Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Z-8165-B Application 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1 1: Pebble Beach & Rahling Road 10/22/2012 4e # I I i Movement 1NBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SST Lane Configurations r tT+ tt Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 75 91 517 267 50 836 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 82 99 562 290 54 909 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 1270 426 852 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1270 426 852 tC single (s) 6,8 6,9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 22 p0 queue free % 45 83 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 149 577 782 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 S13 3 Volurne Total 82 99 375 478 54 454 454 Volume Left 82 0 0 0 54 0 0 Volume Right 0 99 0 290 0 0 0 cSH 149 577 1700 1700 782 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.55 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.07 0.27 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 69 15 0 0 6 0 0 Control Delay (s) 55.2 12.5 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B A Approach Delay (s) 31.8 0.0 0.6 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected AM with LaMarche Connection Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. AM P1378A Rahling - Re -Zoning Queues Pagel 1: Pebble Beach & Rahling Road 10/22/2012 'r I-- t Lane Group Lane Group Flow (vph) v/c Ratio Control Delay Queue Delay Total Delay Queue Length 50th (ft) Queue Length 95th (ft) Internal Link Dist (ft) Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) Starvation Cap Reductn Spillback Cap Reductn Storage Cap Reductn Reduced v/c Ratio Intersection WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT 82 99 852 54 909 0.27 0.28 0.41 0.16 U8 14.2 6.1 5.9 5.4 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 6.1 5.9 5.4 4.5 11 0 25 3 38 41 25 99 13 80 1115 490 1244 150 531 544 2071 342 2440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0.18 0.41 0.16 0.37 Projected AM with LaMarche Conn & Signal @ B Peach Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. AM P1378A Rahling - Re -Zoning HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 1: Pebble Beach & Rahling Road 10/22/2012 f Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r +I+ '� tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3359 1770 3539 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3359 487 3539 Volume (vph) 75 91 517 267 50 836 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 82 99 562 290 54 909 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 83 86 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 16 766 0 54 909 Turn Type Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 8.8 31.9 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 8.8 31.9 38.0 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.58 0.69 0.69 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 284 254 1955 387 2454 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.23 0.01 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.06 0.39 0.14 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 19.5 6.2 3.2 3.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 20.8 19.6 6.3 3.4 3.6 Level of Service C B A A A Approach Delay (s) 20.2 6.3 3.6 Approach LOS C 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) 54.8 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected AM with LaMarche Conn & Signal @ B Peach Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. AM P1378A Rahling - Re -Zoning HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1 1: Pebble Beach & Rahling Road 10/22/2012 f, 4- t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations if tT+ �j tt Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 134 14 809 200 35 569 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 146 15 879 217 38 618 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 1373 548 1097 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1373 548 1097 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 97 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 129 480 632 Direction, Lane # WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 S8 3 Volume Total 146 15 586 511 38 309 309 Volume Left 146 0 0 0 38 0 0 Volume Right 0 15 0 217 0 0 0 cSH 129 480 1700 1700 632 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 1.13 0.03 0.34 0.30 0.06 0.18 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 213 2 0 0 5 0 0 Control Delay (s) 186.2 12.7 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B B Approach Delay (s) 169.8 0.0 0.6 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Projected PM with LaMarche Conn Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. PM P1378A Rahling - Re -Zoning Queues Page 1 1: Pebble Beach & Rahling Road 10/22/2012 t II i Lane Group WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 15 1096 38 618 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.05 0.53 0.11 0.26 Control Delay 16.2 7.4 10.2 5.6 4.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.2 7.4 10.2 5.6 4.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 0 55 3 27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 10 #225 12 61 Internal Link Dist (ft) 1115 490 1244 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 511 468 2065 334 2394 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.03 0.53 0.11 0.26 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Projected PM with LaMarche Conn & Signal @ B Peach Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. PM P1378A Rahling - Re -Zoning HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2 1: Pebble Beach & Rahlino Road 10/22/2012 4- t Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations r t4 tt Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 3434 1770 3539 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3434 334 3539 Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF Adj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph) Lane Group Flow (vph) 134 0.92 146 0 146 14 0.92 15 12 3 809 0.92 879 29 1067 200 0.92 217 0 0 35 0.92 38 0 38 569 0.92 618 0 618 Turn Type Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 9.9 32.2 38.2 38.2 Effective Green, g (s) 9.9 9.9 32.2 38.2 38.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.57 0.68 0.68 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 312 279 1971 279 2410 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.31 0.00 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.01 0.54 0.14 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 19.1 7.4 4.1 3.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 21.8 19.1 7.7 4.4 3.5 Level of Service C B A A A Approach Delay (s) 21.6 7.7 3.6 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Projected PM with LaMarche Conn & Signal @ B Peach Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. PM P1378A Rahling - Re -Zoning PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. N = N 'y a _T N _ a c E � E Q � m c O N M t U W am T l0 o QW S O N m c N J ra o. >a� `m w ~ m C jX( � N N W N a aa W A N W N m � O Q O Y A N N W t0 N O W O O W N u K m o 0: C Ot d C WW m 0 Omi O A W W W A N o tp r r f W j° N 2 N O h N A A �O I� m C O F UU SN m � . a D:LL o � W U q fY O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J O y tl r err^.-rv-..� r.-o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0^ o .- � o 0 10 P P o ^ ^ ^ ^ - �- �• �- o P; a 0 0 0 0 6 C 0 0^ a P r P P 4I N o2 :2 Nnm��ain 'nv 3 .- N N S a uNi a a o � N oo a'mmN mmm� mn�n E � . c S � a EE w N � E n v L' m m O C � LL pp {�{ y qq NNff mm MM 3 •-• •• 4 G � ti 1fi Vf 4[l W�� 6 V a O� M M .0 ^ m O Iz} m m w m E a Z N x `oY Y oS� Z �' - Z LO U m o.� � �ouO1i u°'innm�mm`mm�nn 0 5 n K � a A 16 N O 2 Qco LL O m r •N < v c � o � o u K e Q y g L a C o W? 0 o a 7 0 0 N V 7^ F N C o O � � N N O Z� m z � F o a w m- a v - - - - - - - - - - - 0.-00--«-----o N y T S v _g N3 m .. g m C O A P P 4 g q d ti O r r r O N` C O ° O m a 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0- O--- O N m � ; m $ Q jp C Y o N w o m - - - - - - - - - - 0 N M u p N o Q a a 0 a 0 0 0 0, q — m o `m > a ~ l0 C a0 u'immv on r�mN�tO'rna u 2Z ItOim fn t7 y m om c u m H K N C m N > J R K 6 N WO C O N C >Y N m m 1 N a 0 0 m N h n n 1= 0 0 OU a V C N U S N 0 W a o c C a N - - m - - - - - - N S m n - -- - I--nnn .n . m.�v $ S ouNi�a a 3 N ... m. m.. m m m m.gym o ` . c = m c a o, a � _ c .nm . mme7Nn mmmnm'n��mv�'i m w . E N v m N m 3 o � li E 3 0 ^ +g ZR2mPaI?Qata.�2119 A > - � x y yLL •-• •BSc C y 3 Q m Q N d 2Y O - Z Y m m m w o c E z u) o w o a v 0 v a a o'e etY'a-C'd of 0 z N _. }oc'Z v v V. N O O O_ 2``o Fz W ff H N � O W � jj O 0 W 0 O � n O N t7 m N I� n � m 1 N O 1mp � W O < N n N W N Z O Q N li Z G m N V N m } E LL mm mm C m C. YO Ca om mmmm �n n Na aa �n N V m N Y1 m n m m lA V N Q SPaY W 'v O Z m c f W E ccw ti l0 3r O N U m O 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o .• o o ` a o m Z W � z r m � � � � � � m m N PI F- z O W v m N as a LV - - r .- .- - - - - ° -- --- .-- - -- --- N 'w eV S a g a .. r - - - - - - - r - - - O o •- •- - r-- r r- O p � a y �vv --o.-- - --- - -- oo T F M @ C m M n m - --r ------. -.-ra F � � o A 3 mmrrrn �iom'ow��r� OI > a0 Z L' m r J 6 K 6 t w F W y C@ F F N U U:c(~A 0 0 0 o 0 0 p o o v 0 0 0 0 0 i M H N N N. M N 1° H h H N W 3 r r-- r r r r r r r r r °f m m QQ a G o N m a W N . BOO . m....... m m E E o I c = m w o` o p E v L C m N 3 LL E m 2 N m $3 � C ! Z> m ° m m w E ZO `oto o 0 o v000 pvovvav `o > w a N i Z Z Z ° ... V O a W In o` H z w 0 � K w a m +r y9 0 � Nr �nr o mv�-Mmin u� u> v r in a z Z Q f/1 lL O m p o co C N W o LL + E ly X o w a 11�� pp�� CaaCpp QIx M 'y t J S x 4 U C a o ` N Zo LL C o U U IM2t~p IL . N 16 0 0 0 0 0 & m Z� S w IL a r � v T Yi m G ^ P 4 - - - - - - .- .- .- o tl C O N i C p m m - O O -- w -- - - -- 0 0 .T b � m QR O N m - - .- .- - - - - - - r - - O F- C OI U) W. _ nn H K Y C m m N > y l w 1 1ryp 4 C 6 9 O U y l m F C m C C m N m r t� m y lei r C V N 'U USN 7 12 a. 1 N N A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 o.8 _ S o N m < m a o N N y� .. 0�i . . . is m .. . m . w vf! o 2 . c � w N � G A E vv mm m Y m v o 0 0 0 o a c o o a o o v a Z Y c o =gg C E m N F lL z O c 1 z w z's _ 0 y! Yc w - v n N tmD N m r m i4 m r T amD V H r p (O ' -- - - -- m N V. O Q p p y c.~.Z m O o W C n � twit WJ m c'o o L Q am s C c3 mmaoafO �im�v`v �mmo m tD M m 10l1 b R m N N m Ye"N U Q U z Z Q 0 LL m m + E O o lc .-. i q �, 5 S V e o w 0. T x $ o S IC U K ng o � m ao rmmmor o - Q w� 9cAY.a a m yy� Re� y c to a co a •IU w z LL � �^ A �'c m m mn A inn m$me r m r3 D C� m U C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g �au .- F O 15 w Page 436 2009 Edition CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES Section 4C.01 StudiKs and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals Standard: 01 An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. 02 The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants: Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3, Peak Hour Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5, School Crossing Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7, Crash Experience Warrant 8, Roadway Network Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing 03 The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Support: 04 Sections 8C.09 and 8C.10 contain information regarding the use of traffic control signals instead of gates and/ or flashing -light signals at highway -rail grade crossings and highway -light rail transit grade crossings, respectively. Guidance: 05 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter are met. 06 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. 07 A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. 08 The study should consider the effects of the right -turn vehicles from the minor -street approaches. Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right -turn traffic is subtracted from the minor -street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants listed in Paragraph 2. 09 Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where approaches consist of one lane plus one left -turn or right -turn lane. The site -specific traffic characteristics should dictate whether an approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane for through and right -turning traffic plus a left -turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one -lane approach because the traffic using the left -turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one -lane approach. The approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left -turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left -turn vehicles. 10 Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn lane plus a right -turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor -street right -turn traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right -turn traffic should not be included in the minor -street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one -lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered. 11 At a location that is under development or construction and where it is notpossible to obtain a traffic count that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an engineering study for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop -and -go operation to determine if the signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of stop -and -go operation or removed. 12 For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median, even if the median width is greater than 30 feet, should be considered as one intersection. Sect. 4C.01 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 437 Option: 13 At an intersection with a high volume of left -turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major -street left -turn volumes as the "minor -street" volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the "major -street" volume. 14 For signal warrants requiring conditions to be present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, any four sequential 15-minute periods may be considered as 1 hour if the separate 1-hour periods used in the warrant analysis do not overlap each other and both the major -street volume and the minor -street volume are for the same specific one -hour periods. 15 For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians. Support: 16 When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as pedestrians. Option: 17 Engineering study data may include the following: A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic volume. B. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, public -transit vehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles), during each 15-minute period of the 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon during which total traffic entering the intersection is greatest. C. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in Item B and during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young, elderly, and/or persons with physical or visual disabilities need special consideration, the pedestrians and their crossing times may be classified by general observation. D. Information about nearby facilities and activity centers that serve the young, elderly, and/or persons with disabilities, including requests from persons with disabilities for accessible crossing improvements at the location under study. These persons might not be adequately reflected in the pedestrian volume count if the absence of a signal restrains their mobility. E. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location. F. A condition diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersection geometrics, channelization, grades, sight -distance restrictions, transit stops and routes, parking conditions, pavement markings, roadway lighting, driveways, nearby railroad crossings, distance to nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use. G. A collision diagram showing crash experience by type, location, direction of movement, severity, weather, time of day, date, and day of week for at least 1 year. 18 The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection, may be obtained during the periods described in Item B of Paragraph 17: A. Vehicle -hours of stopped time delay determined separately for each approach. B. The number and distribution of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street for entrance from the minor street. C. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control. D. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or Sunday. E. Queue length on stop -controlled approaches. Section 4C.02 Ysbicular Volume Support: 01 The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. 02 The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. 03 It is intended that Warrant 1 be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is satisfied and analyses of Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is satisfied and an analysis of the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed. December 2009 Sect. 4C.01 to 4C.02 Page 438 2009 Edition Standard: 04 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. In applying each condition the major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: 05 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Guidance: 06 The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. Standard: 07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A —Minimum Vehicular Volume Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) Major Street I Minor Street 1 00% a I 80 % b 70°/ 56 % d 100%a 80 % b 70 % ° 56 % d 1 1 500 400 350 280 150 120 105 84 2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 2 or more 2 or more 600 480 420 336 200 160 140 112 1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition B—Interruption of Continuous Traffic Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on major street1�2 per hour on higher -volume t approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100 % a 80 % b 70 % ° 56 % d80 % b 70%° 1 56 % d 1 1 750 600 525 420 75 1 60 53 42 2 or more 1 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42 2 or more 2 or more 900 720 630 504 100 80 70 56 1 2 or more 750 600 525 420 100 80 70 56 I Basic minimum hourly volume b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures c May be used when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 d May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major -street speed exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000 Sect. 4C.02 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 439 Option: 08 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns. Section 4C.03 Warrant 2. Four -Hour vehicular YQIlime Support: 01 The Four -Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. Option: 08 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1. Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, P k Hour Support: 01 The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor -street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. Standard: 02 This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. 08 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day: 1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor -street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach or 5 vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; and 2. The volume on the same minor -street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher -volume minor -street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes. Option: 04 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to evaluate the criteria in the second category of the Standard. os If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal may be operated in the flashing mode during the hours that the volume criteria of this warrant are not met. Guidance: 06 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal should be traffic -actuated. December 2009 Sect. 4C.02 to 4C.04 Page 440 500 400 MINOR STREET 300 HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH- 200 VPH 100 2009 Edition Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume ■ own BRENNEN MEN NoM NO= M 115" 80' 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESSTHAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 i- 300 MINOR STREET HIGHER- 200 VOLUME APPROACH- VPH 100 80' 60' 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Sect. 4C.04 December 2009 1411112%greffm Page 441 600 500 MINOR STREET 400 HIGHER - VOLUME 300 APPROACH- VPH 200 Mf Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour EMMME 0 No ONE LIR 0,790MMM EMENE F41 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 150* 100* 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. C[1 Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESSTHAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 10 ! 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES MINOR 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE STREET 300 j HIGHER- /1 LANE & 1 LANE VOLUME APPROACH- 200 j VPH 1 100 100* 75* 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. December 2009 Sect. 4C.04 Page 442 2009 Edition Section 4C.05 31arrant 4,J!edestrian Volume Support: 01 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7. Option: 03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Criterion A in Paragraph 2, and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-7 to evaluate Criterion B in Paragraph 2. Standard: 04 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. 05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 4E. Guidance: 06 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then: A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor -street or driveway traffic, should be traffic -actuated, and should include pedestrian detection. B. If it is installed at a non -intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian -actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non -intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Option: 07 The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second. 08 A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street. Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing Support: 01 The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word "schoolchildren" includes elementary through high school students. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour. Sect. 4C.05 to 4C.06 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 443 500 400 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS 300 CROSSING MAJOR STREET - PEDESTRIANS 200 PER HOUR (PPH) 100 Figure 4C-5. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four -Hour Volume 107* 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Figure 4C-6. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four -Hour Volume (70% Factor) 400 300 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET 200 PEDESTRIANS PER HOUR (PPH) 100 75* 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. December 2009 Sect. 4C.06 Page 444 Figure 4C-7. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour 700 600 TOTAL OF ALL 500 PEDESTRIANS CROSSING 400 MAJOR STREET - PEDESTRIANS 300 PER HOUR (PPH) 200 100 2009 Edition 133" 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 11001200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) "Note: 133 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Figure 4C-8. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour (70% Factor) 500 400 TOTAL OF ALL PEDESTRIANS 300 CROSSING MAJOR STREET - PEDESTRIANS 200 PER HOUR (PPH) 100 93" 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) "Note: 93 pph applies as the lower threshold volume. Sect. 4C.06 December 2009 2009 Edition Page 445 03 Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade -separated crossing. 04 The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Guidance: 05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then: A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor -street or driveway traffic, should be traffic -actuated, and should include pedestrian detection. B. If it is installed at a non -intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian -actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non -intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Section 4C.07 Support: 01 Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning. B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. Guidance: 03 The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 1,000 feet. Section 4C.08 Support: 01 The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met: A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1(see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major -street and the higher -volume minor -street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major -street and minor -street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. December 2009 Sect. 4C.06 to 4C.08 Page 446 2009 Edition Option: 03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns. Section 4C.09 WarrantS._ Roadway Network Support: 01 Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. Standard: 02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria: A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non -normal business day (Saturday or Sunday). 03 A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have at least one of the following characteristics: A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow. B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a city. C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. Section 4C.10 Warrant I Intersection Near_a Gr & Crying Support: 01 The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Guidance: 02 This signal warrant should be applied only after adequate consideration has been given to other alternatives or after a trial of an alternative has failed to alleviate the safety concerns associated with the grade crossing. Among the alternatives that should be considered or tried are: A. Providing additional pavement that would enable vehicles to clear the track or that would provide space for an evasive maneuver, or B. Reassigning the stop controls at the intersection to make the approach across the track a non -stopping approach. Standard: 03 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met: A. A grade crossing exists on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line on the approach; and B. During the highest traffic volume hour during which rail traffic uses the crossing, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor -street approach that crosses the track (one direction only, approaching the intersection) falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-9 or 4C-10 for the existing combination of approach lanes over the track and the distance D, which is the clear storage distance as defined in Section 1A.13. Guidance: 04 The following considerations apply when plotting the traffic volume data on Figure 4C-9 or 4C-10: A. Figure 4C-9 should be used if there is only one lane approaching the intersection at the track crossing location and Figure 4C-10 should be used if there are two or more lanes approaching the intersection at the track crossing location. Sect. 4C.08 to 4C.10 December 2009 L1 PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. Florida's Generalized Tables Generalized Service Volume Tables Generalized Annual Average Daily Vo'umes for Florida's TABLE 2 Areas Transitioning into Urbanized Areas OR Areas Over 5,001[1 Not In Urbanized Areas' tq; 1e STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERULS FREENVAYS Class I to0.f3 tr_ : 49 s? a:: red ic:cse:riensper a:iel lanes B a 42,601l C D 57,hU(1 6h.7011 E '3,E01) Lanex \1edan i3 = Lnaindd 8,900 C 14,101.) D 15,100 E ""• L 0.900 sh W) 101.3u0 113.'(?U 4 oi,-id:d 2b.900 32,100 33.S00 85.lou I15.600 i37,6u0 153?011 o Di+;doi 41_500 4S-6.tJIJ SI000 10.400 145.61.10 172.4LY.1 192,8011 Preen By Adjustments Cie ss 1 I I'-.ri! In n so s uhzad _n:exc.: -zs ger rl:e1 A.x:l.an Ramp Lanes Median B C D E L•nes \1Nr:inx = indn-idtl •• 9.4UU 13. U(l 14."i]U 2u:1�•1 ? . d D,vidxl '• 22.700 30.000 31.7(A) UNUNTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHW AYS 6 Di+'id_J 35,10LI 45.400 4?.StN1 La.1. Vcaitin C D S morn!'- Class III 11f:T..1ii=d lC%eLL'ISoerT.I.• Uqd: L'ed r�B p-l1O 1 5, 100 ! 21_100 26,9410 Lace Xted:an 3 C D E A D,,:dod 3i,4tio 45.40 58. W 66,61M a Lndn•:d.-d .4 4.100 10_7-00 t3.400 8 ❑n:dsi 47.200 68.IU0 4!0(N1 1UIUMI " Di+•Id:J " 1.50U 25.500 21.00) - 6 Drvid:J "" Igxik 39,100 g3.900 Lninterruptedl••lowMighway-Adjustments Lar.� \le,! ar Exc=asiv :eft I-. A¢;-=: I F__Icn .. D .&J t'n 4L::i Lnc,_dcd Yes •�°: Muia Lhd:,;Jed No -5's Non -Slate SignalizedRaadAai %djustments ! AL'cr :::: zsFnndio� s;acc , of _�r__e b± as_ ind::a:rJ per.-n1 r b7alur Ci c: County ltoad•.k'eys - I011i, Othcr SignatEzcd Rcmc wz%-. 3 " o State &.Nun-StateSignalized Roadway Adjustments , AIxr a. cspcnd:rg,alcmc by Lhc:ndieaL:d p:n,- L', Divided?Cndirided &'Turn Lane Adjustments Exu csi,e Erc'._sive ASdjds bray,- La_zx 11�iun Lef: Lars k:_el:t ]--tics ,laon ided Yes No r-5-N LrdtvJcd No No -204+, }.c.. l.'rdivsded Yes No >pe::: lir.Lodcd No No Yes One -Way facility Adjustment h1 u.Linit the a:nei.purxsir [wu•d:race: Na. 11d;L111eS :r_ dli3'yb'e it' 16 BICYCLE ODE2 i \Llcipl+ n:a! _r zed ,eSwc'c , o:ur:a showy. i:c:aw ti ruri:c: ni 3re.tsx,al n_adw•a, lanes a delem:ine tw•c•sa, n::uius se'.'+sce+-- Ames ai:;c:e lisle Cmemtrc B C D E = 4e; 2 20U 3.4U0 i 3, l61J >13.10U 55•:al �; 4.100 >4.1iM ••• "• PEDESTMA` MODE i%!uiLiF:y =[prized ,el:,c'c FolCTex sbo r. --Claw ❑± nu='t T of ,d ravwr[1 v dwov i;mcs io deter: .c rnn•aa, max: -.ant sMt.-e , olc rrla. r S:dm.:k Ccvmccc B C D E .1.49,E .4 5,00 14,4U0 51.Fc% `4 • 1[,31J0 Ih'su0 95.1 CIra'. •. 11,41:'S1 18,80o >18,800 l J!Ctc C::Ar l:G b:�f_'a a::w Lti 4r.-�I U M.p.'GadV, A._m ix !,I;, al dm'-C LY aL'IaT•:nl!G:fti:a.11r;_!L-11 1pSl(ul.11' Ma -Wra-:'1-1 w-d a=bJ' Fhk -net .-Ian -1, .rph:anL• K z=._ C ar.1- 7-:1 l cx1 -c::.:r-a: : r r_uu s 0_' t_ :1ti .,-:y : ;: urnlre zrr'.�lU:s l`_e ulnr,�- r'r:c:. 1]n, hL 11 ^.-,ti ::LC!^_hau —,a:,•_::d: pla-.-.rpar.cn:ur•-:c:i:: arL: i'S:a^tr-1' rt_:c:- v mflr -'ml _ a:lw p:a -r_ ipplcmL r Fq::::, Cafihry M..� I, �:eYf- _I?517.,�eL P+1s :: L :S V�el m_ 7ae-o Ca�a:cy 3,-'q.�er. u's. ece hL::cc:. re<+:c:ia::, :J-:_ u:;au:hl vay. Nse::.; fir:; 1W.. era Rcs rs,de+ L nl .,: a:n•I_e b:::=r hl:ydt : _'a Ir :ram, ta*,t-. i1 t..4 ar -Le of Soureet hn::m1 arpn _rcu-.a91M_-ua:c± Florraa Ucrann:_nE of Transpo!talia:n Cancm ae o:!::ee = u11.^.g ::hm u:r'_ ,a:ce r_I�als 5}s:n^: ?I annmg C ciec ••• \o: upphahu :cr sne iRG JT 4-yI�G !�Y arai:- rY ::a, lee!: ,t as - u F:J5 Su'•kanncc SIre21. 1113 19 r-ah_ Far rc nlnat n>:e, i-d of lcnme Lour Viz_ Ir A_d:rt Hnr.Ya:ric'.ce6Ylse'hems re n'1a1:,G:, :CnG:l,plam: eyes -s:G ca::g l: z:put :i:: oe!:_:1 Tal 1.1assec. FL 32390a.)4 K- ww%. daiA;xc.5.L;:,zW: r. x & p3sonk.am: : L'mbu: 201-9FD07-11U.ALIT'i+'LE`i'1LO;SERVICEHANDE00K The Generalized Service Volume Tables should not be referred to as capacity tables. In general, the values shown are the maximum service volumes for a given LOS based on roadway, traffic and control conditions during the peak hour in the peak travel direction. Whereas, maximum service volume deals with the highest number of vehicles for a given LOS, capacity deals with the maximum number of vehicles or persons that can pass a point during a specified time period under prevailing roadway, traffic and control conditions. All service volumes and resulting tables are first calculated for the peak hour peak direction. The peak hour two-way values are obtained by dividing the peak hour peak direction service volumes by the directional distribution factor (D). The daily volumes are obtained by dividing the peak hour two-way service volumes by the planning analysis hour factor (K). Peak hour directional and peak hour two-way service volumes are rounded to the nearest 10 vehicles. Daily service volumes are rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles. PETERS & ASSOCIATES E G11SMERS, INC. • CI M 4% TRAFFIC ENGINMNG • 5507 Ranch Drive - Suite 205 (501) 868-3999 Tittle Rock, Arkansas 72223 Fax (501) 868-9710 0% CV r a m �1 _�: L u ii I to r OD I N r rr� 0 N ��So o �A ° g° oa $ur p❑ ° ° b 6 g L Cl? 70 0 C p pgop �� a4 P� pd Ip a IIr �j� a � � � � �� $� � •�aA 6 e p � o G P ?g 0 p a�� t� pp a dg p a6 000❑ IC � � Q R Q8 Pgg U� ogg o ��oa U'� p O q q9p . qyy"�� 4 6 G d d i1 p e.s pap CA4 paU �d _ Ei �Q. L54 Fj�dQ A' an ti� � . ell 0 jjNJjJj D. 8 ° :a a $ O aaQ� la w O A n v� as m 4 a p c > U 3 Din d�b� ¢Lid &Aar qar n � rswa"' w oG� C°pa n 47 `� ¢� ,v-.__p�.I Qf• Q+gip qn �[9 p �+t' c G S[rdYTri4+�Q' r+r 8� g� 9 �jEf 44 Uh�ri�m¢s"ap o ad Q -n C5 It o U 2 O d!p o°a �a1',�i� a p e� ¢� �Fs w• C m t � �G!.: ° C � p .� � B s? ° BL�� � e an�am •o p�: e Sa Q c 9 0 am a dod a P a �I Q d p O Q4 _O Q Aw A � 0 6 0 4•�g 0 P a Qm, abeS' V� � p a 6.� QaGtl �cyA�A �, �a qP � b - _.7 .r y z o m _ w d cm Z O a¢¢ Z Im Q z 0 v m 0 m� � L O N Q' � L O V o 0m c U1m W N a m Z J Cp O n V � L Co U �c a U F- m pR °ova �@e e�,¢ � p 0 9 43 , 0 a p� a RFaaa a'Q o e 6 4 � �d Q, o1Saa ass e oa a R 4 PCedd a a F� v C p n a s a a e O N � 0 o C � O L L � U � N m m� v� Lb IL w o rn Z aJl cc, N o'o m - v F = Cl) 8 m c�L U m F- iL U F c V t. 1 rg to 0 4 4 �l 4 -jh I.; CI rezon.doc 03/01/10 APPLICATION FOR REZONING ZONING CASE FILE NO. Z- 1 b S _,,z PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DOCKETED FOR November 29, 2012 AT 4.00 P.M. Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Directors, through the Planning Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Act 186 of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, as amended, and Chapter 36 of Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code (1988), as amended, petitioning to rezone the following described area: Chenal Valley Tract 201 and adjacent 74 acres, lying generally East of Rahling Road North of the Villages of Wellington, South of Chenal Ridge and West of Pebble Beach Woods. See zoning descriptions attached. Title to this property is vested in: Deltic Timber Corporation If an individual other than the title-holder files this application, attachment of a letter is required authorizing this person to act on behalf of the title-holder. The subject property is / is not currently covered by a Bill of Assurance. County Recorder Instrument No. It is desired that the boundaries shown on the District Map be amended and that this area be reclassified from the present R-2, OS & MF-18 District to R-2, OS, MF-12, C-1 & 0-3 District. Present use of property vacant Proposed use of property Residential, Open Space, Multi -Family, Neighborhood Comm & Office It is understood that notice of the public hearing hereon must be sent to owners of properties which lie within 200 feet of the subject property in accordance with the requirements set forth in the instructions given with this application. It is further understood that the cost of such notice is bome by the applicant. I, Timothy E. Daters acting as owner/agent for this application, certify that the subject property does does not ontain uses / structures that are certifiable as nonconforming within the definition section o ity of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. Nonconforming land use status has been explained to me and I understand that false statements by me may be cayseRrr,Ievoc�iygrr�f the rezoning ordinance. APPLICANT/OWNER: MAILINGADDRESS: FILING FEE: TELEPHONE: PLANNING COMMISS t!N ACTION: BOARD F DIRECTOF ACTION: APPROVED•) Dk�: APPROVED- 1/J D DATE: � �z, DATE: V2�f ORDIlVANCE: % DOCUNVTING OFFICIAL SIGNATURE WHITE - DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 24 Rahling Circle El Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 0 Phone: 501-821-1667 Fax:501-821-1668 October 10, 2012 Mr. Monte Moore, Zoning & Code Enforcement Administrator City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Proposed Zoning Changes — Chenal Valley Tract 201 & 74 Ac Tract Mr. Moore, Please find attached six copies of the Proposed Zoning Revisions on the above captioned project. The owner of this property is Deltic Timber Corporation. Please place this item on the agenda for the November 29t', 2012 Planning Commission meeting. I would also make the attached Proposed Rahlin Road Re onin and Land Use Changes, including Exhibit A, a part of, and to be considered with this application. Also shown on the map are natural buffers adjacent to the Villages of Wellington. These buffers are described in detail in the attached summary. We have also submitted under separate covers amendments to the Master Street Plan and the Land Use Plan. I have attached copies of the submittal letters for your reference. Please contact me if you need any additional information. rely Timothy E. Daters, P.E. Encl: 6 copies of Zoning Map Application Form Proposed Rahling Road Rezoning and Land Use Changes (incld. Exhibit A) CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, SURVEYING araIov AMDAVIT tl OUID I, moo by my +lg"Mm below that i het+ lw twdhodu Whits-DateVa l NeasIgges to eat a my "ant tlogetding the mantar street ?Iell$ Resoulus b Tqaud Use Amendment: of 0 bolow dw4lbed Dt' . PMPWY d"bad a; ChopI ftllay Ttawt 201 6 74 Agra Tract East cg Wiltul Road. Ag 'Sow= of Tttla 1icidew Tanta �lv $ubudbed and awom to me a Natw PW& an No � � Qay K „QIA k4lu- 12 w Notary FubHO W cmainwdan ONphue; 6,�, O 3 I � �w Ey Q0MCIALSEALMARA� M. C11FFEY TARY PUBLIC-ARKANSAS SALINE COUNTY MMISSIO,4 ExpjAES! 2-3-2018 OMMMIUMONE SEARCH Date: November 7, 2012 File Number: 12-010916-050 Prepared For: Tamara Guffey Lenders Title Company has searched the records of the Real Estate Records of Pulaski County, Arkansas to determine the apparent ownership of property within 200 feet of the perimeter of the following described property as of October 11, 2012 at 7:00 a.m. W1/2 SEC EXC SE SW & EXC 61.256AC PLATTED AS CHENAL RIDGE PH I & 11 LESS & EXC PT OF NW MPDA BEG AT NW COR LOT - 111 CHENAL RIDGE PH II TH S 13*09'09"E AL WLN OF LOT - 111 90' S87*07'44"E AL SLN OF LOT - 111 153.95' TO SE COR OF LOT - 111 TH S70*5l'58"W168.78' N05*36'09" W151.39' TO POB MOL 30-2N-13W Following is a list of apparent owners of property which are adjacent to the above described property as reflected by the records of the Real Estate Records of Pulaski County, Arkansas: Geroge B. & Dinah G. Platt, 11 Wellington Parish Cove, Little Rock, AR, 72211. 2. Stephen J. & Caroline Cook, P.O. Box 241818, Little Rock, AR, 72223. 3. D. Alan & Devonda J. Byrd, 2202 Wellington Plantation Drive, Little Rock, AR, 72211. 4. Kuppan Gokulan & Sangeeta Khare, 2 Jacob Place, Little Rock, AR, 72211. 5. Felton E. & Phyllis E. May, 4 Jacob Place, Little Rock, AR, 72211. Following is a list of apparent owners of property within 200 feet of the perimeter of the above described property as reflected by the records of the Real Estate Records of Pulaski County, Arkansas: Pi - Richard C. Atkinson & Carol G. Atkinson, 26 Lorian Drive, Little Rock, AR, 72212. 22 Shaukat & Donna L. Hayat, 3010 Pebble Beach Drive, Little Rock, AR, 72212. 30 Deltic Timber Corp, P.O. Box 7200, El Dorado, AR, 71731-7200. This Ownership/Zone Search is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee for informational purposes only. Lenders Title Company is not expressing or attempting to express an opinion as to the validity of the title to the above described property or property noted as being within 200 feet thereof (collectively referred to as "the property"), the accuracy of the addresses, nor as to the validity of any interests or encumbrances, both recorded and unrecorded, that pertain to the property. While Lenders Title Company believes that the information stated above is accurate, no assurances are made nor is any liability assumed by Lenders Title Company for any incorrect information stated herein or omitted herefrom. For assurances as to the title to the property, addressee should obtain a title insurance commitment/policy. LTC - Ownership Zone seuch_r f 1 of 2 Sincerely, Lenders Title Company Arkansas License No. IA-82 By Title ent License Number_ 38I243 TO: Members of the Little Rock Planning Commission RE: Rahling Road Land Use, Rezoning and Master Street Plan Applications My name is Anthony Fulgham and I live at 40 Ledgelawn Dr. in the Chenal Ridge neighborhood of West Little Rock. Until November 13, 2012, 1 was a Board Member and President of the Chenal Ridge Property Owners' Association, Inc ("CRPOA"). In my former capacity, I worked with other Board Members and officers to reach an agreement with Deltic Timber Corporation with respect to land use, zoning and Master Street Plan applications filed by Deltic in 2008 as they related to a large undeveloped tract of property located immediately south of Chenal Ridge along Rahling Road. Our POA reached an agreement with Deltic which resulted in Deltic's agreement to modify the 2008 proposals and to provide a number of significant benefits to the Chenal Ridge neighborhood. Last year, I contacted Deltic's attorney and inquired whether Deltic had any plans to again seek to rezone this large tract of property. In the months that followed, including my last meeting with Deltic's attorney on October 26, 2012, we continued our dialogue with Deltic and were fully apprised of the new applications which are before the Planning Commission at your meeting today before they were filed with the City in October. In my capacity as the President of the CRPOA, I along with other officers of the CRPOA, had reached an understanding with Deltic concerning a renewal of the Agreement we reached with Deltic in connection with the 2008 proposals. The proposed agreement is substantially the same as the prior agreement except that it takes into account certain modifications due to the proposed C1 zoning which replaced the C3 zoning with restrictions which was a part of the 2008 proposal. As a former Board Member and President of the CRPOA, I believe that the new Applications presented by Deltic are sensitive to the concerns of the residents of the CRPOA and that the proposed agreement with our neighborhood is of benefit to us. It is my hope that the new Board and officers will choose to work with Deltic and to affirm the proposed Amended and Restated Agreement. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincer , Y� Anthony Fulgham Bill Spivey From: Dick Fletcher <dfletcher@cteh.com> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:39 AM To: Bill Spivey Cc: Fulgham, Anthony Subject: Rahling Road Rezoning Proposal an On my behalf and with my permission, would you please forward the communication below to each of the LR Planning Commission members? I do not have all of the e-mail addresses. Regards, Dick Fletcher 14 Lorian Dr Little Rock, AR 72212 ************************************************************************************* TO: Members of the Little Rock Planning Commission RE: Rahling Road Land Use, Rezoning and Master Street Plan Applications My name is Dick Fletcher. My family and I live at 14 Lorian Drive, in the Chenal Ridge neighborhood of West Little Rock. Until recently, I was a Board Member of the Chenal Ridge Property Owners' Association, Inc ("CRPOA"). In my former capacity as a Board member and resident/member of the CRPOA, I worked with other Board Members and officers to reach an agreement with Deltic Timber Corporation with respect to land use, zoning and Master Street Plan applications filed by Deltic in 2008 as they related to a large undeveloped tract of property located immediately south of Chenal Ridge along Rahling Road. Our Board and POA reached an agreement with Deltic which resulted in Deltic's agreement to modify the 2008 proposals and to provide a number of significant benefits to the Chenal Ridge neighborhood. This agreement was presented to our POA members, discussed at a Board meeting and approved by same. As you know, the overall subject rezoning plan as submitted by Deltic was ultimately not approved by the LR Board. Within the last several months, our Board President contacted Deltic's attorney and inquired about the status of this rezoning effort. In the months that followed that inquiry, including a meeting with Deltic's attorney on October 26, 2012, we continued our dialogue with Deltic and were fully apprised of the new applications which are before the Planning Commission at your meeting today before they were filed with the City in October. In my capacity as a Board member of the CRPOA, I along with other officers of the CRPOA, had reached an understanding with Deltic concerning a renewal of the Agreement we reached with Deltic in connection with the 2008 proposals. The proposed agreement is substantially the same as the prior agreement except that it takes into account certain modifications due to the proposed C1 zoning which replaced the C3 zoning with restrictions which was a part of the 2008 proposal and the elimination of the offer from Deltic to fund the street openings in Villages of Wellington and Hillsborough. As a former Board Member of the CRPOA, I believe that the new Applications presented by Deltic is a good solution to the use of the property and will serve the long term needs of the residents of the CRPOA and that the proposed agreement with our neighborhood is of benefit to us. It is my hope that the new Board and officers will choose to work with Deltic and to affirm the proposed Amended and Restated Agreement. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dick Fletcher EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903.1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ALSTON JENNINGS (191 7-2004) GORDON S. RATHER. JR, ,JOHN R, TISDALE ,JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES T. COLEMAN EDWIN L. LO 1I'THER, JR, GREGORY T..JONES WALTER McSPADDF.N JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER TROY A. PRICE KATIIRYN A. PRYOR .I. MARK DAVIS ,JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON .I. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH .JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON DAVID P. GLOVER REGINA .A, YOUNG PAUL D. MORRIS WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. DeJuan Carter 200 Pebble Beach Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 • FAX (501) 376-9442 Ms. Margaret Dorland 205 Pebble Beach Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Anne Farrar 198 Pebble Beach Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Mr. Clinton Hawkins 27 Lorian Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 NORTHWEST ARKANSAS 3333 PINNACLE HILLS PARKWAY, SUITE 510 ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72758-8960 (479) 986-0888 • FAX (479) 986-8932 www.wlj.com EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG GARY D. MARTS, JR. ERIC BERGER P. DELANNA PADILLA CALEY B. VO JOHNATHAN D. HORTON KATHRYN M_IRBY DAV1D L. JONES W. CARSON TUCKER JANE A. KIM ADRIENNE L. JUNG KRISTEN S. MOYERS ERIN S. BROGDON RICHARD BLAKELY GLASGOW DIANA BORGOGNONI SNYDER PATRICK M. YOUNG BIANCA M. RUCKER ANTWA N D. PHILLIPS BAXTER D. DRENNON MICHAEL A. THOMPSON SETH R. JEWELL HAYDEN W. SHURGAR COURTNEY C. M,.LARTY JAJMIE G. MOSS NEEMAH A. ESMAF.JLPOUR Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310 OF COUNSEL jspivey@wlj.com RONALD A. MAY JOHN G. LILE Reply to Little Rock Office ROGER A. GLASGOW ALSTON JENNINGS. ,JR. FRED M. PERKINS III November 19, 2012 BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER CHARLES S. BOHANNON Mr. Bryan Meldrum 24 Lorian Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Dr. Russell Owyoung 14 Levant Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Mr. Joe Nichols 22 Lorian Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Re: Proposed Re -zoning of Property on Rahling Road Ladies and Gentlemen: We are attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation and have filed certain applications seeking to re -zone portions of property lying east of Rahling Road. For your information, we have enclosed copies of the applications which have been filed along with a summary of differences between the applications which pertain to a proposed re -zoning of the same property in 2009 and the current applications. 1148780-v1 November 19, 2012 Page 2 It has come to our attention that you have recently been elected as the Board of Directors of the Chenal Ridge Property Owners' Association. As you are aware, consideration of the proposed re -zoning is to go before the Little Rock Planning Commission on Thursday, November 29, 2012. We respectfully request the opportunity to meet with you prior to that date to explain the proposal and to answer any questions you may have concerning the proposed re -zonings and changes to the land use plan. On behalf of Deltic, I will make myself available along with Mr. Tim Daters of White Daters & Associates, Inc. and the project engineer, to respond to your questions. We ask that you contact me at your earliest convenience and allow us to schedule a meeting prior to the November 29, 2012 Planning Commission session. Respectfully, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP -- 0�,L a ?Jo W1111am Spiv!t�l JWS/jlh Enclosure(s) cc: Mr. Tim Daters 1148780-v1 OWNERSHI IZQNE SEARCH Date: November 19, 2012 File Number: 12-010916-050 Prepared For: Tamara Guffey Lenders Title Company has searched the records of the Real Estate Records of Pulaski County, Arkansas to determine the apparent ownership of property within 200 feet of the perimeter of the following described property as of October 11, 2012 at 7:00 a.m. W1/2 SEC EXC SE SW & EXC 61.256AC PLATTED AS CHENAL RIDGE PH I & 11 LESS & EXC PT OF NW MPDA BEG AT NW COR LOT -111 CHENAL RIDGE PH U TH S13*09'09"E AL WIN OF LOT - 111 90' S87*07'44"E AL SLN OF LOT -111 153.95' TO SE COR OF LOT - 111 TH S70*51r58"W168.78' N05*36'09" W151.39' TO POB MOL 30-2N-13W Following is a list of apparent owners of property which adjoin the above described property as reflected by the records of the Real Estate Records of Pulaski County, Arkansas: 1. Geroge B. & Dinah G. Platt, 11 Wellington Parish Cove, Little Rock, AR, 72211. 2. Stephen J. & Caroline Cook, P.O. Box 241818, Little Rock, AR, 72223. 3. D. Alan & Devonda J. Byrd, 2202 Wellington Plantation Drive, Little Rock, AR, 72211. 4. Kuppan Gokulan & Sangeeta Khare, 2 Jacob Place, Little Rock, AR, 7221 L 5. Felton E. & Phyllis E. May, 4 Jacob Place, Little Rock, AR, 72211. Following is a list of apparent owners of property within 200 feet of the perimeter of the above described property as reflected by the records of the Real Estate Records of Pulaski County, Arkansas: •' X' Richard C. Atkinson & Carol G. Atkinson, 26 Lorian Drive, Little Rock, AR, 72212. Shaukat & Donna L. Hayat, 301 Pebble Beach Drive, Little Rock, AR, 72212. Deltic Timber Corp, P.O. Box 7200, El Dorado, AR, 71731-7200. Bryan W. & Kim Meldrum, 24 Lorian Drive, Little Rock, AR, 72212. 5 Capital One C/O Wesley Justice/Chesica Vev, 4201 Lake Cook Road, Northbrook, IL, 60062. Letitia E. Ryles, 132 Wellington Plantation Lane, Little Rock, AR, 72211. 7 Shannon Jackson Williams and Carl Allen Williams, III, 29 Bristol Court, Little Rock, AR, 72211. S Thomas C. Evans and Carolyn B. Evans, 27 Bristol Court, Little Rock, AR, 72211. 9. David H. & Lori R. Plugge, 131 Wellington Plantation Lane, Little Rock, AR, 72211. 14,,1 Scott R. Haggard and Laurel T. Haggard, 2 Carriage Court, Little Rock, AR, 72211. Douglas J. & Tracy R. McNeil, 133 Wellington Plantation Lane, Little Rock, AR, 72211. This Ownership/Zone Search is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee for informational purposes only. Lenders Title Company is not expressing or attempting to express an opinion as to the validity of the title to the above described property or property noted as being within 200 feet thereof (collectively referred to as "the property"), the accuracy of the addresses, nor as to the validity of any interests or encumbrances, both recorded and unrecorded, that pertain to the property. While Lenders Title Company believes that the information stated above is accurate, no assurances are made nor is any liability assumed by Lenders Title Company for any incorrect information stated herein or omitted herefrom. For assurances as to the title to the property, addressee should obtain a title insurance commitment/policy. LTC - Ownership Zone Seamh.rtf 1 of 2 Sincerely, Lenders Title Company Arkansas License No. IA-82 By: Title ent License Number: 381243 IERTY VICINITY MAP NTS oning Exisbau Proposed Open Space 0.0 AC 8.38 AC R-2 107.59 AC 67.33 AC MF-12 0.0 AC 20.24 AC MF-18 27.34 AC 0.00 AC 0-3 0.0 AC 13.69 AC C-1 0.0 AC 25.29 AC ( ER- CE- THAT I HAVE SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON PROPERV UN ES ARE LOCATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABUSHM PROPERTY ONES THERE ARE NO APPARENT ENCROACHMENTS EXCEPT AS SHOWN Mo is 6M'TS MOw as RaWLO=Mlq. mrleea.nA IN Kl RAW r Rzp RAGt/ r/a11Rrh'CC 1LOr. YlP r*Q -160D COM11z1'• AC ANM apy Y ww, RS I h �� L1 R29O9.]9µ ' r� s[Iilrv'.Iio+ O'•O56"se o LC2]E }E' - - p.R-z tp -t 21 S IV 1 IV ®•R-2 1 �-, j to l ,rM k ff �IF I ` +f1r/1 aR:+ r� i t r -Itl *1 v .0 ! LIMITS OF EXISPNG MF-18 r MF-IB ZONING q-18 yE% tc rr to03 SAr MF-t2 44 Ft � - - _ 1SS C A j - - - -.- - - 111SK+f1WBFL ARfpI i &,6 I . • 1 . a H. (D R-2 TO C-1 (tJ3Ie2 MFrS) 1'rKY IPt �II a INLw 1G r•1-a /-IS•R Till! NiOI RfrO [biR•. Ab.RetRl ROt( I'.Mrl•Rl* �DN ISrprF Nra1Oa11G � ON ra.lr!•Lii ahP n TAT ,\ FAOL I M NJa/tl V al]L1rOiOa w+oo*a m ne R•+ a vDla Ru�4 Atlw �rRrYulla �s�e[mR1[1ryfPIr.Aaam.wCoORt¢m me0.WSY[xSratAG.lG10a A>S1RW•awq•rwa�-WYNen KvLF', mM!I rr: - m r .t p Idl.0 rt. Nnras oJID[ m �F GyD ✓P]1Yw nee 1u4Y a N..isnL 1/l.l n 1s[a xrrx>�i'mA II.wIS Nnrc f.e aW-v..r I.a[ MTp n, CI. rra ltlaJ R e[Owi. ,4/al'J�t 4RR•JK kOK 9aO.•' /�i•rN WC IRIt R_tKl4 ROiNG/• 1MnrG .LM 1W Apn.a-ui 11'a /Oa• K NIL p A lnal R Iaeln Mai io a( lot�,wwelp[�R��1q/O R•y�y�M'/. 5yr1�N�n�nOr��Y�p�,yOf�q nu'p1Ji,1� rt. abQ TW ��ii.-1rb![RiiTR'J.1.51e�.rY1f: ' 14Gt1 �_ +Rty,72f�1/]3y'tR�ry4 n 1e n[ !GR C 1tL.RVi C}' vC 112= ICM NPR P ram. RjlAptle ap�imlltaAKl fel[11�U e &Ww 1S`a1e0J ti' ipaYM1� � L5-.. Lehi .iR .�CC+oc OR x' i611C +I'Coca�.apbyK noti l:blMrvilwr R4 ��p/rtleW, IiRi OiFwrK 4 4 M1Cdi� w 1�'1i m *e Y tt: Ip RI•L}A 37]fiM IIIIN FC•�ryOgoIips�w•TMJp+7T 1 e� nit �r�' R Plwx e[ MC v AN3,�lIe�[[ WIn y1j]YWM���I[ yew v�IM. 1N n1O]1L �1to�aRIc: air o'o'olatlulera°i�'s.w �a•a•.R rwE rw +e AIe n. k wIw°�e.r�'i Je:si v�'tlna~ rre�zr°c • 1,.1"°` `a ft]lu1•yR•}' ]}.11(0R• POICL Ie�•yryLDtC YA! R p9�OpL! n. "I A511.1f MrIgK{ N. KT']I- T9 RA odC rpeYLN atPO MR Aae ]/Re0 R IeORr! OIIrR m 1NC fVT, A naFY tWltlO6�1WKi 01 sns • vie innT rro-+.rxu,ns31s. mrurr�Ii I� }� R-2 ro Os I-M �. ADM . PLR/Ra4 >K Y1,NIA`6fO.ROTr Ywp GOB}M IOri'�• *,Y .Wn�J 0]eel p MN 'A ■(OCR aO3CIPbl 'r INt pM1 a [l121L enY, tReaga IIeRe rdr'y11�N4A Y[ �2 Le a 1m I. ifLiar el, L eOOCA J.e.a. R. io A rwn Ox 1r LLaglr Iepp-0rtilY 1!•[ R M.0 aYA rNppT IlfsgeitGl/Or�-aie v � ioC�+If � R• erCC .pnNFAnR.• R•rl•e2rrc xx.O �A u fY. N.bri NR 10 M 1[R. a C+Ok1 ILYYa. Mo x w.0 rt. darn "'nc ro+r+..c Azxx eAL u,t �r,ttMyv n: nsxF rciJea. mlTr.w rx va een.R.sn Mre �yq .. •JCOIt :5ra,µ2ReMYWJ +Mwlufw°dD w6 ri i° ar ,1 n R: Irma �r muwc ruac so R>�°.aF+, u.( acla � v 'n.ixrRfrtRpRrn�lM°x�`wt.r"'� °�-" eno wAr.t no axYlrcr er ra.:mv, 1iR.X! il. ylrg�IlI2yy L ,O zt[itlLAe �(�R�rI'O tr N 7 , 1NL% R. eeltl ��-J1Y ]A l'.' �1ty1pMCwVI n[ fnPN 411 CIC 1MN �2i: 11n�i'(� bl_ s,JiT nrrfrl Y SASf]dti. �]�R�iO M xMl ar rrawr taRMK • ]IH AOff 1L11L P IISS © R-2 m OS (—.clan) A 1 R Pe llr1. R !Brea ]e q A.+ R TR[ -g Di -M ]r- a-x-k a[a�Cw �igaw�ir� 1. 1rAsrssR�/P1tA�O'a I1�u.e W A'�iwf.a M t WR d-a•r i+l d am�av4 Nµ m1 l rare cam RqR o- T Ina. +m w n. v. sutnex mea R; ewe! . rrl vrll R. m w,S iolrc d eifi.I•w e[.RaMe 1>em Aw YbIC W IR[ • • �� / I f we I �, � -,A 0 -,e TO as is Aezo AM6) f H /ACT R t m . , fftiW ft a10 IiAlri W M -11, a xaor )I, •-2•N u> u 1wc wu.so, .Rcwss rlea reca�wr >�w�c c iaaan WNIeNlaO M RYRs1ys CUl.:1 g W. ,k sOO1 IL TC trTw1C Oi TOYrG+M. �AGPip r M f01' R Mni aO;a MR+niA 2relt[ nA TIOTC ata s[ 114�SR0 Nn//, umr ],. r tide �a}N R. IY. ipe 0• I16 mnlnnY A9OV 1aR tl eWK ROIo rrlos[ af9 n[ae Sl0 IlrAa- R-/Y' YrL 1//R R. m f�Hy�iw�+ RC�II[f�l rr,►Q ,[ /a e[a:weeNiA11v4 f YIO�K�liRf7WR a im HI TMll4[!!O[ t�W�I/f•[��a X�AS�K fbR1111ta1PLi!'y,•s4p4lr�p4Fn�tR1O/i A M I.O/R.61 Y1H 1 p��i'I(a�9O1fRCilY IRK��wi 1N ,n M�c�m•Ir v wu w�e"�aIp'p'iwi�.e'""i m°�rru.c`�.re/�a sw me °er"Pro un"�'ilvc�i.�rR`{WF`: W ILS+]RA1 NnIII, [ r 1'f. fpel•STL'?}L'� a n RC k1 f+ Rr ++� w1.e.t ow., A40CrO[LR Wl ]Q r-le M.112 I.(IIp.�. -) /A-Ww MRIIi�"W. R�wq�ptmiIT� i If tl / qr il. I/I. aarslc q w/lRlRa1 �+P lef rl ROA< K n tnM�R M moat 1e a! dR tr ,MI[ iiOi Wrbr)'- A N ql Mwe fie .ol u[ tl w calla, YCGII 15 D:R.1. faSM R ,0 A KwT 81 ee RbR-0F.n+ 11R RNuc a0 S LIb/i Irliifplx ArLae SLO RoOyr•ruR IK w RO1'MA51q• WTfr. 114Ot S1O tlP+T•V-wu' If/ � M A1C • i] R C+U� ! 0. T'0 O[vtJir, R POOI �Rii AIa Y➢wSS r OCYR•x dG SW-p•w Ve YlC Ce l6 tl a 1/af] R arbXf 31.1 20 IIt 2[Vi�A oeb »owe.we eesY Y !' W 11'MY 9fR.CO n 1IX[ prp Jl 01 AI xJ>i, cO'e 1r r1 n: rIIOSI 0O1T1%yrgWr"�e1-SRa'�1L tY T.f R_ a[aCI luOtLTc �R� = Oe4 eNiTi• tt_ Abt W,1'eri. VArt. R TI! RRa.a• W2121RwR0 /sO]e a9[/ •G V lili O R-: TO Y1-I2 (n I- ILREe) .Ale} uMru�1`�F carrs�.a"'i wl1owr"'O, NwXeA°ri N�an"`ra��'Lir°Rinrsol. n ,.wR we,.Uo% w Me a`�Oe rpwRVN�¢�..o�w�lan°A4r�+r°/ri w a�' Iee�°p`c.o�1-y: nrS01"�°mf. R: iOa�ti lfjl•%ul �1�1'SJ�'T.•'AW R. A M V�IIrtlOw.y r� rt6loT lex J'Llte D��C[� Rrnf'N'L�ili /4 M14 YL-M]Yk 1 �9-1 1 • i 90 Ni-,e ro C-I OO � L dl'1 01 �.,�¢�TIwKt tI'SIWC tO•E ��=n.. My� IR ffRal• 11, y ll x n. le xrt S. �s YA.1R mvC-... tl.[ Oi M1siE TVA TLeaE Nla', W'[ nAlic SG RkR-Oi•W W. AW R- eren wReartsk+a ra.ac sw maw•w MK x� Trr 1Ry1s�1y��9�s_� ert�arC.�q�('FO..�.1nR'4��rt_��aetsa/�n_i1�))ea MrR Wyss rZ�CpIR �O! SX*]� � p �x1l�l p.,2ze Axis) ARRi o,He'}I t/ pE apd JR I-1-•Li ,pN�. LR11i ICO. A4.W CC./ei. rR YfaTNrut C�elrol K IN ti, Il I■ 11e MelaY tl 11lwiNk p+lT n ra M me V ulll[ 1OOr. a114Yb% WO4 Id,'iYo1"[ nAA M e@ 11[ ' SLA I.arN. x[iRl. 1r, adErgm e.2i1 R >0 A (MIS Oa M lOP.JOIryL. ne� VR ap�IKC'rLRti WAR►aC /(blame ynRtl4�la[peybpeNys�TCp�'Je R dV . RlLh R IIrL S rMAL ,O M Wi.��/!M1'rCfAY we!-hiwB S-,I1T.?:NNT r X 4 Ie �w TK �a1n IK >2�1 L W� ' 1R•ts � Tl�itiR P.w4L'PTOaY�K 2 ua iti6*eL0 R ,0 © r-Ie ro Rz (ISJw Nzs) Poum NNMEnISAxN�uaass6itvufhr dnqu[n A}sra'� Plum aeMrlrelC tl e! ICMRIOT Lip tl LR ,\ cam IL TI•l KII�3 V KWCP. d+o2en. m enl 0.'e a Mru ewe ��ps� Iecx ,w-nnn xa¢ T./ Y yl tl tIN VIM >� it [IeO� W M R TO a aprc d Tli yNeq{t Aprf-tl+falr IRK a wue +nw' Jrvltt nvrror:im are s..o y�n 1yw�L��,w n r•: Tw c avn't�. �uv,* . t xmli R eEarwlxc S�H .'F'To rtrR ii>: i1p eI ��N�S� 2a�Rp 'IR�Rr L g]r'2e�. Et City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Larry Grace 11 Tory Court Little Rock, AR 72211 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B — Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, tTOnNYBZYNSKI Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa EtCity of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Dana Gaddy 13301 Beckenham Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B —Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, TTONYB ZYN KI Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision December 5, 2012 Linda Williams 2210 Huntleigh Court Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B — Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, oN B II Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa Et City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Bryan Meldrum 24 Lorian Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B —Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, IONYBO YN Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa EtCity of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Pao Teng Tsai 2202 Westport Loop Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B — Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, TONY B ZYN I Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa Et City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Wanda Crow 2106 Sawgrass Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B — Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, TONY BQZYNSKII Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa EtCity of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Bud Laumer 13320 Beckenham Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B —Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling, Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, T NY B ZYN Secretary Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa EtCity of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Ron Sheffield 12 Banfield Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B —Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahlin;g Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, NY BO YN Secretary t Little R ck Planning Commission TB:aa City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 aSubdivision December 5, 2012 Manish Joshi 1515 Dorado Beach Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-81 b5-B — Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, TTONY BO 1'N Secretary t Little Roc Planning Commission TB:aa City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Hari Eswaran 1608 Dorado Beach Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-8 —Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, ONJYB Z KI Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 $UbdIVISIOn Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 5, 2012 Casey Neese 2108 Sawgrass Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Citizen: On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the November 29, 2012 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision -making process. Agenda item 1.1 Z-8165-B —Rezoning from R-2 and MF-18 to R-2, MF-12, 0-3, C-1 and OS; east side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive was approved. The application will be placed on the Board of Directors' agenda on December 18, 2012 (6:00 p.m.). For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variances — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, TONY BO�YNM Secretary t Little Rock Planning Commission TB:aa