Loading...
Riverchase(1)-CS 931228 MEbiORAN'DLrM To: Taryon Bowman, Planning and Zoning Coordinator From: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., City Engineer ~_~ RE: Engineering Comments for 12/28/93 and 1/6/94 Date: December 28, 1993 1. - l~a-[~~t~ Relplat. z.ot~ i-ia, ~,~.~ ~, ~ ~t m v~e'~wrr, ~e no~ si~ of ~Hw~ Drive, at ~e ~u~ of U~cker. O~u~ &~t~, ~c. - 1. ~y is ~s ~Mg sub~ ~at h~ ~h~ ' o,, ~e app~v~ plat2 2. ~mum ~sh fl~r ~oul~ ~. ~Ovid~ for lot 15R, Bilk D. 3. ~e fl~-~,.'. ~s~r ~g~ bilk ~ould ~ pm~. . .. ~ is a ~ g~g m ~ sub~ ~ ~ ~ fl~p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. ." . .... / .... '. ~n A) ~]imln*~ ~t, i~ ~ ~ ~w~ c~ of ~ R~d and ~ur Blvd., at ~e ~u~ of Na~n ~ 1. Five f~ ~de side~ ~ould ~ pm~d~ on ~~ur Blvd. 2. ~ F~ ~~t ~ld ~ ~k~ wh~er or nm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ n~ ~ of ~e ~m~t ~mple~ ~ ~e ~ l~e. 2. ~e foHo~g ~mm~t ~s ~ ~e ~c study for ~e ~v~ Club A~m~. ~ ~mm~ ~ly ~ ~ P~ A ~d B. It is my underdog · at ~sions ~ ~e study w~ ~ submi~ ~ ~ ~clud~ ~ ~e P&Z ~. Howler, I ~1 not ~vc time ~ ~view it prior ~ my ~mm~ ~g due. ~y ch~g~ ~ ~ ~mm~ ~11 ~ ~d~ at ~e P&Z m~fing. ~a.. ~1 exit ~culafions ~d ~i~ of ~y pub~fions ~fe~n~ ~ ~s s~dy should ~ pmvid~ wi~ ~e s~dy. ~b. PI~ ~mment why ~e ~p gene~fion for mulfi-f~ily low fi~ a~men~ ~e 221 w~ u~ in lieu of 220. ~. Please comment on who at city staff provided the trip orientation of the site generated traffic. The City is very. concerned about the projected 20% to go to the east. This is assumed to go down Riverchase Drive. [_~,.~ 0 d. 1995 should be considered the base year study. There shoultYalso be a'future % l.~ ~ ~,~~L ~ e. Your comments are that currently Riverchase Dr. experiences Level E service in -~* ~ - ~ - ~-, ~- ~. e ~-~d/the a.m. and Level F service in the p.m. Please respond as to what ~ the actual ¥~-'--'~:--'~ ..- ,- -4 * time delay was on the a.m and the p.m. Did you actually perform a delay study YoU ~ t~Jl~t~er '~- ,~'c~ to arrive at those times? As an observation, if the intersections are already ~4. ~..,t,.a .,.,~-~.~.~ -,o . ~e.e. operating at Level E and F why would it be prudent to include an additional 1850 ~ !,~x.~ vehicles per day through an intersection which can't handle the current traffic? --' Also, the City has already approved final plats for subdivisions along Riverchase : - Drive that total 430 lots. As of December, 1993, permits had only been issued ;-~-a~'"- ~c for 87 lots. Of the 87 lots very few are occupied at this time. Even with that ~ ,c~ %c~.~ ..~-~-~ ~-e~-~- small amount developed, that has already been approved by Council, your report ~?~.~ ~. ,.o~.-~. states that the level of service is already unacceptable getting off of Riverchase ~:~ ~ ~-,~-~- ~'~.~ ~- onto MacArthur Blvd. What will the level of service be in the future when the -. ::.. _~ -: :.~.~,~.. ~ e ~..e~..'~.~_ additional 343 building permits are issued and all 430 homes are occupied and ~.¢,c '~ %.~z. ~ax,o~-~ CZ~when the proposed 280 units directly across the intersection are constructed? ~ 4- .~,...~.~,-.2~-J( _~. f. Please respond on how signalization will help the intersection of Riverchase and ~. ¢.~.t p .. g. You have a comment in your study that ~ys vehicles will que~ on the minor roadway and will not affect the flow of traffic on the major roadways. might be fine for the major roadways but how are the people on the minor roadways, i.e., Rivercha.~ Dr. and the driveway for this dc'~telopm~t, going to get onto the major roadway? Again, your study shows that the level of .~a'vice is already at Level E & F. h. Your comments state that the signal timing at MacArthur and Beltline could be ~ 3- retimed to allow more green time for southbound MacArthur during the a.m. L~f_ --~? peak hours. Please comment on what effect this will have on the Beltline Road % C) traffic. Your study states that the actual average speed on MacArthur Blvd. is 40 mph. Our speed study shows that the average speed limit is 38 mph and 85th percentile speed is 42 mph. This speed survey was performed in August, 1993. According to our ordinances, the desirable intersection sight distance on this roadway would be 450 feet, not 275 feet. Both driveways should be evaluated to see if they can obtain the desirable intersection sight distance. If the northern driveway is pursued, a sight visibility easement should be shown on the plat that would restrict or prohibit any encroachments, including heavy landscaping taller than 2 1/2 feet. j. Please comment as to why the traffic distribution has changed from what is currently existing on MacArthur Blvd. Currently, approximately 89% of the vehicles are south bound in the a.m. and approximately 11% are north bound. However, on your site distribution you are showing 35 % north bound and 65 % south bound. Also, please comment why your p.m. directional split has been changed. '~'. The City is very concerning about the impact this development will have on an already congested roadway. Therefore, the City would request that new counts and turning movements be provided for the BeltlinedMacArthur and the RiverchasedMacArthur intersections so that a level of service for today, i.e., January, 1994, when this department comes on line, i.e., 1995, and for future conditions can be determined. The level of service with and without the development should be identified at each intersection. 1. The ultimate traffic volume on MacArthur Blvd. should be projected and shown with the study. m. Various solutions to better the level of service should be evaluated. These should v....~4-,o,,b~.~__.~0 include, but not be limited to: ~'evaluafing the traffic light operation at _ MacArthur/Belfling;.,,wid.~.ening MacArthur from four to six lanes between Riven:rase and Beltline;xinstalling a traffic light at RiverchasedMacArthur and ~ 4.. ,~,~/.,....,az,.~constmcting Fairway Drive. You should also evaluate any addition solutions which may become apparent during the course of performing the traffic study. 3. Riverchmqe Club Ayartments (Plan Bi. Preliminary Plat. located along the northwest corner of Beltline Road and MacArthur Blvd. at the request of Nathan D. Malet' Consultin~ Enaineers Inc.. 1. Five foot wide sidewalks are required on MacARthur Blvd. Four foot wide sidewalks are required on Riverchase Drive. 2. The F~ire Dcplu'tmeflt should be asked whether or not trucks can make the tm-n at thc north end of the apm'tment oompi~ in tho fire lane. 2. Even though the driveways on Riverchzse Drive may be private, the volume they carry will make them function as streets. Therefore, the centerline should be offset by 125 feet or the driveways should be lined up. This affects the two middle driveways. 3. How much more traffic will the extension of Riverchase Drive put on the intersection of Riverchase and MacArthur Blvd. Already the intersection is operating at a very poor level of service.