District (LRSD)
elementary school located on Taylor Loop Road (West),
just south of Cantrell Road. Vehicles accessing this
new school will likely use most direct routes via Rahling
Road and Hinson Road, possibly decreasing some cut-
thru traffic that currently exists on the Collector streets
within the study area.
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
21CLYEERS, 1NC.
Page 24
FT
• Once the future planned extension to the north of La
March Drive to Taylor Loop Road is in place, it is ex-
pected that some traffic currently using Rahling Road or
to and from the La Marche Drive neighborhoods will di-
vert directly to Taylor Loop Road and use the La March
Drive extension causing a likely reduction in traffic vol-
umes on Rahling Road. Additionally, this could also
reduce cut thru volume on Pebble Beach Road and on
Beckenham Drive.
• As commercial development continues to the west and
south of the study area, and more goods and services
are available to the west and south, orientation of
east/west traffic volumes on Collectors may re -distribute
more evenly east -west rather than the pre -dominant
orientation toward the east as demonstrated in existing
traffic volumes.
• If the proposed master street plan changes or other
Collector connections are not made to Rahling Road
and if the proposed land uses are not constructed, but
rather the existing zoning is constructed, then it is esti-
mated that Rahling Road will have a projected 10-year
24-hour volume of 16,050 vehicles per day and Pebble
Beach Drive will have a projected 10-year 24-hour vol-
ume of 3,700 vehicles per day at Rahling Road.
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
excrreeas, INC' Page 25
F1
PFA
r�r �•
Findings of this study are summarized as follows:
V Capacity and level of service analysis was performed for
existing traffic conditions for the worst -case AM and PM
peak hours for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble
Beach Drive. For this intersection, all existing vehicle
movements for existing traffic conditions presently operate
at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for
the AM and PM peak hours except for the westbound vehi-
cle movements on Pebble Beach Drive at Rahling Road
during the PM peak hour (LOS "E") with "Stop" sign control.
• Level of service analysis was performed for the projected
10-year traffic conditions. for the intersections studied, the
only vehicle movements with capacity and LOS results
demonstrating very long to extreme traffic delays (LOS "E"
or "F") for the AM and/or PM peak hours for these projected
traffic conditions are the following:
Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Pebble
Beach Drive at Rahling Road (LOS "F") during the
PM peak hour with "Stop" sign control. This vehicle
movement improves to an acceptable LOS "B" with
traffic signal control.
Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Drive A at
Rahling Road (LOS "E") during the PM peak hour
with "Stop" sign control. This volume is low (only 8
vehicles) and the delay should only occur for a short
time during the PM peak hour. Additionally, these
vehicles have the option of using the protected left -
turn at the adjacent proposed signalized intersection
of Rahling Road and Wellington Plantation Drive.
Westbound left -turn vehicle movement on Welling-
ton Plantation Drive at Rahling Road (LOS "F") dur-
ing the AM and PM peak hours with "Stop" sign con-
trol. This vehicle movement improves to an accept-
able LOS "C" during the AM peak hour and LOS "B"
during the PM peak hour with traffic signal control.
P
PETERS & ASSOCIATES —
E2Ci;feF.RS, INC.
Page 26
ORAFT
I l—r. i fir w i:Frr, v
Northbound left -turn vehicle movement on Drive D
at Rahling Road (LOS "E") during the AM and PM
peak hours with "Stop" sign control. This volume is
low (only 30 vehicles during the AM peak hour and
17 vehicles during the PM peak hour) and the delay
should only occur for a short time during the AM and
PM peak hours. Additionally, these vehicles have
the option of using the protected left -turn at the ad-
jacent proposed signalized intersection of Rahling
Road and Wellington Plantation Drive.
• All other vehicle movements for these projected traffic con-
ditions for the intersections studied are projected to operate
at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for
the AM and PM peak hours.
• It was found that traffic signal warrants are not currently
met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach
Drive with existing traffic volumes.
• It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be
met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Pebble Beach
Drive for projected 10-year traffic conditions. Traffic signal
warrants should be monitored as development continues in
the vicinity. At which time traffic signal warrants are met
within the next ten years, a traffic signal should be installed
at this intersection.
• It was found that traffic signal warrants are projected to be
met for the intersection of Rahling Road and Wellington
Plantation Drive for projected 10-year traffic conditions. A
traffic signal should be constructed to coincide with the de-
velopment of the proposed land uses and master street
plan changes in the study area.
• It was found that existing and projected 10-year 24-hour
traffic volumes depicted on the Collector Streets in the vi-
cinity of the study area are less than the 5,000 vehicles per
day service volumes per the City of Little Rock MSP.
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
i�1 F-MrN'FF.RS. INC.
Page 27
I fr�ilr ���.ff�jr
• It was found that existing and 10-year 24—hour pro-
jected traffic volume on Rahling Road in the vicinity of
the study area is projected to be 17,200 vehicles per
day. This is less than the 18,000 vehicles per day
service volumes per the City of Little Rock MSP. Re-
serve capacity will exist.
• If the proposed master street plan changes or other
Collector connections are not made to Rahling Road
and if the proposed land uses are not constructed, but
rather the existing zoning is constructed, then it is es-
timated that Rahling Road will have a projected 10-
year 24-hour volume of 16,050 vehicles per day and
Pebble Beach Drive will have a projected 10-year 24-
hour volume of 3,700 vehicles per day at Rahling
Road.
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
E GMER" WC
Page 28
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENCLNEERS, INC.
NQRM
N
N O
o
N (a N
E =3 �: (D
O
U ,�,•, fV d
� � N
O (n
-6 L ..
N O
W U O
~ •Q fn
O
z '0 E
Q
z
w
a_
O
w
w
C)
W^ /
V /
O
n
O
ry
n
z
Ld M
a
N
Q a
O Y
� Q
C7 Y
Z o
J �
= La
Q/'�/ F-
rY F-
ul
W
H
U
O
di V
Go
f` P4
M� W
do W
(U PLI
O
Z't (U
H I
U �
O H
d q
coU)r)
wZ0�
Z
=O
V =
�t
�
28
'
p z Q
Oa-
��0
2j� a- d
<Od
�U�
�a<
A
w
^�
=
w
D
m
:.
of
a
w
m
�►-�'t'�riO4,
cr
P4
m
w
RA�+ZrNG Rp,
Q
H
Z
Ld
C
z
� Q
a
O O
wQ
Y
W
u
C) Z_
J
N
=
LLJ <
w
—
H
24
p Y
y�
77
O
a_
O
J
587
-0 a- w O
d
o- 455
a_
w =
c�a
r- �n
48
s� Y �
� 141
431-p
Q w O
530
oo
a- _
26 p
Y a' Q 75
N
W
527 -i>
a_ w p o- 417
w�
U
O
co
rj
14
� Y � 139
OD
rl
394 _j,
Q w O <3 406
M W
do w
W
pN
ZN
F 1
w o,
Homes
o
U)U)
w(Y- Z
O .LO
O Y LZ
Uw
E:a
L�
~ z
Q
Q
I—
Q
Z
w rn
Q Z
O O Y
J <
w a
w c2
p Z 0
J
= w
pLIJ Q _j
C
O
OL
O
ry
n
UI
W
F
U
O
M
� U
VI
OD U2 M
n
M
do V'
W
61 P� w
Z N
� I
U �
W
)W
C7 -
d A
j �p ��, \
j -"
o
0
68 w $ b cc -,Cj
Q
7382P��� to R �'
10 Q dl�j� �LX
12
N
N N a� �a
N 00
47 p Y 20
873 � a-w 0 o-734
d =
I `
30 Y� 15
665 w 0 732
Z
ao 0
26 4 �Y� �94
815 n a- w 0 <- 665
n -F
� N
r �
16 X 156
603 o 6 LL o- 622
744 -o a- w O o- 646
a-z
f�
O <'
2
567, w O o- 692
Q -r
m �
-7 N
C �
mQai
O m Vl
0 aa)i o
aa) `� r
U c
'Q O � C
m O) m
�(w
o
o
o 2 a)
o m
O d Oa
a) >
H N a)
m
W E O
> a
o 0 0
Z > o
owcn
u�Q� z
jLL 0 cfl
O=
n H Q
]mow
J_ n
C � Q
y m Z
Q
J
LLL
Q
z
W y
C Z
Q Q
O O Y
wcrQ
W U L)
o z &
J
= W
W Q _j
H
O
a_
O
Ilf
a_
o
ca
F
N
�
Y
Q 17
U
14
982dQ0
o-790
�Q�
881 -0 cl- LLi O
o- 740
i
Di
ao v� z
M a
W
d'
�C,
` 11
6N aw
o
Y
l 0
���
710 - Q uL 0
a- 871
Fccu
U01
677 ca Q W C
- 142
w -
oF-
W¢
D-A
¢ Z) w z
NORTH
W Q LJ
O 4 J
r Cy 0
>
�0 U
U-
O
o_
Q
� p
z
rn g❑
X
�w
a
o
w
A A
od
o
_
a o
d
n
�
W
ca
+'N y-ccD
I
W
u
W O n
m
W
a
��
�
Q
(D
Z
r�
w <
x�
-w�
a Q a
O O
wCYQ
W O c�
Z_ 0
J
C) = w
W Q
O
a_
O
A
a-
-A
c p N
O
w
O17 N
v
v
ra 0S
Q�J
�r+�J A
V
o
x
(Existing)
44 11035 `
pLA
�o ��� rtON
0
rn
ca
���
o
d
(10—Year)
44 17200 ■
��g
a
1co
m
a
Z
ocW
z
1 a w
ZN
�w
O H
L_
as -`�
w 2 a�
=O
U w
pw
LU Z
[) Q
IW
�►y O
iU
ILu
W
� I&
4P **A
0
Q y �
m �a �Ra. pLpNT�ry0
W
dO�Y ti�C9
m �
r �
a
Qr
KAHLINr, RRE).Q
z
w
o Z
� Q Z
tOf
Ny w
Y
�- ' Ld
Z
r F 4 J M
L `� w
A*®� �LLJ _
RaI,N.g Rd. O
O
d �
s►
40
�Ly Jiro
FnM Rv
U
s~ LL 0
7 ti
ti IDO
w
ao w
N a
61
ZN
U �
w _
7 w
NORTH O H
Q- Q
Q-a
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
FNCINFFRS, INC
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
- new existing
scadd_pagis
SCADD_TYPE
ACCESS Pe be e h Dr.
ALLEY
COLLECTOR
LOCALSTREETS
MINOR ARTERIAL
c ge
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL .5+.
4ftg
PRIVATE ROAD °
O
FREEWAY
RAMPS/TURNOUTS
�r
eCk nh
�r
4�
Hills Ra
P.
che'nal parkway
n
Vicinity Map
Master Street Plan Admendment
Case: MSP-08-01
Location: Wellington Plantation Dr.
1�
Ward: 5
PD: 19 0 450 900 1,800 Feet
CT: 42.10
TRS: T2N R13W30
OS
PDR
MF18
ee ,'.
Of
Vicinity Map
r f� n • � ry f
1 z' ■ - 1 � w
At. .' � ` •� i w i
❑Op CI Lyqa� rz
�V �� v a 4 ado
o Q
9y,�4
pEg4 p 0 G% c;jC1Co
1.3
D �o e►�j,., �� a
is � � � ='� �- ' .. •
�rr ►+ w ti7 !ai � a .t
Area Zoning
Case: Z-8165-A N
Location: East side of Rahling Road
south of Pebble Beach
Ward: 5
PD: 19
CT: 42.10
TRS: T2N R13W30
0 250500 1,000 Feet
Vicinity Map
Area Zoni
Case: LU08-19-02 N
Location: East side of Rahling Road
south of Pebble Beach
LDR and SF to C, NIF, O and OS
Ward: 5
PD: 19 0 250500 1,000 Feet
CT: 42.10
TRS: T2N R13W30
PK/OS
11,
C
O
NC
Vicinity Map
p bv6
o
Q d
�v Cfp PD
4pQ
C:D o
wo a
ocr~0
q
CC�HIOKCGR)HILLedko
-ayG
MF 5 6 1- o
a 9 'c B�
,aO Q O Od❑a���u��bAgr�Qo
q�q p
P O oaq o o !I 0 g00000�04
Q � pZ7 L7��� +�4pgQq Q Q 0
b �BCPC*
❑
Q �UrQ q � Q qo
8R40
0o b
SF en
G+DoPQ d I1 �Q �� 4�
1 � • • Y Y 1 R � f f
r +�
M Y y ■
� a 1� r y• ..
y 1 �
1 i T •\
m z
L►�L � ' w K } �. M �• 4 ; lam- L►`• y �,* , ' • � , L
���� i s ' � r t r •' ►A +. �F My.w fr My ry �� A
1 s i �� y; t � � ti.r�ti�i?, w�•
Land Use Plan
Case: Z-8165-A N
Location: East side of Rahling Road
south of Pebble Beash
Ward: 5
PD: 19 0 250500 1,000 Feet
CT: 42.10
TRS: T2N R13W30
Legend
LU08-19-02
change
® C
MF
O
OS
SF
Vicinity Map
is �.,' w � �::• - � � ice.• i •
• r�,r R mar+ � �
c
� � `�'. L � _.awMr♦* Jar„
• l � y
y
3
I a �
Land Use Plan Amendment
Case: LU08-19-02 N
Location: East side of Rahling Road
south of Pebble Beach
LDR and SF to C, MF, O and OS
Ward: 5
PD: 19 0 250500 1,000 Feet
CT: 42.10
TRS: T2N R13W30
1
Li
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
Little Rock, Arkansas
Mixed -Use Development
P1378
EXISTING ZONING
]OD
24-HOUR
•
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
ITE
APPROX. ITE•
•
VOLUMEVOLUME
ENTER EXIT
SIZE
•
ENTER EXIT
Residential Single -Family (R-2) (107 Acres) 214 Lots 210
2,048
41 120
137 79
Residential Multi -Family (MF-18) (20 Acres) 360 Units 220
2,419
36 149
144 79
4 467
77 268
281 158
TOTALS:
TOTAL ENTERING + EXITING
345
PROPOSED Z
•
PM PEAK HOUR
• '
APPROX..•
VOLUME
VOLUME
ENTER
EXIT
SIZE •.
•
ENTER
EXIT
Residential Single -Family (R-2) (60.1 Acres)
120 Lots
210
1,148
23
67
77
44
Residential Multi -Family (MF-18) (20 Acres)
300 Units
220
2,016
30
123
120
66
Residential Multi -Family (MF-18) (20 Acres)
300 Units
220
2,016
30
123
120
66
*Commercial Tracts (3.48 Acre, 5.7 Acre and 10.7 Acre) (Neighborhood Comr 110,000 Sq. Ft.
820
3,778
55
35
158
172
1.56 Acre Office Tract
15,000 Sq. Ft.
710
165
20
3
4
19
2.93 Acre Office Tract
28,000 Sq. Ft.
710
308
38
5
7
35
TOTALS:
9■43i
196
356
486
402
TOTAL ENTERING + EXITING
552
*These volumes adjusted to reflect 20% internal captive
Existing Zoning
Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation
Average Weekday Driveway Volumes
September 26, 2008
24 Hour
AM Pk
Hour
PM Pk
Hour
Two -Way
Land Use Size
Volume
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Single Family Detached Housing
214 Dwelling Units
2048
41
120
137
79
Apartments 360 Dwelling Units
2419
36
148
144
79
Total
4467
77
268
281
158
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
TRIP GENERATION BY
MICROTRANS
P1378 - PROPOSED LAND USES
Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation
Average Weekday Driveway Volumes
September 22, 2008
24 Hour
AM Pk
Hour
PM Pk
Hour
Two -Way
Land Use
Size
Volume
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
Single Family
Detached
Housing
120
Dwelling Units
1148
23
67
77
44
Apartments
300
Dwelling Units
2016
30
123
120
66
Apartments
300
Dwelling Units
2016
30
123
120
66
Shopping Center
110.0
T.G.L.A.
4723
69
44
198
215
General Office
Building
15.0
Th.Gr.Sq.Ft.
165
20
3
4
19
General Office
Building
28.0
Th.Gr.Sq.Ft.
308
38
5
7
35
Total
10376
210
365
526
445
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
W
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc.
Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data
AM Hour Turning Movement Count Data
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Road
Little Rock, AR
P-1378
Groups Printed- AM Count Data
File Name
: AM -TM
Site Code
: 00000000
Start Date
: 09/23/2008
Page No
: 1
Rahling Rd.
Pebble Beach dr.
Rahling Rd.
From North
From East
From South
Start Time
Thru
I Left
A
. Total
Ri ht
Left
A
. Total
Right
Thru
A
. Total
Int. Total
Factor
1.0
1.0
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.0
07:00 AM
49
2
51
7 8
15
9
45
54
12.0
07:15 AM
51
1
52
4 11
15
26
66
92
159
07:30 AM
73
1
74
6 17
23
60
149
209
306
07:45 AM
109
1
110
6 25
31
72
118
190
331
Total
282
5
287
23 61
84
167
378
545
916
08:00 AM
129
8
137
5
35
08:15 AM
80
7
87
I
2
21
08:30 AM
90
1
91
5
19
08:45 AM
73
1
74
1
19
Total
372
17
389
13
94
Grand Total
654
22
676
36
155
Apprch %
96.7
3.3
18.8
81.2
Total %
37.8
1.3
39.0
2.1
8.9
40
30
76
106
283
23
12
67
79
189
24
17
54
71
186
20
9
55
64
158
107
68
252
320
816
191� 235 630 865I 1732
27.2 72.8 1
11.0 13.6 36.4 49.9
RaNing ft.
Out In Total
666 8 6 1342
pl�
I 1 22_
Thru Left
1 �►
TRN,°
North
23/2005 7:00:00 AM 5
23l2p08 8:45:00 AM
AM Cvurrt Data o .
2
T
RIr
630 235
809 1 774-
Out In Total
Rahli Rd.
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc.
Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data
AM Hour Turning Movement Count Data
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Road
Little Rock, AR
P-1378
Ka ling Ka.
From North
Start Time
Thru
Left
our From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peal'
Intersection
07:30 AM
Volume
391
17
Percent
95.8
4.2
07:45 Volume
109
1
Peak Factor
High Int.
08:00 AM
Volume
129
8
Peak Factor
From Ea:
Total _ Right Left
408 19 98
16.2 83.8
110 6 25
08:00 AM
137 5 35
0.745
LU
File Name
: AM -TM
Site Code
: 00000000
Start Date
: 09/23/2008
Page No
: 2
lino Rd.
117
174 410 584
1109
29.8 70.2
31
72 118 190
331
0.838
07:30 AM
40
60 149 209
0.731
0.699
Rah ;nq R4,
Out In Total
429 408 837
391 17
T: Left
H
o
I
North
a
2008 7:30:00 AM
� 3 m2008
8:15:00 AM
r
m�+
akroCount
Data
o
0 5i
m—
Thru R hl
410 774
489 1073
Out In Total
Ra Rd.
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc.
Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data
PM Hour Turning Movement Count Data
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive
Little Rock, AR
P-1378
r:rnnnc ❑rintcrE_ PM Cnunt flats
File Name
: PM -TM
Site Code
: 00000000
Start Date
: 09/22/2008
Page No
: 1
Rahling Rd.
Pebble Beach Rd.
Rahling Rd.
From North
From East
From South
Start Time
I Thru
I Left
I App.
Total
Right
Left
I App.
Total
Right
I Thru
I App.
Total
Int. Total
Factor
1 1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.0
04:00 PM
83
9
92
3
17
20
22
95
117
229
04:15 PM
77
8
85
6
22
28
21
103
124
237
04:30 PM
89
12
101
3
23
26
23
96
119
246
04:45 PM
79
5
84
3
21
24
17
108
125
233
Total
328
34
3621
15
83
981
83
402
4851
945
05:00 PM
108
10
118
6
13
05:15 PM
146
6
152
6
28
05:30 PM
141
10
151
4
29
05:45 PM
126
6
132
5
21
31
101
Total 521 32 553
Grand Total
849
66
9151
36
184
Apprch %
92.8
7.2
16.4
83.6
Total %
39.8
3.1
42.9
I 1.7
8.6
19
19
123
1421
279
34
24
111
135
321
33
27
99
126
310
36
24
88
112
280
122
94
421
5151
u 9a
2201
177
823
1000j
2135
17.7
82.3
10.3
8.3
38.5
46.8
Rahling Rd.
Out In Total
859 15 1774
849 fifi
Thru e1!
1 L+
O
North
�' c
r
�
v
/22T2008 4:00:00 PM
CO
3/22/2008 5:45:00 PM
r
a n
PM Count Data
rnm
�o
ra —
Thru Right
823 177
33 101 00F 2033
Out In Total
Rahli Rtl
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc.
Peak Hours Turning Movement Count Data
PM Hour Turning Movement Count Data File Name : PM -TM
Rahling Road and Pebble Beach Drive Site Code : 00000000
Little Rock, AR Start Date : 09/22/2008
P-1378 Page No : 2
Start Time
Rahling Rd.
From North
Pebble Beach Rd.
I From East
Right
Rahling Rd.
From South
Thru I App.
Total
Int. Total
Thru Left I App. TotalT
Right Left - App. Total
Peak Flour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection
05:00 PM
Volume
521
32
553
21
101
122
94
421
515
1190
Percent
94.2
5.8
17.2
82.8
18.3
81.7
05:15 Volume
146
6
152
6
28
34
24
111
135
321
Peak Factor
0.927
High Int.
05:15 PM
05:45 PM
05:00 PM
Volume
146
6
152
5
31
36
19
123
142
Peak Factor
0.910
0.847
0.907
Rahling
Out Irk Total
442 995
527 32
Th,
1 �►
T °
N C
North O1
0
7 N N
8 :00:00 M a 03
M
08 5:45:00 PM m N 01
r=a �
PM Cash Data o a
WE
°i
T� Right
ht
421 94
622 515 1137
Out In Total
Rahling Rd
w
4 l�_L o
FEE
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGfABERS, INC.
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Page 1
1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling
Road
9/29/2008
f-
'I-
t
II
i
Movernent
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
Y
T
t
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
98
19
410
174
17
391
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
107
21
446
189
18
425
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1002
540
635
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1002
540
635
tC, single (s)
6.4
6.2
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
60
96
98
cM capacity (veh/h)
263
542
948
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total
127
635
18
425
Volume Left
107
0
18
0
Volume Right
21
189
0
0
cSH
287
1700
948
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.44
0.37
0.02
0.25
Queue Length 95th (ft)
54
0
1
0
Control Delay (s)
27.1
0.0
8.9
0.0
Lane LOS
D
A
Approach Delay (s)
27.1
0.0
0.4
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
45.4%
ICU Level
of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing Traffic; Existing Geometrics AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1
1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road I 9/29/2008
t #
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Y
11
+
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
101
21
421
94
32
521
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
110
23
458
102
35
566
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1145
509
560
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1145
509
560
tC, single (s)
6.4
6.2
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
49
96
97
cM capacity (veh/h)
213
564
1011
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total
133
560
35
566
Volume Left
110
0
35
0
Volume Right
23
102
0
0
cSH
239
1700
1011
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.56
0.33
0.03
0.33
Queue Length 95th (ft)
76
0
3
0
Control Delay (s)
37.4
0.0
8.7
0.0
Lane LOS
E
A
Approach Delay (s)
37.4
0.0
0.5
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
4.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
41.4%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Existing Traffic; Existing Geometrics PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1
1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008
f- t 1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
r
tt
r
tt
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
92
16
622
156
16
603
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
100
17
676
170
17
655
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1039
338
846
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1039
338
846
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
55
97
98
cM capacity (veh/h)
221
658
787
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
SB 1 SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total
100
17
338
338
170
17
328
328
Volume Left
100
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
Volume Right
0
17
0
0
170
0
0
0
cSH
221
658
1700
1700
1700
787
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.45
0.03
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.02
0.19
0.19
Queue Length 95th (ft)
54
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
Control Delay (s)
34.0
10.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
D
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
30.5
0.0
0.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
2.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
29.0%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
Queues Pagel
1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road II 9/29/2008
f, 4. t i
Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)
100
17
676
170
17
655
v/c Ratio
0.27
0.03
0.35
0.12
0.04
0.29
Control Delay
15.4
4.5
8.6
0.7
4.8
4.6
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
15.4
4.5
8.6
0.7
4.8
4.6
Queue Length 50th (ft)
10
0
30
0
1
28
Queue Length 95th (ft)
58
8
116
10
7
63
Internal Link Dist (ft)
686
675
537
Turn Bay Length (ft)
150
150
150
Base Capacity (vph)
721
640
2324
1365
564
2790
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.14
0.03
0.29
0.12
0.03
0.23
Intersection Summary
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2
1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahlinu Road I 9/29/2008
f- t #
Movement
_ _ . BR _ . NBR SBL. SBT
Lane Configurations
if
tt
?
tt
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
3539
1583
1770
3539
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.31
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
1583
3539
1583
585
3539
Volume (vph)
92
16
622
156
16
603
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
100
17
676
170
17
655
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
13
0
52
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
100
4
676
118
17
655
Turn Type
pm+ov
pm+ov
pm+pt
Protected Phases
8
1
2
8
1
6
Permitted Phases
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
8.2
10.5
24.5
32.7
31.8
31.8
Effective Green, g (s)
9.2
12.5
25.5
34.7
32.8
32.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.18
0.25
0.51
0.69
0.66
0.66
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) 326
522
1805
1225
462
2322
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06
0.00
c0.19
0.02
0.00
c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.06
0.02
v/c Ratio 0.31
0.01
0.37
0.10
0.04
0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 17.6
14.1
7.4
2.5
3.4
3.6
Progression Factor 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
Delay (s) 18.2
14.1
7.6
2.5
3.4
3.7
Level of Service B
B
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s) 17.6
6.5
3.7
Approach LOS B
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
6.2
HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.36
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
50.0
Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
29.0%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Page 2
2: Drive A & Rahling
Road
9/29/2008
*
I
I
t
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
r
0
'�
tt
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
12
46
732
15
30
665
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
13
50
796
16
33
723
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1230
406
812
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1230
406
812
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
92
92
96
cM capacity (veh/h)
163
594
810
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2 NB 1
NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total
13
50
530
282
33
361
361
Volume Left
13
0
0
0
33
0
0
Volume Right
0
50
0
16
0
0
0
cSH
163
594
1700
1700
810
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.08
0.08
0.31
0.17
0.04
0.21
0.21
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
7
0
0
3
0
0
Control Delay (s)
29.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
9.6
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
D
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
15.2
0.0
0.4
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
34.9%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 3
3: Drive B & Rahling Road 9/29/2008
r.
Movement WBL VVBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Direction, Lane # I
Stop
0
0.92
0
WB 1
r
5
0.92
5
N'B`1
0
Stop
742
0.92
807
NB 2
10
0.92
11
SB 1
0
0.92
0
_ 8B2
tt
Stop
677
0.92
736
Volume Total (vph)
5
538
280
368
368
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right (vph)
5
0
11
0
0
Hadj (s)
-0.57
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.03
Departure Headway (s)
6.0
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
Degree Utilization, x
0.01
0.79
0.41
0.55
0.55
Capacity (veh/h)
562
669
663
654
656
Control Delay (s)
9.1
24.1
10.7
13.5
13.5
Approach Delay (s)
9.1
19.5
13.5
Approach LOS
A
C
B
Intersection Summary
Delay
16.6
HCM Level of Service
C
Intersection Capacity Utilization
30.8%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 4
4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road I 9/29/2008
,(.- t /P. \*- #
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Vi
if
tt
?
ft
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
143
60
692
184
110
567
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
155
65
752
200
120
616
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1299
376
952
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1299
376
952
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
0
90
83
cM capacity (veh/h)
127
621
717
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
SB 1
SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total
155
65
376
376
200
120
308 308
Volume Left
155
0
0
0
0
120
0 0
Volume Right
0
65
0
0
200
0
0 0
cSH
127
621
1700
1700
1700
717
1700 1700
Volume to Capacity
1.22
0.10
0.22
0.22
0.12
0.17
0.18 0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft)
240
9
0
0
0
15
0 0
Control Delay (s)
216.6
11.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
F
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
155.9
0.0
1.8
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
18.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
43.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
Queues
Pagel
4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling
Road
9/29/2008
r-
I li
/P�
\P.
I
i
Lane Group
WBL
WSR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)
155
65
752
200
120
616
v/c Ratio
0.44
0.10
0.43
0.17
0.25
0.26
Control Delay
20.2
3.3
11.9
0.8
7.9
4.7
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
20.2
3.3
11.9
0.8
7.9
4.7
Queue Length 50th (ft)
34
0
79
0
11
33
Queue Length 95th (ft)
91
17
153
11
34
73
Internal Link Dist (ft)
528
404
601
Turn Bay Length (ft)
200
150
150
Base Capacity (vph)
627
589
2083
1235
632
2715
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.25
0.11
0.36
0.16
0.19
0.23
Intersection Summary
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2
4: Wellin ton Plantation Drive & Rahling Road II 9/29/2008
"r t \P. i
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
r
tt
?
tt
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
3539
1583
1770
3539
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.32
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
1583
3539
1583
591
3539
Volume (vph)
143
60
692
184
110
567
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
155
65
752
200
120
616
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
45
0
65
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
155
20
752
135
120
616
Turn Type
pm+ov
pm+ov pm+pt
Protected Phases
8
1
2
8
1
6
Permitted Phases
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
9.7
15.3
26.8
36.5
37.4
37.4
Effective Green, g (s)
10.7
17.3
27.8
38.5
38.4
38.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.19
0.30
0.49
0.67
0.67
0.67
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) 332
591
1723
1178
534
2380
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09
0.00
c0.21
0.02
0.03
c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.06
0.13
v/c Ratio 0.47
0.03
0.44
0.11
0.22
0.26
Uniform Delay, d1 20.7
14.0
9.5
3.3
5.6
3.7
Progression Factor 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
Delay (s) 21.7
14.0
9.7
3.3
5.8
3.8
Level of Service C
B
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s) 19.4
8.4
4.1
Approach LOS B
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
8.0
HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
57.1
Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
43.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 5
5: Drive C & Rahling Road 9/29/2008
t
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
if
tT
tt
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
0
5
871
11
0
710
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
5
947
12
0
772
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1339
479
959
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1339
479
959
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
99
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
144
532
713
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total 5 631 328 386 386
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 5 0 12 0 0
cSH 532 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.37 0.19 0.23 0.23
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delay (s) 11.8 0.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Page 6
6: Rahlin2 Road & Drive D
9/29/2008
Movement
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
0
tf
r
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
843
26
16
694
30
39
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
916
28
17
754
33
42
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
945
1342
472
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
945
1342
472
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
77
92
cM capacity (veh/h)
722
140
538
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
WB 3
NB 1
NB 2
Volume Total
611
334
17
377
377
33
42
Volume Left
0
0
17
0
0
33
0
Volume Right
0
28
0
0
0
0
42
cSH
1700
1700
722
1700
1700
140
538
Volume to Capacity
0.36
0.20
0.02
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
2
0
0
21
6
Control Delay (s)
0.0
0.0
10.1
0.0
0.0
38.4
12.3
Lane LOS
B
E
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
0.2
23.6
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
34.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Page 7
7: Wellington Plantation Drive & Beckenham Drive
4__t
II9/29/2008
t
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
T+
1
11�
1�
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
133
123
10
10
109
63
4
3
3
37
7
102
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
145
134
11
11
118
68
4
3
3
40
8
111
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
187
145
683
637
139
602
608
153
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
187
145
683
637
139
602
608
153
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
90
99
98
99
100
89
98
88
cM capacity (veh/h)
1387
1438
287
351
909
373
365
893
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total
145
145
11
187
4
7
40
118
Volume Left
145
0
11
0
4
0
40
0
Volume Right
0
11
0
68
0
3
0
111
cSH
1387
1700
1438
1700
287
507
373
817
Volume to Capacity
0.10
0.09
0.01
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.11
0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft)
9
0
1
0
1
1
9
13
Control Delay (s)
7.9
0.0
7.5
0.0
17.8
12.2
15.8
10.2
Lane LOS
A
A
C
B
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
3.9
0.4
14.4
11.6
Approach LOS
B
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
4.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
35.7%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics AM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Page 1
1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling
Road
9/29/2008
t
II
i
Movement WBL WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations r
tt
tt
Sign Control Stop
Free
Free
Grade 0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h) 105 18
665
94
26
815
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 114 20
723
102
28
886
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1222
361
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1222
361
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
31
97
cM capacity (veh/h)
166
635
Direction. Lane #
WB 1
WB 2 NB 1 NB 2
825
825
4.1
2.2
96
801
NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total
114
20
361
361
102
28
443
443
Volume Left
114
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
Volume Right
0
20
0
0
102
0
0
0
cSH
166
635
1700
1700
1700
801
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.69
0.03
0.21
0.21
0.06
0.04
0.26
0.26
Queue Length 95th (ft)
102
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
Control Delay (s)
64.5
10.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
F
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
56.7
0.0
0.3
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
Queues
Pagel
1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling
Road
9/29/2008
f-
4--
I *
I
t
Lane Group
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)
114
20
723
102
28
886
v/c Ratio
0.32
0.04
0.38
0.07
0.07
0.40
Control Delay
16.8
4.6
8.8
0.8
5.2
5.3
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
16.8
4.6
8.8
0.8
5.2
5.3
Queue Length 50th (ft)
15
0
34
0
2
44
Queue Length 95th (ft)
67
9
130
8
10
94
Internal Link Dist (ft)
686
675
537
Turn Bay Length (ft)
150
150
150
Base Capacity (vph)
678
632
2179
1442
528
2647
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.17
0.03
0.33
0.07
0.05
0.33
Intersection Summary
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2
1: Pebble Beach Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008
k- t
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR
Lane Configurations
F
tt
r
tt
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
3539
1583
1770
3539
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.30
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
1583
3539
1583
552
3539
Volume (vph)
105
18
665
94
26
815
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
114
20
723
102
28
886
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
15
0
29
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
114
5
723
73
28
886
Turn Type
pm+ov
pm+ov pm+pt
Protected Phases
8
1
2
8
1
6
Permitted Phases
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
9.4
11.9
27.4
36.8
34.9
34.9
Effective Green, g (s)
10.4
13.9
28.4
38.8
35.9
35.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.19
0.26
0.52
0.71
0.66
0.66
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)
339
522
1851
1248
443
2340
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.06
0.00
0.20
0.01
0.00
c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.03
0.04
v/c Ratio
0.34
0.01
0.39
0.06
0.06
0.38
Uniform Delay, dl
19.0
15.1
7.8
2.3
3.6
4.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
Delay (s)
19.6
15.1
7.9
2.3
3.7
4.3
Level of Service
B
B
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
18.9
7.2
4.2
Approach LOS
B
A
A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
6.6 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.37
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
54.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
35.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2
2: Drive A & Rahling Road 9/29/2008
t v.
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
r
0
tt
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
8
26
734
20
47
873
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
9
28
798
22
51
949
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1385
410
820
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1385
410
820
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
93
95
94
cM capacity (veh/h)
126
591
805
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
SB 1
SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total
9
28
532
288
51
474
474
Volume Left
9
0
0
0
51
0
0
Volume Right
0
28
0
22
0
0
0
cSH
126
591
1700
1700
805
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.07
0.05
0.31
0.17
0.06
0.28
0.28
Queue Length 95th (ft)
5
4
0
0
5
0
0
Control Delay (s)
35.7
11.4
0.0
0.0
9.8
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
E
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
17.1
0.0
0.5
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
37.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Page 3
3: Drive B & Rahling
Road
9/29/2008
t
II
i
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
Lane Configurations
r
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
0
20
740
14
0
881
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
22
804
15
0
958
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total (vph)
22
536
283
479
479
Volume Left (vph)
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right (vph)
22
0
15
0
0
Hadj (s)
-0.57
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.03
Departure Headway (s)
6.2
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.5
Degree Utilization, x
0.04
0.85
0.45
0.73
0.73
Capacity (veh/h)
554
622
614
641
636
Control Delay (s)
9.5
31.6
12.0
21.0
21.0
Approach Delay (s)
9.5
24.8
21.0
Approach LOS
A
C
C
Intersection Summary
Delay
22.6
HCM Level of Service
C
Intersection Capacity Utilization
30.9%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 4
4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road II 9/29/2008
*-- t "0. i
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
if
tt
tt
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
238
108
646
164
137
744
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
259
117
702
178
149
809
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1404
351
880
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1404
351
880
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
0
82
80
cM capacity (veh/h)
105
645
763
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
SB 1 SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total
259
117
351
351
178
149
404
404
Volume Left
259
0
0
0
0
149
0
0
Volume Right
0
117
0
0
178
0
0
0
cSH
105
645
1700
1700
1700
763
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
2.46
0.18
0.21
0.21
0.10
0.20
0.24
0.24
Queue Length 95th (ft)
584
17
0
0
0
18
0
0
Control Delay (s)
751.1
11.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.9
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
F
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
520.3
0.0
1.7
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
89.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
48.6%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
Queues
Page 1
4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahlin2
Road
9/29/2008
t
II
i
Lane Group
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph)
259
117
702
178
149
809
v/c Ratio
0.57
0.15
0.50
0.14
0.33
0.39
Control Delay
22.8
4.2
16.1
0.8
8.2
7.2
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
22.8
4.2
16.1
0.8
8.2
7.2
Queue Length 50th (ft)
66
6
88
0
18
59
Queue Length 95th (ft)
160
31
184
13
54
133
Internal Link Dist (ft)
528
404
601
Turn Bay Length (ft)
200
150
150
Base Capacity (vph)
686
784
1687
1285
541
2410
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.38
0.15
0.42
0.14
0.28
0.34
Intersection
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2
4: Wellington Plantation Drive & Rahling Road 9/29/2008
Movement
4
WBL
',-
WBR
t
NBT
NBR
"*
SBL
t
SBT
Lane Configurations
r
tt
?
tt
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
Frt
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1583
3539
1583
1770
3539
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.26
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
1583
3539
1583
475
3539
Volume (vph)
238
108
646
164
137
744
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Adj. Flow (vph)
259
117
702
178
149
809
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
46
0
63
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
259
71
702
115
149
809
Turn Type
pm+ov
pm+ov pm+pt
Protected Phases
8
1
2
8
1
6
Permitted Phases
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
13.0
19.4
20.6
33.6
32.0
32.0
Effective Green, g (s)
14.0
21.4
21.6
35.6
33.0
33.0
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.25
0.39
0.39
0.65
0.60
0.60
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) 451
731
1390
1140
459
2123
v/s Ratio Prot c0.15
0.01
c0.20
0.03
0.04
c0.23
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.05
0.15
v/c Ratio 0.57
0.10
0.51
0.10
0.32
0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 17.9
10.7
12.7
3.7
5.7
5.7
Progression Factor 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.8
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.1
Delay (s) 19.7
10.7
12.9
3.7
6.1
5.8
Level of Service B
B
B
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s) 16.9
11.1
5.9
Approach LOS B
B
A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
9.8
HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
55.0
Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
48.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics; 2 Signals PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 5
5: Drive C & Rahling Road I 9/29/2008
f 4- t #
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
if
ti�
tt
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
0
20
790
17
0
982
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
22
859
18
0
1067
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1402
439
877
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1402
439
877
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
p0 queue free %
100
96
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
131
566
766
Direction, Lane #
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total
22
572
305
534
534
Volume Left
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right
22
0
18
0
0
cSH
566
1700
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.04
0.34
0.18
0.31
0.31
Queue Length 95th (ft)
3
0
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
B
Approach Delay (s)
11.6
0.0
0.0
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 6
6: Rahling Road & Drive D 9/29/2008
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
+I*
I
tf
r
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
787
40
24
958
17
20
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
855
43
26
1041
18
22
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
899
1450
449
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
899
1450
449
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
97
84
96
cM capacity (veh/h)
751
117
557
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
WB 3
NB 1 NB 2
Volume Total
570
329
26
521
521
18
22
Volume Left
0
0
26
0
0
18
0
Volume Right
0
43
0
0
0
0
22
cSH
1700
1700
751
1700
1700
117
557
Volume to Capacity
0.34
0.19
0.03
0.31
0.31
0.16
0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
3
0
0
13
3
Control Delay (s)
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
41.3
11.7
Lane LOS
A
E
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
0.2
25.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
36.5%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Page 7
7: Wellington Plantation Drive
&
Beckenham Drive
44
t
I9/29/2008
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
1
T,
T
1�
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
14
128
122
11
130
54
12
10
15
68
12
138
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
15
139
133
12
141
59
13
11
16
74
13
150
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
200
272
558
460
205
386
497
171
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
200
272
558
460
205
386
497
171
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
99
99
96
98
98
86
97
83
cM capacity (veh/h)
1372
1292
352
488
835
543
465
873
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
NB 1
NB 2
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total
15
272
12
200
13
27
74
163
Volume Left
15
0
12
0
13
0
74
0
Volume Right
0
133
0
59
0
16
0
150
cSH
1372
1700
1292
1700
352
650
543
816
Volume to Capacity
0.01
0.16
0.01
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.14
0.20
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
1
0
3
3
12
19
Control Delay (s)
7.7
0.0
7.8
0.0
15.6
10.8
12.7
10.5
Lane LOS
A
A
C
B
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.4
0.4
12.4
11.2
Approach LOS
B
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
4.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
31.3%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Projected Traffic; Proposed Geometrics PM Peak Hour
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. P1378; Proposed Rahling Road Development
C"+
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
f'+
44---- O -OO- - a a -
A
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
V1
VI
T
2
v
& o�
. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . o 0 0
C
E �
L
�
� O
Q
l4
Q
R
o n
m
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. o 0 0 0 �--'
i
J
�
R
�
m
C
Xm
QO
Pumi om corm rn" mm a
mm rrnmm momn<cv
;
m
M Z
K
A
0 m
a
y
H iy m
m c
m r a
o
H C
O t
w F
c
S c
fY
o m n o m r m m o m
O
�-�
j
mo
mr�ncmmvmimmmv�
c-
O�
U U S m
d m
W
U
m I
a
O O O O o o O O O O o
W r =
O
n oD Oi G^ �`� m N N
a
u
gguf
m
r
' �"
3
vm m rim mangy$$
`Ovvuriavvv`v �Nnomid
2
O
m N m
a
O N
3
o
V
m N m n m N n N N m N N N N
N N N N N
E
c =
ti
O O O N
E
� �
m
nrnmmm�ow' m�l
2
5 3
w
Z }
O
z z
W E
m m
m 3
F
LL
z
O
-
n000a0000000000�
a
C7 N i O Z
V
l
O
z
OO
O
z
a o
O
o r Z W
¢
H
U
N
F
Z
n u
Q m IL
Z
m � C
Vl
L }
o
. _
_ m
nmNNNmmv��inm Nmq
N tmJ N N N N m n n
D m o
-
T
R
Q
'Y
m
V O
n N N M N N m, 'm m< N N a
d'
m = n
=
7a�aw
�
o `
R
Ca
r N
OU =
Q
m
El w
f
w L
V
C7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
g
v z F
2
H
m
W
7 7 )B
- - - -- „-- - - - - --
} § )
a-0
■ N2a
to
„ ......,����,�
k § -,
/
k
t
�
&§2y@amE7B2/BR222
mo...
�!
Ril2B4m!/9E@§a
2§@;mE§92gB2®&$
;§7;mE§y2q)2�&a
\����������.,��,
j&
§g�Gb&b§55)§&M
K !
G§m/■!!§5G2§&2
m
�|
W
@;ml---- --- - --
z
4
eGg52§2&§/rm;;
`
&�
Nw-Nm
3
!)
0----------
«
! §
-
----------- ,
-_--------
\
0 ,
0.2
«00000---,_---�
/
0
=`
/
( �
■
o
#
So
-
\!!!
-
\
#)
#,
(§(\
§
«55 ' no
,!a
w
ammggq;;qqi6
f
;»!
g
°---- - - - - --
_
!
ƒ!§a
�
-;
#
#/ ~ ��@y!lZ;2EE22
f o
5 �$
/))
ci
# \ )!
7ƒ=ef ==2 ]
.z: mr . a
[ ; of
_ w�2e&:!
\ }\\2E
o
w \\\�� / ..............
\
.§
2`32;!§l5;25l5
\
\ �f
ƒ
\2 2 \� �a666�4........
/ k \ eee----------
\ ¥\��2=,e==a=,=a
December 2000
Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
Page 4C-3
The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application where a large
volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.
The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application where the
traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers
excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.
Sec[. 4C.01 [0 4C.02
Page 4C-4 December 2000
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study
finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average
day:
A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition
A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street
approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition
B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street
approaches, respectively, to the intersection.
In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for
the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to
be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds
70 km/h (40 mph), or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community
having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table
4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study
finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an
average day:
A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition
A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street
approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition
B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street
approaches, respectively, to the intersection.
These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each
condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be
the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume
shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours.
Sect. 4C.02
December 2000
Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume
Page 4C-5
Condition A —Minimum Vehicular Volume
-Vehicles per hour on
higher -volume
Number of lanes for
Vehicles per hour on major street
minor -street approach
moving traffic on each approach
(total of both approaches)
(one direction only)
Major Street Minor Street
100%a 80%b 70%`
100%a 80%' 70%°
1................. 1.................
500 400 350
150 120 105
2 or more... 1.................
600 480 420
150 120 105
2 or more ... 2 or more...
600 480 420
200 160 140
1................. 2 or more....
500 400 350
200 160 140
Condition
B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Vehicles per hour on
higher -volume
Number of lanes for
Vehicles per hour on major street
minor -street approach
moving traffic on each approach
(total of both approaches)
(one direction only)
Major Street Minor Street
100%a 80%b 70W
100%a 80%b 70%`
1................. 1.................
750 600 525
75 60 53
2 or more... 1.................
900 720 630
75 60 53
2 or more ... 2 or more..-
900 720 630
100 80 70
1................. 2 or more ....
750 600 525
100 80 70
- Basic minimum hourly volume.
b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures.
May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 70 km/h (40 mph) or in an isolated community with a population of
less than 10,000.
Sect. 4C.02
Page 4C-6
Guidance:
December 2000
The combination of Conditions A and B should be applied only after an adequate
trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has
failed to solve the traffic problems.
Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
The Four -Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where
the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control
signal.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study
finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing
the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the
corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one
direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing
combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be
required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds
70 km/h (40 mph) or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community
having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1.
Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Support:
The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are
such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor -street traffic suffers undue delay
when entering or crossing the major street.
Standard:
This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases. Such cases include,
but are not limited to, office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial
complexes, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large
numbers of vehicles over a short time.
Sect. 4C.02 to 4C.04
December 2000
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume
= 500
d
= 400
w Q
cr a- 300
H d
U) Q
0 2 200
Z �
J
0 100
2
O
2
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES —
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street
approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane.
Page 4C-7
2 OR MORE LANIES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
f1 LANE & 1 LANE
*115
*80
Figure 4C 2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h (40 mph) ON MAJOR STREET)
= 400
CL
>
OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
Q
300 -
W �• 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
CO
Q 200 1 LANE & 1 LANE
CC Ow
Z_
J
0 100
0
2
*80
*60
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES —
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street
approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane.
Sect. 4C.04
Page 4C-9
December 2000
600
> 500
S
r Q 400
ul d
Liz CL
Cr
CL 300
CC Q
02 200
O
> 100
S
C7
S
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
400 500 600 700 800 9uu iuuu -
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL
PER HOUTR (VPH) APPROACHES —
VEHICLES
`Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for ainoe loweeet
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph appliess
threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane.
*150
*100
00
Figure 4C4. Warrant 3, Peak V o0 km/h�40 mph) ON MAJOR STREET)
% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR A
x
rL
400
S
�O
�
300
r °-
(n�
0Q
0 200
�o
> 1o0
x
c�
z
T'
E LANES-
2 OR MORE LANiS & 2 OR i MORE I -
i 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1 LANE & 1.LANE
*100
*75
t~—L—
3900 1000 1100 1200 1300
00 400 500 600 700 800
MAJOR STREET—TOTS
APPROACHES—
VEHICLEPER HOUR (VPH)
'Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volumefor a eet
approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane.
Sect. 4C.05
December 2000
Page 4C-8
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study
finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:
A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four
consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:
1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor -
street approach (one direction only) controlled
approach; rol or 5 O hic e-hoursP sign ls or
far a
exceeds: 4 vehicle -hours for a o
two-lane approach, and
2. The volume on the same minor -street approach (one direction only)
equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or
150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and
3. The total entering volume serviced during
th three approaches the a ts or exceeds or 800 vehicles 0
vehicles per hour for intersections with
per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.
B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street
(total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the
higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) for I hour (any
four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the
applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach
lanes.
Option:
don the major street
limit
liesor twi thin the buildup ar a pF an is ac d community exceeds
If the posted or statutory speed
70 km/h (40 mph), or if the intersection
having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to
satisfy the criteria in the second category of the Standard.
Section 4C.05 Warrant 4 Pe[lestrian Voium
Support:
The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on
a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major
street.
Sect. 4C.04 to 4C.05
December 2000
Page 4C-10
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midbloc cr ter ing a are all
be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following
met:
A. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or
midblock location during an average day is 100 or more for each of any 4
hours or 190 or more during any 1 hour; and
B. There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate
length to allow pedestrians to cross during the same period when the
pedestrian volume criterion is satwaitd� vidtheerequirement
d street
having a median of sufficient widthfor
pedestrians to
applies separately to each direction of vehicular traffic.
The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where
the distance to the nearest traffic control so al trot signalwill not restrict theajor street is
than
90 m (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic c
progressive movement of traffic.
If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and a traffic
engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal
heads conforming to requirements set forth in Chapter 4E.
Guidance:
If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and a traffic
engineering study:
A. If installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be
coordinated-
B. At an intersection, the traffic control signal shoulldb ld have serxiiacruat d should
include pedestrian detectors. As a minimum,
it soperation, but full -actuated operation with detectors on all approaches might also
be appropriate.
C. At nonintersection crossings, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian -
actuated, parking and other sight obstructions
should
be ondrthebrod for at amend t30
m (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 m ( ft ) Y
installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.
Sect. 4C.05
Page 4C-11
December 2000
Option:
The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing �major less than 1.2 m/sec (4f �! ea)as much
as 50 percent if the average crossing speed pedestrians
not be needed
coordinated traffic
A traffic control signal may at uate len th for pedestrians to cross the street,
control signals consistently provide gaps of ad q g
even if the rate of gap occurrence is less than one per minute.
Section 4C.06 Warrant 5 School Crossin
Support:
fact that
The School Crossing signal warrant S I al reason to onside installing atended for application where etraffic control of
children cross the major street is the prin p
signal.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shallbn he Veb vehicular traffic stream as engineeringred when an
study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps
related to the number and size of groups of school �u bed of adequate gapat an s in he school
crossing across the major street shows that th
traffic stream during the period when the children period (see Section 7A.03) and here are a
minimum of
than theonumber0 students during the highest crossing hour.
control sinal, consideration
ll
Before a decision is made to install a traffic
as warning signsaande
given to the implementation of other remedial
flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade -separated crossing.
The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the
the major street is
distance to the nearest traffic control signalalong signalwillnot restrict theless than progressv e in
(300 ft), unless the proposed traffic control will
movement of traffic.
Guidance:
If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and an engineering
study:
A. If installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be
coordinated.
Sect. 4C.05 to 4C.06
December 2000
Page 4C-12
B. At an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic -actuated and should
include pedestrian detectors. As a minimum, detectors ould have on all approaches might also
operation, but full -actuated operation
be appropriate.
C. At nonintersection crossings, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian -
actuated, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30
In (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 in (20 ft) beyond the crosswalk, and the
installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.
Section 4C.07 Warrant 6 Coordinated Si nal S stem
Support:
installing
Progressive movement in a coordwhere they would not otherwis be neededated signal system sometimes sin order to
traffic control signals at intersection
maintain proper platooning of vehicles.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study
finds that one of the following criteria is met:
A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one
direction, the adjacent traffic control
art that they do
not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platoomng.
B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic he control
and adjacent traffis do not provide c necessary degree of platoomng P
signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.
Guidance:
lied wher
The Coordinated Signal System signal warrbe lesslthant be OOamp(1,004 ft)e the
resultant spacing of traffic control signals would
Section 4C.08 Warrant 7 Cras Ex erience
Support:
plication where
The Crash Experience Signal warrant conditions
reasonsttoconsidered for Pnstaliing atraffic the
severity and frequency of crashes a principal
signal.
Sect. 4C.06 to 4C.08
Page 4C-13
December 2000
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shale be considered if an engineering study
finds that all of the following criteria are
A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement
has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and
B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic
control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash arently exceeding the applicable
personal injury or property damagepp
requirements for a reportable crash; and
C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given
in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition
in
of Condition B Sn Table
ection
4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percencolumns
4C-1 exists on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street
approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian
traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the
Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major -street and minor -street volumes
shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street,
each ofthe t he 8 hours.er volume hall
not be required to be on the same approach
Section 4C.09 Warrant 8 Roadwa Network
Support:
Installing a traffic control signal at soTne inrsections rnigt be ❑f traffic flow on a roadway nehworkustified to encourage
concentration and organization
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be
eor nsidered if an engineering study
majorroutes meets one or both
finds that the common intersection of two o
of the following criteria:
A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering
volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical
weekday and has 5-year projected traffic
Warrants 112 and 3 during an average Ong
study, that meet one.or more of W
weekday; or
jected entering
B. The intersection has a total existing
each of aiiry 5 hours of a
volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for
nonnormal business day (Saturday or Sunday). Sect. 4C.08 to 4C.09
December 2000
Page 4C-14
sed in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the
A major route as u
following characteristics:
A. It is part of the street or highway trsystem
t at serves as the principal
roadway network for through traffic
floor
E. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a
city; or
C. it appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in
an url)an area traffic and transportation study.
Sect. 4C.09
_ .:1 . _ i y i %-�'. •'i I,• ..'_i.' 1 • :..� e.'i}�. �'i.{-
_�: ''*i- •'�y:7 � , 1.- - ��. ; .�. }i'- =',-'. yl-i;: -t;' ,e-�1C+C{Yj,ul�y�%�;:'�'
La;.� sA'•1,_.` "`yT 'R.7�b.'1k Y I �.r�/.t� `� i}1rr
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
• CIVIL & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING w
5507 Ranch Drive - Suite 205 (501) 868-3999
Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 Fax (501) 868-9710
Letters regarding Items
B. LU08-19-02
and
B.1 Z-8165-A
Page 1 of 1
Carney, Dana
From: David Bell [dlbell@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:09 PM
To: Chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; Carney, Dana
Cc: nancychuar@aol.com; Kellie
Subject: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock
RE: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock
Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of
Little Rock, voter, and a resident of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision, which is adjacent
to property that is currently involved in a zoning application.
I have sent this same e-mail to the Little Rock Board of Directors, my Ward Representative,
Michael Keck, and Little Rock Mayor Stodola.
I am asking that you preserve tie existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock
and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-
19-02LZ8165-A, and_MSP08-01.
I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff's recommendation to deny this
application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of
single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be
detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods".
The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington
Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would further increase traffic through our neighborhood
flowing north and south via Wellington Plantation Drive.
If approved, these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic,
noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant
rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase
the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These
negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values.
I have respectfully requested that the Little Rock Board of Directors and my Ward
Representative, Michael Keck, deny this zoning application and master street plan
amendment.
Best regards,
David Bell
Villages of Wellington Subdivision
1 Alton Lane
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
home: 951-5677
work: 604-3017
3/27/2009
Pagel of 2
Carney, Dana
From: Gaddy, Dana [GaddyDana@uams.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:30 PM
To: Carney, Dana
Subject: Letter to oppose Rahling Road land use and rezoning and MSP changes-LU-08-19-02, Z8165-
A, and MSP08-01.
Importance: High
Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola:
Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little
Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this
zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in
West Little Rock and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as
LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01.
I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this application
stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential
would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent
single family neighborhoods".
The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation
Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our neighborhood, which is
already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski
Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our
children and families walking to the pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking
in the neighborhood.
If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and
light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and
number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and
create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality
of life and property values.
I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan amendment.
Kindest Regards,
Dana Gaddy, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Physiology and Biophysics
Orthopaedic Surgery
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
4301 W. Markham, Slot 505
Little Rock, AR 72205
501-686-5918
FAX 501-686-8167
3/27/2009
Page 2 of 2
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the s
3/27/2009
Page 1 of 2
Carney, Dana
From: Suva, Larry J [SuvaLarryJ@uams.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:32 PM
To: Carney, Dana
Subject: Opposition to LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01
Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola:
Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little
Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this
zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in
West Little Rock and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as
LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01.
I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this application
stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential
would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent
single family neighborhoods".
The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation
Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our neighborhood, which is
already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski
Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our
children and families walking to the pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking
in the neighborhood.
If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and
light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and
number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and
create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality
of life and property values.
I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan amendment.
Kindest Regards,
Larry J. Suva Ph.D.
Director, Center for Orthopaedic Research
Professor, Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery
and Physiology and Biophysics
UAMS College of Medicine
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
4301 W. Markham St., Slot 644
Little Rock, AR 72205
suvalarryi@uams,edu
(501) 526-6110 (office)
(501) 686-8987 (fax)
www.cor.uams.edu
3/27/2009
Page 2 of 2
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the s
3/27/2009
March 23, 2009
RE: LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01.
Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola:
You are called upon daily to balance the wants and needs of the people of Little Rock.
My family appreciates you because we know your service to our city is not easy but it is
important. Thank you for your dedicated public service and your thoughtful
consideration of issues affecting the lives of so many.
I am writing to voice my concern and to ask you to take action to preserve the existing
zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock. My wife, son, and I live the
Hillsborough subdivision. My family is asking you to oppose the application identified as
LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01.
I am a life-long citizen of Little Rock and have lived in Hillsborough since 2001. It is a
good neighborhood with a strong sense of community and cooperation. Our
subdivision's park and pool --- the hub of so much of our residents' interaction with one
another --- is in the direct path of these proposed changes. If granted, traffic would
certainly multiply exponentially. This would introduce unnecessary threats to the safety
of those who live, walk, jog and bike along these streets.
It is no small thing that in a world where people are increasingly isolated this is a place
where people get out into their yards and talk with one another. That is a good thing for
our neighborhood and for our city as well. Please help us encourage the growth of that
kind of community spirit while protecting the safety, ecological balance, and value upon
which we based our decisions to make our homes in Hillsborough.
We trust that you will make your decision with wisdom and courage. We respectfully ask
that you deny this zoning application and amendment to the master street plan.
Thank you for your consideration,
Tim Jackson (Tracy & Sam)
13609 Abinger Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72212
Page 1 of 1
Carney, Dana
From: Montle Dillard [msdillard44@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 11:22 AM
To: board; Chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; Carney, Dana; Keck, Michael; Mayor
Subject: Zoning Application LU-08-19-02; Z8165-A and MSP08-01
We are residents of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision adjacent to the property involved in this zoning
application. We are STRONGLY OPPOSED to having the property rezoned or the master street plan changed.
Changing the zoning of this adjacent property will affect our quality of life and the value of our property. The
Planning and Zoning professional staff's recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this
area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise
and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods".
Our neighborhood has already seen an increase in traffic east and west on Wellington Village Road since it was
connected with Kirk Road; the traffic coming from Fellowship Bible Church and from a multi family housing
complex on Kirk Road.
We relied on the City's compatible single family zoning (R-2) of the adjacent property when we purchased our
home. We are asking you to preserve this zoning and master street plan for the property involved in this
application.
Sincerely,
Don and Montie Dillard
2 Longwell Loop
Little Rock, AR 72211
3/30/2009
Page 1 of 2
Carney, Dana
From: William H. Benton MD [wbenton@anaxis.net]
sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:57 PM center ointenergy.com
To: board; Hurst, Stacy; Keck, Michael; Mayo
r; Carney, Dana; Chauncey.taylor@ P
Cc: andy.lain@gmgrock.com; gaddydana@uams.edu; Jerry Straessle
Memorandum
From: William H. Benton MD
14001 Belle Pointe Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
To: Little Rock Board of Directors
Mayer M. Stodola
Little Rock Planning Commission
Subject:
Rahling Road Rezoning Amendments: Z-8165A LU-08-19-02
MSP-08-01
Requested Action: REJECT AMENDMENTS
Rationale for requested action:
1. High Traffic:
potential traffic to the
We are most concerned about the dramatic ahling Road/Taylor Loop. Pebble a Be ch Villageed number of cars and of Wellington, and all
Hillsborough,
overall area, including residents along fan as
neighborhoods that feed into the Beckenham Driv Drive
nwiset and unwarran eld based upon the original city p
plan. The traffic study
Pleasant Ridge, the Pointe). This is t t you w Ian, and did not take
indicated by Planning Staff. We hope eltic maintain the current
took into account their proposed p
that was presented was paid for by
ens,
clad traffic impact has been underestimated. The Pe blei�Beach
into account the increased traffic expected poem the fully functional Promenade at Chenal. On t a ap
traffic will increase still further. Thus, the projected
community is against the the
proposed changes because although the'sr traffic will be 50%dsomewhatalleviated.
ant stated in his opposing remarks on October 2. the
overall net increase due to the changed zoningllands dse is more than four fold, a 50°I° decrease of a 4w increase
is still a 2x increase.... and, as one Pebble Beach re problem from 7:15 to 8:15
en
without requiring a traffic light to handle Rahling Road traffic as
increase is not worth it to them.Obviously, we have an early morning traffic
Pulaski Academy is in session that is bad enough
well.
3. Hazards to Children:
th on
he
eet that would have this 4X
Given the fact that Our Pool and that of the Villages of Wellington he serious ttrafficrand safety hazards in both increase in
traffic (without sidewalks), the land use and zoning changes represent
neighborhoods.
4. Crime:
Our concern that the proposed zoning/ land use changes will result in significant increases
ntn criminal activity in Our
the Villages of Wellington streets
neighborhood due to increased multi -family housing (M ntly p has already taken p
back u to the MF18 housing editions that were recetttiy opened on Rahling Road, as well as in our own Hillsborough
that b p
3/30/2009
Page 2 of 2
neighborhood. This has already increased need for alarm systems, locking doors and garages during the day.
5. Un-needed Additional Commercial Property:
and ace in areas
CompUSA, and David Claiborne, as
West Little Rock is already over -built with
closalarmingly
in ng Circuit City, Linens N ies in cThings�oercial building
that. the
surrounding our neighborhood. The recent g strongly Support Planning p
well as the large numbersourof vacanr-esresidential neighborhoodin the new sncomplet ly enade at lunwarrantedpp
proposed re -zoning
6. Consistent with LRP Staff Conclusions:
traffic It has consistently been their professional opinion that
' le Rock Planning Staff s position of denial of the prapoamendments (Z.$165-A, LU-08-I9-02, M5P-08-01) is
The Litt zoning, land use and street
well established based on existing
the existing City Plan is appropriate, and that the proposed amendments should be denied.
7. Property Values:
through
ollution that
roved these zoning and master street plan changes would nx�e in traffic and number of nonnoise ares dent d light pmovin g5 ro g
if approved of our nei hborhood. Tl�e signafic
would threaten the stability g
our neighborhood would increase the incidence of ecrime d �aluesty hazards for our families and children,
negative changes would deerease our quality of 1 property
8. Increased Liability/Legal:
es through the courts. It is possible for citizens to exercise
so as to
Given the above data, malevents will result, in w�the� a aboveg -7. Resident who have been materially, directly or
indirectly and negatively impacted will likely seek rem
individual or collective legal right to file suit in -kind based on these considerations so as to injunet zoning changes
prevent 1-7 above.
Personal comment:
citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision,itizens and their govrning bodies
ace t to the
1 arrt a Cz a lication. There is a trust betty
property involved in this zoning pp government. The tax base depends on such areas
- such as this residential community and this city g propertynes values, taxation and
remaining intact. Post -facto manipulation of and cones mmunities
s and inot reasonable to respond to
trust. Citizens invest heavily into term stake holders in this community: it's citizens -
commercial interests over those of bona -fide theilonr taxes. It is, therefore, the expectation.. that y request
who respect each other, obey the law and pay
i will respect this relationship in -kind as reflected the t bevspecified. Tank you respectfully
your req
the City
that this zoning application and master street plan amendment
Rock. reject
outstanding public service to the people of the City
Very Respectfully submitted,
William H. Benton MD
3/30/2009
March 27, 2009
The Honorable Chauncey Taylor, Chairman &
Members of the Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Planning and Development Department
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Chairman Taylor and Commission Members:
, and I want to
My name is Bill Corley and I am a resident of theVillages 'tolthe citizeniens of Little Rock with little
thank you for all your hard work which you give graciously
recognition. I know it is a difficult job at times ands know you must be torn often between interests
of developers and those of neighborhoods like our
My purpose for this letter is to oppose the rezoning of Rahling Road as outlined in Z-8165-A and LU08-
19-02. When we bought our homes, we bought them hilder the I understand tDeltiion e uch can make more money
of that area in
question would remain zoned for R-2 development
rezoning that area as Office and Commercial space, °n the other hnd it will cause our As best I can tellaour single community 600 es
to decline in value and result in us iosin mbne with the Hillsborough
homes pay some $1,800,000 in annual property taxes. That combinedHi property taxes each
subdivision and 2 other subdivisions it approaches some $3 million or more in p p Y
year.
nge after change and bombarden keep up d that a
commission
From every appearance Deltic has requested cha
ll and I th nk
with so many changes and requests, frankly I do not knowtheistotal requestw you
thaton February 5th. While
i
that may have been a factor in the commission denying
lon were unclear as to what you were
Deltic and the City Attorney seem to think you andd the
c m's to those assumptions and feel you
on, I ,as do the other members of our community,
and the commission were perfectly within your rights to reject the entire project.
The folks from Wellington Colony whom I have spoken Plannith ing Commnd the ission denial and feel you
lus who have signed
petitions and mailed letters in opposition, support
should have the ability to act as an independent body and not have restrictions placed on your
deliberations.
ssion
I am under the impression individuals representing Delnities sur, have rounding the eziven the loned ahea and that impression
they have worked out all the changes with the comma a meeting with them and
could not be further from the truth. We are currentlwth yndividuals attempting
resulted in Deltic simply saying
their attorney, even though past meeting isome
something to the affect. "that is not up for discussion ......... or "there is no give on that issue".
Our concerns are simple:1) increased traffic flow on streets not equipped to handle 3) 2) safety of our
children who are able to walk to the pool and recreation area as they do at present, 3) safety from a
level will
crime stand point as more high density population moves into the area, 4) Noise and li
Welgntton Colony
increase dramatically, 5) large numbers of MF housing already exists surrounding Y
now with none of them at full capacity -some even offering 2 months free rent, 6) Current) there are
a large number of vacant commercial properties on Rahling Road and Chenal at Rahling-we do not
need more, 7) single family homes in our subdivisions are still moving and new homes are still being
built in our areas -why build more office, commercial and MF housing.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, thank you again for taking time to hear our concerns
with the current rezoning request for Rahling Road. We would prefer that the original street plan
with a higher level of R-7 housing not be changed to Q or MF to maintain the integrity of our
neighborhoods and the safety of our children.
Kindest regards
__3� ��r
Bill Corley
March 31, 2009
Little Rock Planning Commission Members
City Hall, Room 203
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock
& Oppose Zoning Application 111-08-19-02, Z81 [7a-A and iMS1'08-01.
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little
Rock and a resident of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision, which is adjacent to the property
involved in this zoning application. I am asking that you preserve the existing zoning and
master street pLan in West Little Rock and v ppose this a lication to rezone and change the
master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02 Z8165-A and IIl[SP08-01.
Originally, this 127-acre property was zoned 107 acres for R-2 with only a smaller 20 acre section
of MF-18 primarily located on or very close to Rahling Rd. Now Deltic wants to push 14 acres of
MF-18 very close to Villages of Wellington and add 20 acres of Commercial & 25 acres of Office.
This proposal cannot be allowed to be "pushed" closer to our single-family homes and start
to destroy in value what we have tried to maintain. We are already being damaged by the
economy and this proposal would further add continual devaluation. Please understand.
I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff's recommendation to deny this application
stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family
residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the
existing adjacent single family neighborhoods".
The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation
Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would further increase traffic through our neighborhood flowing north and
south via Wellington Plantation Drive.
If approved, these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise
and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in
traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the
incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative
changes would decrease our quality of life and property values.
Please understand that we solely relied on the City's compatible single family zoning (R-2)
of the adjacent property when we purchased our home on Wellington Plantation Dr.
Acceptance of this proposed application would significantly decrease our property value
due to its proximity and effects.
I respectfully request that you DENY this zoning application and master street plan amendment.
Sincerely,
Jerry Leatherwood, P.E. & Karol Leatherwood
2120 Wellington Plantation Dr.
Little Rock, AR 72211
501-228-4540
March 23, 2009
Little Rock Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola
City Hall, Room 203
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola:
Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a
citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to
the property involved in this zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the
existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and oppose this application to
rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and
MSP08-01.
I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this
application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning
of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which
would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods".
The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington
Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our
neighborhood, which is already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood
onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the
increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our children and families walking to the
pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking in the neighborhood.
If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase
traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood.
The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our
neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our
families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and
property values.
I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan
amendment.
Kindest Regards,
/_Z,7
_11VT_15_11 A
CAL
7 �
To: The Little Rock Mayor, City Directors, and the Planning Commission:
From: The residents of Hillsborough and the Hillsborough Property Owners Association
Re: Rahling Road Rezoning Amendments: Z-8165-A, LU-08-19-02, MSP-08-01
ttle Rock
Thank you for the opportunity to hear the concerns Of the the needs of our c mmunity and support ng residents of +the e little Rock
community. We are hoping you will weigh
SP
Planning Staff s position of denial of the proposed amendmentsnfo mlat n regard ng existing
08-01). The Staff has worked diligently to gather all necessary
zoning, land use and street traffic. It has consistentlybeento E4 profs show d be+den that the
existing City Plan is appropriate, and that the proposed
The rationale for our opposition is enumerated below:
1. We are most concerned about the dramatic
�ngtRoadlTaYla loop, Pebble
ed number of cars and
potential traffic to the overall area, including residents along Rah
Beach, Villages of Wellington, and all neighborhoods that feed into the Beckenham Drive
collector street onto Hinson Road (in clbaseding uponthe original city plane hiryd cated be Pointe). y is is
unnecessary, unwise, and unwarrantedinn.
Planning Staff. We hope that you will maintain the current land useizoning p
only took into
2. The traffic study that was presented aaa paid for
increatic sed traffic expected d from the fully account
their proposed plan, and did not take a ens, traffic will increase still further. Thus, the
functional Promenade at Chenal. Once that Kappity is
projected traffic impact has been underestimate afficdwiil be somewhat aBeactflevo+ated n the o�ert all net
proposed changes because although
their
e than four
increase due to the changed zoning/land daone PebblerBeach residenfold, �decrease
# stated in his opposi ago
increase is still a 2X increase .... a
remarks on October 2, the increase is not worth it to them.
3.Given the fact that our pool and thtwith uVillages
sidewalks} thlington are both on the streete land use and zoning changes at
would have this 4X increase in traffic
represent serious traffic and safety hazards in both neighborhoods.
n Pulaski
4. Obviously, we have an early morning
requiring traffic alem from traffic light.to handle Ra a ng Road traffic Academy
is in session that is bad enough without
well.
nificant
5. Our concern that the proposed zoniu�lto land
changes multi-familyll result in housing g(MF18} as has
in
criminal activity in our neighborhood d to the MF18 housing
already taken place in the Villages o€ Wellington stree#s that back up
11 as in our own editions that were recently openeon sedlin gRoad, d for larm systems, locking doorsandgarages
neighborhood. This has already
during the day.
ce
6. West Little Rock is already overbuilt neighborhood.iThe eacent closing of in Circuit City Linens
building space in areas surrouncommercial
ding our
s well as the large numers of vacancies in the
N Things, CompUSA, and David Claiborne,
rne, a r►g Staff s position thatthe proposed re -zoning of
Promenade at Chenal strongly support w
our residential neighborhood is completely unwarranted.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely yours, I-,
77Z'7-
March 23, 2009
Little Rock Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola
City Hall, Room 203
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola:
Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a
citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Pleasant Heights subdivision, which is
adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. I am writing to ask that you
preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and oppose this
application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02,
Z8165-A, and MSP08-01.
I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staffs recommendation to deny this
application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning
of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which
would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods".
The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington
Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our
neighborhood, which is already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood
onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the
increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our children and families walking to the
pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking in the neighborhood.
If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase
traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood.
The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our
neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our
families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and
property values.
I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan
amendment.
Kindest Regards,
ge,
Page i of 1
Bozynski, Tony
From: Gentry, Frederick
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:21 PM
To: Carney, Dana; Bozynski, Tony
Subject: FW: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock
Please forward to the Planning Commission.
Thanks,
Frederick Gentry
Assistant to the Board of Directors
City of Little Rock
371-6801
500 West Markham
Room 203
From: Patty Wingfield [mailto:piwingfieid@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:42 AM
To: board
Subject: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Roc
Dear Mayor Stodola and Board of Directors"
es of
Thank you all for your public service to the City s f Little
g application.
I I am asn the lking that you
preserve he existing
which is adjacent to the property involved application to rezone and change the master
zoning endidentif�iedtas LLil08an 11 �2 tZ81165-Acand MSk and OP08-0 � this
street plan
I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staffs recommendation to deny this application stating
"development of this area as something other rthan detriental tofincurrentzoning
exg tingof lngle adjacentlsyngiefamiiy neighborhoods" resiential would .a
level of traffic, noise, and light which would
ool, ark, green
We built our new home inthe
name Wellington ew The d version of Beckenham Drivehborhood tto connect to Wellington
spaces, sidewalks, and playground —to master
Plantation Drive instead of Rahling Road as an thnegativlegChanges (increased traffiWould
s, increase
pollution)
our neighborhood. This would then taus Y
and would decrease our quality of life as well as our property values.
I respectfully request that you DENY this zoning application and master street plan amendment.
Thank you for your consideration.
Patty Wingfield
#6 Tory Court
Little Rock, AR
4/1/2009
March 23, 2009
Little Rock Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola
City Hall, Room 203
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola:
Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a
citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to
the property involved in this zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the
existing zoning and master street plan n West Little s LC7-Q819ock and �02,se this 2 155 A,landion to
rezone and change the master street planidentified a
MSP08-01.
I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this
application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning
of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which
would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods".
The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington
Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our
neighborhood, which is already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood
onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the
increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our children and families walking to the
pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking in the neighborhood.
If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase
traffic, noise and light pollution that would
lDthreaten s de stability
$ m;4i� ng �aneighborhood.
� au orhood.
The significant rise in traffic and number
neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our
families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and
property values.
I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan
amendment.
Kindest Regards,
Peter and Dale Fiske
13815 Abinger Court
Little Rock, AR 72212
228-1033
dbandpb@sbcglobal.net
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FROM THE APPLICANT FOR
ITEMS
F. LU08-19-02
and
F.1. Z-8165-A
EDWARD L. WRIGHT
(1903-1977)
ROBERT S, LINDSEY
(1913-1991)
ALSTON JENNINGS
11917-2004)
JOHN G. LILE
GORDON S. RATHER, JR.
ROGER A. GLASGOW
ALSTON JENNINGS, JR.
JOHN R. TISDALE
JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III
LEE J. MU LDROW
N.M. NORTON
CHARLES T. COLEMAN
EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR.
GREGORY T. JONES
BETTINA E BROWNSTEIN
WALTER Mc SPADDEN
JOHN D. DAVIS
JUDY SI MMONS HENRY
KIMBER LY WOOD TUCKER
RAY F. COX, JR,
TROY A. PRICE
KATHRYN A. PRYOR
J. MARK DAVIS
CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK
JERRY 1. SALLINGS
WILLIAM STUART JACKSON
MICHAEL D. 13ARNES
STEPHEN R. LANCASTER
KYLE R. WILSON
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699
(501) 371-0808 . FAX (501) 376-9442
903 NORTH 47TH STREET, SUITE 101
ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756
(479) 986-0888 • FAX (479) 986-8932
www.wlj.com
Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310
jspivey@wlj.com
Reply to Little Rock Office
January 28, 2009
Honorable Chauncey Taylor, Chairman
Members of Little Rock Planning Commission
City of Little Rock
Planning and Development Department
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Item Nos. LU08-19-02; Z8165-A and MSP08-01
Dear Chairman Taylor and Members of the Commission:
C. TAD BOHANNON
J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY
M. SEAN HATCH
J. ANDREW VINES
MI CHELLE M. KAEMMERLING
SCOTT ANDREW JRBY
PATRICK D. WILSON
DAVID P. GLOVER
REGINA A. YOUNG
PAUL D. MORRIS
DAVID E. JOHNSON
P. DELANNA PADILLA
ED WARD RIAL ARMSTRONG
CALEY B. VO
GARY D. MARTS, JR.
ERIC BERGER
JO H NATHAN D. HORTON
KATHRYN M. IRBY
JEF FREY D. WOOD
BRIAN J. McNAMARA
CHESTER H. LAUCK, III
LANE A. KIM
ADRIENNE L. JUNG
KRISTEN A. SL U YTER
ERIN S. BROGDON
OF COUNSEL
RONALD A. MAY
ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR.
BRUCE R. LINDSEY
CHARLES C. PRICE
JUDY ROBINSON WILBER
IAMES R. VAN DOVER
ELGIN R. CLEMONS, JR.
CHARLES S. BOHANNON
Hand Delivery
We are attorneys for the Applicants ("Applicant") in connection with the above identified items
and we are contacting you today on their behalf. At the October 2, 2008, Regular Meeting of
Little Rock Planning Commission, the above identified items were presented for your
consideration. All three items were approved by a majority of the Commission. Subsequent to
Commission approval, and following continuing discussions with members of various property
owners' associations and individual residents, Items Z-8165-A and Item LU08-19-02 were
referred back to the Commission, at the request of the Applicant, by the City Board of
Directors for consideration of an amendment to the pending application. In short, the
amendment requests revision of the currently approved "MF18" zoning for the approximate 20
acre tract in the northern portion of the overall 134 acre parcel to an "0-3" designation. This
matter was scheduled to come before the Commission at its meeting on December 18, 2008,
however the Applicant sought and received approval for deferral when it learned that only
seven members of the Commission would attend the December 8, 2008 meeting.
Prior to the December 8, 2008 meeting, and in the weeks since that time, the Applicant has
continued its discussions with members of the nearby neighborhoods and, more specifically,
the Chenal Ridge Property Owner's Association ("CRPOA"), and has reached a set of
January 28, 2009
Page 2
understandings with the CRPOA which will result in the CRPOA's endorsement of the pending
application, subject to further modifications.
Discussions with at least one other POA are ongoing and it is the Applicant's hope that further
understandings may be reached ultimately with that POA. The purpose of this letter is to
outline for the Commission the commitments which have previously been made by the
Applicant and the additional agreements reached through further negotiations and discussions
with the CRPOA. In the following paragraphs we will outline these modifications for your
further consideration.
I. First, we will address item MSP08-01, which was approved by a unanimous vote of
Commission on October 2, 2008, and for which no subsequent amendments or modifications
are sought. At the October 2, 2008 meeting, the Applicant submitted three commitments to the
City which were read into the record and were made a part of the application at the request of
the Applicant. These commitments included, as they were read into the record on October 2,
2008, the following:
"l. To immediately commence the design for Beckenham, Wellington Plantation
and the completion of Rahling Road adjacent to the subject property and will commence
construction of all streets, stormdrainage and related infrastructure as soon as practically
possible allowing for all necessary governmental approvals.
"2. To contribute up to $325,000 for construction of the portion of Beckenham
outside of the subject property upon conditions that:
(a) the City acquire the right-of-way for that portion of the street; and
(b) the City cooperate with Deltic in the design and approval of plans for
Beckenham such that construction of the entire street and related infrastructure may be
accomplished as a part of a single project thus resulting in cost savings through the
design, engineering and simultaneous construction of the entire street and related
infrastructure.
443. To include as part of the Master Street Plan construction and installation of
traffic signals at the intersection of Beckenham/Plantation Drives and Rahling Road." (In
subsequent discussion at the October 2, 2008 meeting, it was mentioned that the City's Public
Works' staff might prefer to install a traffic circle at the intersection of Beckenham/Plantation
Drives and Rahling Road instead of traffic signals. The Applicant agreed that it would include
construction of a traffic circle in lieu of traffic signals at that location, if requested by the
City.)
January 28, 2009
Page 3
No other proposed amendments or modifications to Item MSP08-01 have been offered nor are
any presented for further consideration in this communication.
II. Items Z-8165-A and LU08-19-02 were essentially considered together at the October 2,
2008 meeting. Prior to the October 2, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant
voluntarily amended its application to eliminate certain "permitted" uses and "conditional"
uses from those otherwise allowable in the "C-3" zone for which approval was sought from the
Planning Commission. A list of the remaining uses was submitted to you at the October 2,
2008 Planning Commission meeting, and was made a part of the item as approved by the
Commission.
1. As a result of the Applicant's continuing discussions with members of the
neighborhoods and representatives of the CRPOA, we have learned that among the most
important concerns of the neighbors is that no "big box" uses or developments that could yield
high traffic volume be located within the "C-3" or "0-3" areas. After exploring and discussing
these concerns with representatives of the CRPOA we have prepared a further modification to
the list of "permitted" and "conditional" uses and added certain other limitations upon
development within the "C-3" and "0-3" areas and seek now to further amend the application
to be consistent with these further modifications. Attached as part of this letter as Exhibit "A"
is a copy of the "C-3" permitted and conditional uses which has been marked to illustrate the
Applicant's initial voluntary limitations and to show those further limitations to uses in the "C-
3" zone. The list of those permitted and conditional uses which were voluntarily eliminated as
part of the application approved at the October 2, 2008, meeting are shown in Exhibit "A"
with a "single strike through line." In addition to the uses which were initially voluntarily
eliminated by the Applicant, a further list of changes is highlighted with a "double strike
through line" along with certain further limitations which have voluntarily been agreed to by
the Applicant.
The additional limitations in the C-3 zone may be summarized as follows:
The Applicant has agreed to eliminate the following additional "permitted" uses:
Item h. Bar, lounge or tavern;
Item q. Cigar or tobacco stores uses are eliminated but the "candy store" use remains;
Item yyy. Service Station.
To the list of conditional uses in the "C-3" zone, the Applicant voluntarily agrees to add "Item
x. Convenience food store with gas pumps," which would otherwise be a "permitted use."
January 28, 2009
Page 4
From the list of conditional uses in the "C-3" zone, the Applicant agrees to eliminate the
following:
L•
Item,( Home Center; and
Item j. Eating place with drive-in service.
In addition to the "use" limitations outlined abovAhe Applicant also commits that no single
retail use will exceed 20,000 square feet. The Applicant believes that this limitation evidences
its recognition and intention that the proposed future development be compatible with the
existing neighborhoods surrounding the area.
2. With regard to those areas previously designated "0-3" and the area formerly
designated as "MF18" for which the Applicant seeks an amendment to "0-3," the Applicant
submits Exhibit "B" which shows a list of uses in the "0-3" zones which it has voluntarily
agreed to eliminate from the "permitted," "conditional" and "accessory" uses. These items
are shown o the attached list with a "double strike through line." Applicant has also agreed
that "Item "; and "Item aa. School (public or denominational)" will
become "con tional" uses inste d of "per�rtitted" uses.
X . Li r t raw li �..Cr►�,r+ -.., i r6�'!"-n
In addition the Applicant has agreed that th� footprint o any single building will not be more
than 20,000 square feet and that no structure in any of the "0-3" zones will exceed three
stories in height.
III. In addition to the limitations set forth in Section II above, the applicant has further
agreed to or acknowledges the following development criteria, limitations or provisions which
shall apply to the various tracts, as appropriate:
1. All "C-3," "0-3" and "MF18" tracts adjacent to the single family residential
tracts, shall include and comply with the City landscaping ordinance including, without
limitation, construction of landscaping buffers around the perimeters of each as provided in the
City's zoning code. 1A) 111 �"� e r - V040i w�-
2. Access to the "MF18" property will be limited to access directly from Rahling
or through the adjacent "C-3" or "0-3" areas. There will be no direct access from Wellington
Plantation Drive unless the City requires an emergency or secondary entrance to the property
from Wellington Plantation Drive.
3. All commercial, office and multifamily tracts within the overall development
will be subject to site plan review by the City. p (M,00 I 4pvwo6
January 28, 2009
Page 5
4. The Chenal Valley Commercial Bill of Assurance will be extended to cover all
commercial, office and multifamily areas to insure the appropriate architectural review and
approval as in all other commercial, office and multifamily areas within Chenal Valley.
5. All commercial, office and multifamily tracts will be covered by the Chenal
Valley Property Owners' Association to insure that each is maintained and operated in a
manner consistent with Chenal POA standards.
6. Deltic agrees to restrict all R-2 areas to single family residential use by
restrictive covenants or other appropriate method.
7. With respect to Deltic property west of Rahling Road, Deltic commits that
except for streets on the Master Street Plan, no neighborhoods lying west of Rahling Road will
be connected to Rahling Road adjacent to the subject property and extending north to Pebble
Beach.
8. The Applicant will fund and construct all necessary drainage and detention
infrastructure along Rahling, Beckenham and Wellington Plantation through the ee*nt 134
acres. lolfic^a
These agreements are offered in good faith and as further measure of the Applicant's intention
to recognize the need to carefully monitor development within the subject 134 acre tract.
Please consider this the Applicant's request for amendment of its pending application in
recognition that all requested uses and further modifications are less intense than the
applications as approved by the Planning Commission at its October 2, 2008, meeting.
Sincerely,
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
Jo n William Spivey III
JWS:jlh
Enclosures (2)
air „��t (Eliminated by Deltic w/ original proposal)
(Eliminated in Jan. 2009)
EXHIBIT "A"
Sec. 36-301. C-3 General commercial district.
(a) Purpose and intent. The C-3 general commercial district shall be applied to the
broad range of retail uses which comprise the commercial function of the city including
groupings of freestanding commercial structures. This section applies to such district.
Permitted uses include most types of retail activity except those involving open displays
of merchandise and those which generate large volumes of vehicular traffic or are
otherwise incompatible with the purpose and intent of the C-3 general commercial
district. Retail areas zoned C-3 general commercial shall be generally concentrated as
to geographical configuration. It is anticipated, however, that in some situations,
change to another commercial or office classification may be appropriate to permit the
transition of strip retail areas to other productive forms of land use. It is the intent of
these regulations that the C-3 district be concentrated at the intersection of arterial
streets. Extension of this district along major arterial streets in linear fashion shall be
discouraged. Outdoor display of merchandise is allowed under carefully controlled
conditions.
(b) Development criteria. All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings,
except parking lots, seasonal and temporary sales per section 36-298.4, and the normal
pump island services of service station operations. In addition, outdoor display of
merchandise is allowed in an area equal to one-half ( 1/2) of the facade area of the front
of the building. Certain seasonal or special event sales may be allowed when the owner
has requested a permit for such activity in conjunction with the privilege license
application. The permitting authority shall review the owner's plan or placement of
merchandise in order to assure that obstruction of drives, walks, required parking and
fire lanes does not occur. In no case shall full-time static open display be permitted.
(c) Use regulations.
(1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses tare as follows:
'
Amusement, (cenunerc al7 inside).
b. Animal clinic (enclosed).
c. Antique shop, with repair.
d. Appliance repair.
f. Bakery or confectionery shop.
g. Bank or savings and loan office.
lam—B I to
i. Barber and beauty shop.
j . Beverage shop.
k. Book and stationery store.
1. Butcher shop. 1 f
n. Camera shop.
o. Catering, commercial.
p. Church.
DOCS-#798652-v 1-Deltic---letter-to-Mr-Chauncey-Taylor. DOC
b. nurse (Eliminated by Deltic w/ original proposal)
(Eliminated in Jan. 2009)
candy store.
r. Clinic (medical, dental or optical).
s. Clothing store.
Colleget.
itiustelfare or health center
�. riznz�rr-rxcurcrr-ccncsr.
ith gas . Moved to Conditional Use
z. [Reserved] .
aa. Custom sewing and millinery.
bb Day mr-sem. or day care center.
.
Ee ay eara ee tte -add
dd. Drugstore or pharmacy.
ee. Duplication shop.
ff. Eating place without drive-in service.
hh. Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization.
ii. Peed store.
jj. Fire station.
kk. Florist shop.
11. Food store.
mm. Furniture store.
A:A . Group care faG
oo. Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar artwork.
pp. Hardware or sporting goods store.
qq. Health studio or spa.
rr. Hobby shop.
SS. Hospital.
R. Netel o ete
uu. Jewelry store.
vv. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting.
ww. Key shop.
Y aianci.ro mat or- r.:r.kep station
zz. Laundry, domestic cleaning.
aaa. Lawn and garden center, enclosed.
bbb. Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use.
eee. Ledgeor fraternal n..r.n..:-.nt.....
ddd Medical applianee and sales
avn.+�•+. arz...0 rc.fittings.
eee. o
eFPaa
Multifamily irar r a Re FanIn��QI e-.. }f, 1.
ggg. Office (general and professional).
-h—:h h-. Office, showreem with warehouse (with Fetail sales, eR4@Ie&e4)_.
DOCS-#798652-vl-Deltic_ =letter. to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC
r "^�wsemen} (Eliminated by Deltic wl original proposal)
(Eliminated in Jan. 2009)
iii. Office equipment sales and service.
j j j . Optical shop.
kkk. Paint and wallpaper store.
W. RaFking, eefamemial lot or gar -age.
ffwafn- Pawnshop.
nnn. Pet shop.
000. Photography studio.
Private
/ 1 school,
�qq CisPate V!Hb With
i" AM � bar-
80n'ie6
sss. Retail uses not listed (enclosed).
s
uuu School (eeffK:ae einl, trade o r.fa t)
www. Seasonal and temporary sales, outside.
rummage
zzz. Shoe repair.
aaaa. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors).
cccc. Tailor.
ddd'FaxideFmi5F
ieeeo Taxi eff r-e
ffff. Theater- (not dr-We in type)-.
e)
gaga-equipment
hhhh. Travel bureau.
(2) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows:
ya,. Ambulance
service post. (outside).
, commercial
d.Auto parts, sales with limited motor vehicle parts installation.
e:" Mte rental 0F leasing
7��" �"�rer--yiee,.-sales or repair)-
Adi�tr� repair- irn rn ..e �
b
g. Building fnia a ial_sales (open)-;
n. Car- =wash.
i. remata Fiufn
r.
k. Glass or glazer. Installation, repair and sales.
m. Landscape service.
a -Lawn and gar -den A�center, open isplay.
a. LunibeFyar-d.
p. ir.iwareheuseq. "Y""
b
hefae of convalescent home.
DOCS-#798652-vl -Deltic-_letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC
a.Plant nursery.
t. Service station with limited motor vehicle repair.
u. Small
;r- 8 .-. n- ..-,1 sales and supply.
�b
�s
ua . Teo! and equipment rental (with outside display)
v Truck er trailer rental or- leasing (m seFviee sales or repaiO_
y. Upholstery shop, furniture.
z. Upholstery y shop, auto.
aa. Convenience food store with gas pumps.
DOCS-#798652-v 1 -Deltic-_letter. to_Mr Chauncey_Taylor.DOC
indicates Deltic has
agreed to eliminate the use in Jan. 2009.
EXHIBIT "B"
Sec. 36-281. 0-3 general office district.
(a) Purpose and intent. The 0-3 general office district is established to accommodate
offices and associated administrative, executive and professional uses in new and
existing structures together with specified institutional and accessory uses. This section
applies to such district. The 0-3 district is characterized by freestanding buildings and
ancillary parking, and shall be limited to arterial street locations in developed areas of
the city and other carefully selected areas where public utilities, community facilities
and other public services are adequate to support general office development.
(b) Use regulations.
(1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are as follows:
a. Bank or savings and loan office.
b. Church.
c. Clinic (medical, dental or optical).
adulk
j. Duplication shop.
,
1. Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization.
in. Family care facility.
n. Fire station.
o. Governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf
courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, day camps and passive
recreational open space.
befato I�y.
r. Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use.
rtuetry of
FSing home
v. Office (general or professional).
w. Photography studio.
(Moved to
Conditional)
y. Rooming, lodging and boarding facilities.
z. School (business).
(Moved to Conditional)
bb. Studio (broadcasting and recording).
cc. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors).
DOCS-##798652-v1-Deltic_ -letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC
dd. Travel Bureau.
(2) Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are permitted only in conjunction
with an allowable use or uses in the 0-3 district and shall not exceed ten (10) percent of
the total floor area on the site.
a. Antique shop.
b. Barber and beauty shop.
c. Book and stationery store.
d. Camera sh fl) .
a. _
ig . ,.±-__5"g-I : candy store.
f. Clothing store.
g. Custom sewing or millinery.
h. Drugstore or pharmacy.
i. Eating place without drive-in service.
j. Florist shop.
k. Health studio or spa.
1. Hobby shop.
m. Jewelry store.
n. Key shop.
o. Laundry pickup station.
p. Tailor shop.
(3) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows:
a. Ambulance Service Post.
b. Animal clinic (enclosed).
c. Barber and beauty shops.
e. Health studio or spa.
f. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting.
I-
j . Orphanage.
k. School (commercial, trade or craft).
m. Private school, kindergarten or institution for special education.
n. School (public or denominational).
DOCS-#798652-v1-Deltic_ _letter_to Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC
Area Zoni
Case: Z-8165-A
Location: East side of Rahling Road
south of Pebble Beach
Ward: 5
PD: 19 0 150300 600 Feet
CT: 42.10
Vicinity Map L-r j j I I TRS: T2N R13W30
Land Use Plan
Case: Z-8165-A N
Location: East side of Rahling Road
south of Pebble Beach
Ward: 5
PD: 19 0 150300 600 Feet
CT: 42.10
TRS: T2N R13W30
Beck
Z-8165-A * PROP. REZONING *EAST SIDE OF RAHLING RD.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FROM THE APPLICANT FOR
ITEMS
F. LU08-19-02
and
F.1. Z-8165-A
S
EDWARD L. WRIGHT
BOHANNON
ROBERT S. LIN)DSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
991)
(ON JENNINGS
ALSTON JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(1917-2009)
J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY
M. SEAN HATCH
JOHN G. LILE
1, ANDREW VINES
MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING
CORDON S. RATHER. JR-
ROGER A. GLASGOW
SCOTT ANDREW IRBY
PATRICK D. WILSON
ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300
JOHN R. iISDALE
DAVID P. GLOVER
REGINA
JOHN WISPIVEY III
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699
A. YOUNG
PAVI D. MOHNS
LEEJ. MU LDROW (501) 371-0808 . FAX (501) 37ti-9442
N.M. NORTON
DAVID E. JO HNSON
P. DELANNA
CHARLES T- COLEMAN
PADILLA
ED WARD RIAL ARMSTRONG
EDWIN L. LOWTHER JR 903 NORTH 47TH STREET, SUITE 101
GREGORY T. JON
CALEY B. VO
FS ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756
E. TEIN
ERIC aERGER MARTS, JR.
WATERINA
PA.DDERROWN
wAL7 ER McSpAQ6EN
(479) 986-0888 . FAX (479) 986-8932
JO HNATHAN D. HORTON
JOHN D. DAVIS
2UDY SIMMONS HENRY
KATHRYN M. IRBY
JEFFR EY D, WOOD
KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER www.wlj.com
RAY F. COX, JR.
BRIAN MCNAMARA
CHESTE1- R H. LAUCK, III
TROY A. PRICE
JANE A. KIM
KATHRYN A. PRYOR Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310
J. MARK DAVIS
ADR IENNA L- LUNG
KRIST EN A. SLUYTER
CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK jspivey@wlj.com
JERRY J. SALLINGS
ERIN S. BROGDON
Reply to Little Rock Office
WILLIAM STUAR'r JACKSON
of COUNSEL
MICHAEL D. BARNES
RONALD A- MAY
STEPHEN R. LANCASTER
ISAAC A. SCOTT,
COTT, 1R.
KYLE R. WILSON January 28, 2009
BRUCE R. Y
CHARLES C. PRICE
JUDY ROBINSON WILBER
IAMES R. VAN DOVER
ELGIN R. CLEMONS, JR.
CHARLES S. BOHANNON
Honorable Chauncey Taylor, Chairman
Members of Little Rock Planning Commission
Hand Delive
City of Little Rock
PIanning and Development Department
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Item Nos. LU08-19-02; Z8165-A and MSP08-01
Dear Chairman Taylor and Members of the Commission:
We are attorneys for the Applicants ("Applicant") in connection with the above identified items
and we are contacting you today on their behalf. At the October 2, 2008, Regular Meeting of
Little Rock Planning Commission, the above identified items were presented for your
consideration. All three items were approved by a majority of the Commission. Subsequent to
Commission approval, and following continuing discussions with members of various property
owners' associations and individual residents, Items Z-8165-A and Item LU08-19-02 were
referred back to the Commission, at the request of the Applicant, by the City Board of
Directors for consideration of an amendment to the pending application, In short, the
amendment requests revision of the currently approved "MF18" zoning for the In
20
acre tract in the northern portion of the overall 134 acre parcel to an "0-3" designation. This
matter was scheduled to come before the Commission at its meeting on December 18, 2008,
however the Applicant sought and received approval for deferral when it learned that only
seven members of the Commission would attend the December 8, 2008 meeting.
Prior to the December 8, 2008 meeting, and in the weeks since that time, the Applicant has
continued its discussions with members of the nearby neighborhoods and, more specifically,
the Chenal Ridge Property Owner's Association ("CRPOA"), and has reached a set of
January 28, 2009
Page 2
understandings with the CRPOA which will result in the CRPOA's endorsement of the pending
application, subject to further modifications.
Discussions with at least one other POA are ongoing and it is the Applicant's hope that further
understandings may be reached ultimately with that POA.
outline for the CommissThe purpose of this letter is to
ion the commitments which have previously been made by the
Applicant and the additional agreements reached through further negotiations and discussions
with the CRPOA. In the following paragraphs we will outline these modifications for your
further consideration.
1. First, we will address item MSP08-01, which was approved by a unanimous vote of
Commission on October 2, 2008, and for which no subsequent amendments or modifications
are sought. At the October 2, 2008 meeting, the Applicant submitted three commitments to the
City which were read into the record and were made a part of the application at the request of
the Applicant. These commitments included, as they were read into the record on October 2,
2008, the following:
"1 • To immediately commence the design for Beckenham, Wellington Plantation
and the completion of Rahling Road adjacent to the subject property and will commence
construction of all streets, stormdrainage and related infrastructure as soon as practically
Possible allowing for all necessary governmental approvals.
462• To contribute up to $325,000 for construction of the portion of Beckenham
outside of the subject property upon conditions that:
(a) the City acquire the right-of-way for that portion of the street; and
(b) the City cooperate with Deltic in the design and approval of plans for
Beckenham such that construction of the entire street and related infrastructure may be
accomplished as a part of a single project thus resulting in cost savings through the
design, engineering and simultaneous construction of the entire street and related
infrastructure.
"3 • To include as part of the Master Street Plan construction and installation of
traffic signals at the intersection of Beckenham/Plantation Drives and Rahling Road." (In
subsequent discussion at the October 2, 2008 meeting, it was mentioned that the City's Public
Works' staff might prefer to install a traffic circle at the intersection of Beckenham/Plantation
Drives and Rahling Road instead of traffic signals. The Applicant agreed that it would include
construction of a traffic circle in lieu of traffic signals at that location, if requested by the
City.)
January 28, 2009
Page 3
No other proposed amendments or modifications to Item MSP08-01 have been offered nor are
any presented for further consideration in this communication.
II. Items Z-8165-A and LU08-19-02 were essentially considered together at the October 2,
2008 meeting. Prior to the October 2, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant
voluntarily amended its application to eliminate certain "permitted" uses and "conditional"
uses from those otherwise allowable in the "C-3" zone for which approval was sought from the
Planning Commission. A list of the remaining uses was submitted to you at the October 2,
2008 Planning Commission meeting, and was made a part of the item as approved by the
Commission.
1 • As a result of the Applicant's continuing discussions with members of the
neighborhoods and representatives of the CRPOA, we have learned that among the most
important concerns of the neighbors is that no "big box" uses or developments that could yield
high traffic volume be located within the "C-3" or "0-3" areas. After exploring and discussing
these concerns with representatives of the CRPOA we have prepared a further modification to
the list of "permitted" and "conditional" uses and added certain other limitations upon
development within the "C-3" and "0 3" areas and seek now to further amend the application
to be consistent with these further modifications. Attached as part of this letter as Exhibit "A"
is a copy of the "C-3" permitted and conditional uses which has been marked to illustrate the
Applicant's initial voluntary limitations and to show those further limitations to uses in the "C-
3" zone. The list of those permitted and conditional uses which were voluntarily eliminated as
part of the application approved at the October 2, 2008, meeting are shown in Exhibit "A"
with a "single strike through line." In addition to the uses which were initially voluntarily
eliminated by the Applicant, a further list of changes is highlighted with a "double strike
through line" along with certain further limitations which have voluntarily been agreed to by
the Applicant.
The additional limitations in the C-3 zone may be summarized as follows:
The Applicant has agreed to eliminate the following additional "permitted" uses:
Item h. Bar, lounge or tavern;
Item q. Cigar or tobacco stores uses are eliminated but the "candy store" use remains;
Item yyy. Service Station.
To the list of conditional uses in the "C-3" zone, the Applicant voluntarily agrees to add "Item
x. Convenience food store with gas pumps,,, which would otherwise be a "permitted use."
January 28, 2009
Page 4
From the list of conditional uses in the "C-3" zone, the Applicant agrees to eliminate the
following:
Item i. Home Center; and
Item j. Eating place with drive-in service.
In addition to the "use" limitations outlined above, the Applicant also commits that no single
retail use will exceed 20,000 square feet. The Applicant believes that this limitation evidences
its recognition and intention that the proposed future development be compatible with the
existing neighborhoods surrounding the area.
2. With regard to those areas Previously designated "0-3" and the area formerly
designated as "MF18" for which the Applicant seeks an amendment to "0-3," the Applicant
submits Exhibit "B" which shows a list of uses in the "0-3" zones which it has voluntaril
agreed to eliminate from the "permitted," "conditional" and "accessory" uses. These items
are shown on the attached list with a "double strike through Iine." Applicant has also agreed
that "Item z. School (business)"; and "Item aa. School (public or denominational)" will
become "conditional" uses instead of "permitted" uses.
In addition, the Applicant has agreed that the footprint of any single building will not be more
than 20,000 square feet and that no structure in any of the "0-3"
stories in height. zones will exceed three
III. In addition to the limitations set forth in Section II above, the applicant has further
agreed to or acknowledges the following development criteria, limitations or provisions which
shall apply to the various tracts, as appropriate:
1. All "C-3," "0-3" and "MF18" tracts adjacent to the single family residential
tracts, shall include and comply with the City landscapin
City's zoning code. g ordinance including, without
limitation, construction of landscaping buffers around the perimeters of each as provided in the
2• Access to the "MF18" property will be Iimited to access directly from Rahlin
ar through the adjacent "C-3" or "0-3" areas. There will be no direct access from Wellington
Plantation Drive unless the City requires an emergency or secondary entrance to the property
from Wellington Plantation Drive. P P y
3 • All commercial, office and multifamily tracts will be subject to site plan review by the City. within the overall development
January 28, 2009
Page 5
4. The Chenal Valley Commercial Bill of Assurance will be extended to cover all
commercial, office and multifamily areas to insure the appropriate architectural review and
approval as in all other commercial, office and multifamily areas within Chenal Valley.
5. All commercial, office and multifamily tracts will be covered by the Chenal
Valley Property Owners' Association to insure that each is maintained and operated in a
manner consistent with Chenal POA standards.
6. Deltic agrees to restrict all R-2 areas to single family residential use by
restrictive covenants or other appropriate method.
7. With respect to Deltic property west of Rahling Road, Deltic commits that
except for streets on the Master Street Plan, no neighborhoods lying west of Rahling Road will
be connected to Rahling Road adjacent to the subject property and extending north to Pebble
Beach.
8. The Applicant will fund and construct all necessary drainage and detention
infrastructure along Rahling, Beckenham and Wellington Plantation through the subject 134
acres.
These agreements are offered in good faith and as further measure of the Applicant's intention
to recognize the need to carefully monitor development within the subject 134 acre tract.
Please consider this the Applicant's request for amendment of its pending application in
recognition that all requested uses and further modifications are less intense than the
applications as approved by the Planning Commission at its October 2, 2008, meeting.
Sincerely,
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
3A U3,4-L
l-
Vo William Spivey III
JWS: jlh
Enclosures (2)
(Eliminated by Deltic w/ original proposal)
(Eliminated in Jan. 2009)
EXHIBIT "A"
Sec. 36-301. C-3 General cOmrnercial district.
(a) Purpose and intent. The C-3 general commercial district shall be applied to the
broad range of retail uses which comprise the commercial function of the city including
groupings of freestanding commercial structures. This section applies to such district.
Permitted uses include most types of retail activity except those involving open displays
of merchandise and those which generate large volumes of vehicular traffic or are
otherwise incompatible with the purpose and intent of the C-3 general commercial
district. Retail areas zoned C-3 general commercial shall be generally concentrated as
to geographical configuration. It is anticipated, however, that in some situations,
change to another commercial or office classification may be appropriate to permit the
transition of strip retail areas to other productive forms of land use. It is the intent of
these regulations that the C-3 district be concentrated at the intersection of arterial
streets. Extension of this district along major arterial streets in linear fashion shall be
discouraged. Outdoor display of merchandise is allowed under carefully controlled
conditions.
(b) Development criteria. All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings,
except parking lots, seasonal and temporary sales per section 36-298.4, and the normal
Pump island services of service station operations. In addition, outdoor display of
merchandise is allowed in an area equal to one-half( 1/2) of the facade area of the front
of the building. Certain seasonal or special event sates may be allowed when the owner
has requested a permit for such activity in conjunction with the privilege license
application. The permitting authority shall review the owner's plan or placement of
merchandise in order to assure that obstruction of drives, walks, required parking and
fire lanes does not occur. In no case shall full-time static open display be permitted.
(c) Use regulations.
(1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are as follows:
• a
b. Animal clinic (enclosed).
c. Antique shop, with repair.
d. Appliance repair.
f. Bakery or confectionery shop.
g• Bank or savings and loan office.
i. Barber and beauty shop.
j . Beverage shop.
k. Book and stationery store.
L Butcher shop.
n. Camera shop.
o. Catering, commercial.
P. Church.
DOCS-#798652-v I -Deltic__letter. to_Mr_Chauncey Taylor.DOC
b. AmusemeRt (Eliminated by Deltic w/ original proposal)
(Eliminated in Jan. 2009)
candy store.
r. Clinic (medical, dental or optical).
s. Clothing store.
. n«..
College Barit y nr Sorority -
College,
if -
-pa- stof_v_ v4th gas . Moved to Conditional Use
z. [Reserved].
aa. Custom sewing and millinery.
bb. Flay r. .Seer or day care eeFAeF.
c�+c�. Clad- 6afe eFAO adult
LiTr:�R'�LZIF�. GGTic4'rT ul.Cu1L.
dd. Drugstore or pharmacy.
ee. Duplication shop.
ff. Eating place without drive-in service.
hh. Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization.
ii. Feed stem
jj. Fire station.
kk. Florist shop.
11. Food store.
ram. Furniture store.
oo. Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar artwork.
pp. Hardware or sporting goods store.
qq. Health studio or spa.
rr. Hobby shop.
ss. Hospital-.
++ Hotel _er mntel.
uu. Jewelry store.
vv. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting.
ww. . Key shop.
x,
zz. Laundry, domestic cleaning.
aaa. Lawn and garden center, enclosed.
bbb. Library, an gallery, museum or similar public use.
ddd. 3[iiLJ Medical appliaRee fkti igs and salon _
.
e. 111 el:p af-y or- Alner-al home.
zA.Urltxifarmury dwellings (as �iezthe Dr = dzstrzet�_1).r
ggg. Office (general and professional).
DOCS-#798652-vl -Deltic - letter to Mr Chauncey Taylor.DOC