HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Council Action Form dated April 22, 2003 CA
ITEM # `7`! 3�4'
DATE 04 /03
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LUPP AND ZONING FROM
"HIGHWAY-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL" TO "RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY" FOR
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CRYSTAL
STREET AND SOUTH DUFF AVENUE.
BACKGROUND:
Applicant request. The subject area under consideration is located on the northeast
corner of Crystal Street and South Duff Avenue, more accurately described as the east 200
feet of 2904 and 2920 South Duff Avenue. The property owner (applicant) is requesting
that 2.34-acres of planned and zoned Highway-Oriented Commercial land be changed to
Residential High Density. The applicant is planning to extend the residential high-density
use east of the subject property on 221 Crystal Street west.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this proposal on January 15, 2003. The
Commission tabled the request until a traffic study that outlined the existing and projected
traffic impact to the Crystal Street and South Duff Avenue intersection was completed.
Related to this request, on March 5, 2003, the applicant received a positive
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to subdivide property in a
manner consistent with this rezoning request. Following the Commission's
recommendation, City Council approved the subdivision of the subject property on March
25, 2003.
ANALYSIS.
Land Use. The subject area is adjacent to an apartment complex to the east and
commercial land uses to the south and west. A State nursery, or government land use, is
located to the north of the subject area.
Zoning. The subject area and land adjacent to the west and south of the area is zoned
Highway-Oriented Commercial (HOC). The multi-family residential structure to the east is
zoned Residential High Density (RH). Directly north and adjacent to the subject area is
zoned HOC, however, the government land use to the extreme north of the area is zoned
Government/Airport (S-GA). (Refer to the enclosed maps titled, "Existing Zoning and
"Proposed Zoning".)
Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water. Existing sanitary sewer and water facilities will
adequately serve the subject area if it develops commercially or as proposed. These
services are available from South Duff Avenue and Crystal Street.
Storm Sewer. In its existing condition, the site is adequately served by storm water
infrastructure. However, future development of the subject property will require that storm
water run-off be collected and controlled through a system of surface drainage, subsurface
sewers, and storm water detention areas. The rate of storm water run-off will not be
increased above the pre-development level of run-off. Any proposed development on these
subject properties will require the applicant to submit a site plan and staff will review a
storm water management plan before a zoning permit is issued.
Electric. The subject area falls within the City of Ames Electric Service Boundary. If the
site remains commercial or is changed to a residential use, the site can be adequately and
efficiently served by municipal electric services. The Electric Department has indicated that
the overhead electric line running through the area can be relocated if deemed necessary
by the landowner. The developer will be expected to provide easements for the relocated
power lines once a more precise development plan is provided to the City as part of the
site plan/zoning permit process. Additionally, the landowner will be responsible for conduit
installation for the relocated power lines.
Fire. The estimated fire response time to the subject area is well within five (5) minutes.
The City's fire response time goal is to have 85% of the land area of the city within a
response time of five (5) minutes or less. The new fire station on South Duff Avenue
provides excellent fire coverage to the subject area.
Traffic and Transportation. Staff has prepared a traffic study of the existing traffic
condition on Crystal Street and the intersection of Crystal Street and South Duff Avenue.
Moreover, the applicant has provided the traffic impact from the proposed land uses on the
subject area. Given the professional recommendation of the applicant's traffic engineer and
the information gathered from the traffic study of existing conditions, staff has concluded
that the addition of multi-family units to the subject property will not create enough traffic
to warrant a signal at the intersection of South Duff Avenue and Crystal Street. In review
of the project proposal, the projected traffic levels in relation to existing traffic levels
indicate that there is not a need for additional improvements at this time. (See attached
memo dated March 14, 2003, Staff Report: Crystal Street and South Duff Avenue Traffic
Signal Warrants Analysis, and Letter from Snyder & Associates to Armstrong Family
Partnership dated March 10, 2003.) Furthermore, it is staff's belief that the additional traffic
from this property would not be greatly different if the property were to develop
commercially or residentially.
Neighborhood Issues. The neighborhood organization in the area of this proposal have
indicated the following concerns with the proposal:
• More development will increase traffic in the area.
• Development of multi-family structures will reduce potential commercial
development that could serve the area.
• Compatibility of land uses.
2
Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) Goals and Policies. City Council made a LUPP map
amendment on June 27, 2000 to designate the property east of the subject area as a
Residential High Density land use. The existing land use designation for the subject area
is Highway-Oriented Commercial. (See map titled, "Land Use Policy Plan Map".)
The LUPP sets goals and policies to guide growth in an orderly manner that reflects the
future vision of the community at large. The following goals and polices apply to this
request for a LUPP change.
Goal No. 1. Recognizing that additional population and economic growth is likely, it is the
goal of Ames to plan for and manage growth within the context of the community's capacity
and preferences. It is the further goal of the community to manage its growth so that it is
more sustainable, predictable and assures quality of life. (LUPP, p.23)
■ Development in areas where infrastructure exists is the most cost effective and
economically feasible place for development. In terms of water, sanitary sewer and
storm sewer infrastructure, and traffic impact, the subject area is suited for a mix of
multi-family residential and commercial development.
Goal No. 2. In preparing for the target population and employment growth, it is the goal
of Ames to assure the adequate provision and availability of developable land. It is the
further goal of the community to guide the character, location and compatibility of growth
with the area's natural resources and rural areas. (LUPP, p.24)
■ The Land Use Policy Plan outlines the number of acres needed to support various
types of land uses to the year 2030. These numbers have since been verified in more
detailed follow-up analysis (i.e., Commercial Land Needs Analysis, Industrial Study,
and Annexation Study). The LUPP provides an outline to benchmark the rate in which
the City is growing and how much land the City needs to accommodate this rate of
growth. In total, as of the year 2000, there was approximately 292 acres of vacant and
zoned commercial acres within the corporate limits of the City of Ames. This request
would remove 2.34 acres from the City's vacant and zoned commercial resources.
The request to change 2.34 acres from commercial to residential does not represent
a major change to land supply. From the standpoint of development impact, it is staff's
belief that this change is not significant. However, what is important about this request
is that it will represent a loss of commercial land resources along one of the most
desirable commercial corridors in the city.
The loss of 2.34 acres from the City's commercial land inventory does not in itself
represent a major change in land use policy of the Land Use Policy Plan's 30-year time
horizon. Nevertheless, the 2.34 acres included in this proposal is located within 400
feet of Duff Avenue, a major thoroughfare where over 14,000 vehicles pass every day.
The request represents a small, but incremental change in land use that would result
in an irreversible loss of land resources. Although small, the lost land resource cannot
be replaced elsewhere with similar location characteristics.
3
What is significant about this request is what it represents in terms of small changes
to the Land Use Policy Plan. A pattern of repeated small changes to the Land Use
Policy Plan similar to this proposal could ultimately result in a change to an overall
policy of the City's long term planning goals. Although this case is unique and a
change to the plan is warranted on the proposal's own merits, it represents something
that should not be recommended for other areas in the community in the future.
This case represents the applicant requesting a change from a commercial infill area
to a residential area. The area, however, is a location where infrastructure and capacity
already exists to meet the demands of commercial growth. The area has been reserved
for commercial uses because infrastructure capacity and the property's locational
characteristics is suitable for commercial land uses. If the area were changed to
residential, the result would mean that the City of Ames might have to plan for a
different area to develop commercially. The new area could be more costly to the City
of Ames because infrastructure expenses associated with the full installation
infrastructure or the adding capacity could be necessary. Furthermore, since other
areas of the community also have infrastructure in place to support residential growth,
changing the area to residential would lessen the community's investment in existing
residential growth areas. Changing commercial land to residential can be costly
because it is expensive to develop new areas and it is inefficient to develop outside of
areas planned for specific land uses.
This case represents a very small change to the City's 30-year land use plan. However,
the sum of very small changes to the plan over time can incur substantial costs to the
community. Repeated small changes can alter the goals and objectives of the plan.
Therefore, staff recommends that repeated incremental changes to the Land Use
Policy Plan should not occur. Future land use decisions should not be compared to or
weighed by this proposal. They should be individually reviewed on how they may affect
the overall goals, policies, and growth objectives of the City of Ames.
Goal No. 4. It is the goal of Ames to create a greater sense of place and connectivity,
physically and psychologically, in building a neighborhood and overall community identity
and spirit. It is the further goal of the community to assure a more healthy, safe and
attractive environment. (LUPP, P.26)
■ The proposal to change the land use designation and zoning for the 2.34 acres in
question is designed primarily to provide additional land area for further apartment
dwelling construction. This land use will be similar to the existing apartments that have
been recently developed in the area.
• With respect to the larger neighborhood, there is little or no sense of connection or
identity. The size, scale, design character, placement, and use relationship of
apartments located in this area have been developed to create a separation between
the commercial uses of land along Duff Avenue from the lower density single-family
homes located further to the east. The very design and layout of the property in
question that has developed using conventional techniques of distinct homogeneous
land use clusters makes the potential for connection and identity very difficult, if not
impossible.
4
Goal No. 5. It is the goal of Ames to establish a cost-effective and efficient growth pattern
for development in new areas and in a limited number of existing areas for intensification.
It is a further goal of the community to link the timing of development with the installation
of public infrastructure including utilities, multi-modal transportation system, parks and
open space. (LUPP, p.27)
■ Development on the subject area is redevelopment and infill. Developing vacant land
resources adjacent to municipal services is supported by this goal. The area is well
served by water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. Warrants also indicate that the
existing street infrastructure has the capacity to serve elevated traffic from the
applicant's proposed land uses.
• The area is served by the Cy-Ride transit system, but the ridership of the transit system
from residents who reside in apartment dwellings in this area has been very low. The
transit stop for this area is located some distance to the south with very little pedestrian
mobility from the property in question to this transit stop to take advantage of the transit
service. This proposal could potentially increase rider ship and the Cy-Ride has the
capacity to meet increased demand, although no studies have been done to verify
increased rider ship.
■ There is a lack of availability for vacant and zoned commercial land resources along
South Duff Avenue. The LUPP and supporting studies outline this location as best
suited for commercial development.
Goal No. 6. It is the goal of Ames to increase the supply of housing and to provide a wider
range of housing choices.
■ The proposal will provide for a wider range of housing choices. It will add to the
multi-family housing inventory of the City of Ames.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:
The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting of April 2, 2003
and recommended denial with a vote of 5-0 for the following reasons:
1. The depletion of commercial property in this area of the City along the South Duff
corridor.
2. The belief that there is sufficient land already available for apartment construction.
3. The reluctance to recommend approval for what is represented as a small change
to the Land Use Policy Plan with a concern that successive small changes can erode
the plan.
4. An overall recommendation to simply follow the Land Use Policy Plan.
5
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . The City Council can approve the Land Use Policy Plan change and rezoning of the
east 200 feet of 2904 and 2920 South Duff Avenue from Highway-Oriented
Commercial to Residential High Density.
2. The City Council can deny the Land Use Policy Plan change and rezoning of the east
200 feet of 2904 and 2920 South Duff Avenue from Highway-Oriented Commercial
to Residential High Density.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
In review of the goals and policies of the Land Use Policy Plan, this project proposal lies
at the edge of a Residential High Density designation. It is small in scale and represents
an extension of an adjacent transitional land use. The proposal promotes more of the
same development that exists in the area.
Although the project proposal is of a small scale, staff believes it is important to note that
if a pattern of small land use changes like this proposal continues in the future, there will
be an incremental alteration of the Land Use Policy Plan of the City over time. Incremental
changes can change or hinder the wider goals and objectives of the Land Use Policy Plan.
Therefore, small changes to the Land Use Policy Plan should be reviewed with great
scrutiny to assure the intent of the City's land use policy is upheld.
Staff believes that this project should be viewed different from other locations along South
Duff Avenue or in planned Highway-Oriented Commercial land use areas. The Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council have discussed the importance of keeping
commercial land resources along South Duff Avenue. They have determined that the
property that is located closest to the Duff Avenue corridor is best suited for commercial
development. However, this proposal is different in terms of its location and adjacent land
uses than other locations planned for Highway-Oriented Commercial land uses.
In this request, staff believes the broader goals and policies of the Land Use Policy Plan
are upheld. Although this project represents a small reduction in the limited commercial
land supply along the Duff Avenue corridor, continuation of multi-family development from
the east is more consistent with other types of residential uses and provides a greater
transition between land uses. Additionally, land is still reserved for convenience
commercial uses. Convenience commercial is the type of commercial land use ideal for this
location. The site is on the farthest end of the commercial corridor and is less suited for
larger, more intense commercial activity. Intense commercial land uses like those that exist
on the northern part of the South Duff Corridor would conflict with the established
residential land uses in the area.
6
The scale of this proposal is small and will mostly likely continue the architectural style,
scale, and placement of the existing multi-family development to the east. Adding more
multi-family residential to this location will not have a large impact on the existing character
of the area. The positive aspect of this proposal is that a transition between residential and
commercial land uses will be greater and land will still remain for commercial land uses - a
commercial land use that will directly serve the adjacent residential areas. Moreover, traffic
impacts do not warrant additional improvements to Crystal Street and South Duff Avenue.
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approve
Alternative #1. This will result in a change in the Land Use Policy Plan and rezoning that
would allow multi-family development on the subject property.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Attachment
7
MAP OF
PROPOSED LAND USE POLICY PLAN MAP CHANGE
PROPOSED REZONING
CENTER
SEC. 14-83-24, ,/
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
w OWNER:
o c FAMILY
LIMITED AMSTRONPARTNERSHIP
N
c La PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OLD 2904, 2920 &
o^ 3020 S. DUFF AVE.
Z AMES, IOWA 50010
N89'40'03"W N89'40'03"W
239.83' 200.00'
w 90' a
w � o O En O W
o0 ao Lo< PROPOSED
om C�N-- O1. LOT 1 m orn P
o a vo v 29. 214 SO FT N o
Z 0.67 ACRES_ in z
UJ 50 NNW CORNER NE CORNER
PARCEL 'C' PARCEL 'C'
Z 189.85' AREA TO BE
REZONED
Q 101, 903 SO FT
CU
LL PROPOSED 2.34 ACRES
U. m LOT 2 too
c� 29.011 SO FT • Ln EXISTING ZONING &
C3 m � 0.67 ACRES C w LUPP DESIGNATION: m
HIGHWAY ORIENTED of
\ to COMMERCIAL v
v
Q) w o PROPOSED ZONING & uw
ED 189.86 LUPP DISIGNATION: o
�e o0 o RESIDENTIAL o
HIGH DENSITY
in
= o R o
Z E Z
N o PROPOSED o C
Ln LOT 3
CU 3B, 921 SO FT o PROPOSED
CD 0.89 ACRES N LOT 4
z
in
® t y= SW CORNER SE CORNER
W PARCEL 'C' PARCEL 'C'
c^ wz N89'40'47"E N89'40'47"E
�,� Q z 189.87' 200.00'
LL4 -' ¢
�s� � ' 1489
8 50 Oo 7"E CRYSTAL STREET (70')
w a
moo+ in
w N Cu Legal Description of propertyy proposed to be rezoned from
o u' Highway Oriented Commercial to Residential High Density:
The East 200 Feet of Parcel 'C' in the South Half of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 14. Township 83 North, Range 24 West of the
5th P. M., City of Ames, Story County, Iowa,
AND
The East 200 Feet of the following described parcel:
S 1/4 CORNER Beginning at a point on the half section line 297 feet south of
SEC. 14-83-24 the Northwest Corner of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 14, Township 83 North, Range 24 West of the 5th P. M.,
thence East 440 feet, thence South 99 feet, thence West 440
feet, thence North 99 feet to the place of beginning (now
included in and forming a part of the City of Ames, Iowa),
containing 2.34 acres.
GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=100'
STUMBO AND ASSOCIATES
LAND SURVEYING, INC. O 1QQ 200 300
510 S. 17TH ST., SUITE 102
AMES, IOWA 50010
515-233-3689 Job #1522BLU Date: 12/23/02 Page i of 1
Fire
StationlM
rt
Lowes State of to a Nursery `-I...
--T-Tl
cM c
cd
L 1111111
N
K -1 AMA
W
Q
iil 4�G«.!!i[KSliu
Location Map
N
W E
S
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 0 270 540 1,080 1,620 2,1 QO
Feet
Map Prepared. 0110812003
I r�s 5 e.. �■
FAN
WNW—
Subject Rk
Area
Proposed
- ki J& 11L
Reside1_,
Lan
1
a �
1 Use Policy
Prepared by the Department of Planning and Housing 0 245 490 980 1,470 1,9(p
Map Prepared: 0110812003 eet
AMES
Memo
� Public Works Department
?Caring APeopleity Programs
xceptional Seroice
TO: Joe Pieturzynsk, GIS Coordinator/Planner
FROM: Kevin L. Woodard, P.E., Traffic Engineer
DATE: March 14,2003
SUBJECT: Crystal Street and South Duff Avenue Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
This is in response to your request that we review a letter dated March 10, 2003 that you
received from Armstrong Family Partnership and the attached letter from Snyder &
Associates dated March 5, 2003 regarding a study to determine if future conditions at
the intersection of Crystal Street and South Duff Avenue might meet warrants for traffic
signalization established in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
As you are aware, our study of existing conditions at Crystal Street and South Duff
Avenue did not recommend the installation of a traffic signal.
We have reviewed these documents and concur with the conclusions expressed in the
documents. Specifically,
• A preliminary analysis conducted by Snyder & Associates indicated that
forecasted conditions would not show that a traffic signal was needed.
• The westbound to southbound left turn traffic volumes from Crystal Street to
South Duff Avenue are expected to be relatively low.
• The current "stop" control at the intersection is expected to provide acceptable
operation.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If we may be of any further assistance,
please feel free to let us know.
Mar 14 03 09:59a P. 1
ENGINEERS 6 PLANNERS-
- � • •
ANKENY.IA ATLANTIC,1A CEDAR RAPIDS,IA VIARYVILLE,MO ST.90SEPA,MO
(515) 964-2020 I (711)243-6505 I (319)362-9394 I (660) 581-8888 I (816)364.5222
March 5,2003
Mr.William A.Armstrong
Armstrong Family Limited Partnership
54643 282"d Street
Ames,Iowa 50010
RE: ARMSTRONG'S FOURTH ADDITION
DUFF AVENUE AND CRYSTAL STREET
AMES,IOWA
Dear Mr.Armstrong:
Based on our preliminary review of traffic count data and traffic signal warrants analysis
provided by the City of Ames,we do not believe that a traffic signal installation would be
recommended at the Duff Avenue(US 69)and Crystal Street intersection with the
proposed land use change and associated development of your site. It is our
understanding that zoning and land use policy plan changes have been requested to
change the eastern half of the 4.6-acre site from Highway Oriented Commercial to
Residential High Density.
Even with the proposed development of the site,westbound to southbound left turn traffic
volumes from Crystal Street to Duff Avenue are expected to be relatively low. The
current STOP control at the intersection is expected to provide acceptable operation. To
minimize delays for Crystal Street traffic,the City may wish to consider revising the
pavement markings at the intersection to provide separate westbound left and right turn
lanes on Crystal Street.
With anticipated future development of property on the west side of Duff Avenue,the
potential need for a traffic signal at this location is significantly increased. Depending
upon the type and size of development,a traffic signal may be needed to avoid excessive
delays to eastbound left turning traffic.
If you have any questions regarding this preliminary review,or require additional
assistance,please contact me.
Sincerely,
SNYDER&ASSOCIATES,INC.
Anthon J. oes,`Y E
Y
Senior Traffic Engineer
501 S.W.ORALABOR ROAD -P.O.BOX 1159-ANKENY,IOWA 50021-0974 Fears
Website:evww snvder-associates.com e-mail:email@snyder-associates.com
J:\Agreements�Ames\Arm strong\W AAI tr.doc
re�+rTo aeaMcE eiNce+sn
ARMSTRONG FAMILY LIMITED PART 9RUSaW
54W 292i1 Street—Amen—1owa 5001 E E I�J E
Phone(515)296-1933 Fax(515)579-3911 Mobile(515)29 -5483
u
CITY OF ANTES, 10V'tA
March 10, 2003 MGEPT OF PLANNING & HOUSINk"i
Department of Planning and Housing Attention: Eric Jensen and Ray Anderson
City Hall Room 214
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, Iowa 50010
Re: Follow-up on Traffic Study in Conjunction with our Application for Rezoning of 2904 and
2920 S. Duff
Dear Eric and Ray,
As a result of discussions with staff and the initial review of our application at the January 15,
2003 Planning and Zoning Commission, we agreed to commission a study of the impact on
traffic signal warrants at the Crystal and South Duff intersection stemming from development
upon our commercial property at the corner— both with and without the rezoning. This was to
take place after the city completed data collection and analysis of current traffic conditions at
Crystal and Duff. All of this was precipitated by requests from Southdale residents as well as the
Armstrongs for the installation of a signal at the intersection—request that pre-dated the rezoning
application.
Frankly, based on antidotal information from residents and our own experiences at the
intersection, we expected the city's analysis to show that current conditions met the warrants for
a signal. We also assumed that if the analysis revealed that the warrants were not yet met, that
the next level of analysis — of the future impact of the development of our property -- would
show that the warrants would be met. (In discussions with Snyder Engineering, we were told, as
well, that the rezoning was not likely to have a significant impact -- that development as all
commercial or part commercial and part residential would yield essentially the same traffic
impact.)We expected to then negotiate with the city an agreement for our fair share of the signal
costs.
Our assumptions about the need for a signal were wrong. The analysis of existing conditions did
not support the need for a signal. Kevin Woodard, provided me with the existing conditions data
and findings after our staff subdivision meeting on February 21 and that information was
provided to the Snyder Engineering at a meeting with Anthony Boes on February 27. Mr. Boes
then prepared an analysis proposal to answer the questions, "What are the traffic impacts of our
proposal and will those impacts necessitate the installation of a traffic signal and Crystal and
Duff'?" We asked him as well to analyze the difference in impacts of all commercial
development versus half commercial and half residential after confirming the analysis of existing
conditions. At that meeting we essentially agreed to go forward with the work and Snyder began
with a preliminary analysis.
On March 4 Tony emailed me the final agreement along a note that his preliminary analysis
indicated that the study would not show the need for a signal. He questioned the need to go
forward with the costly analysis now that it was clear to him that he could already answer the
questions posed. In a subsequent phone call, he agreed to prepare a memorandum documenting
the findings in time for us to provide them to the staff and Planning and Zoning Commission at
the meeting the following day. (We were scheduled for subdivision review at the March 5
meeting.) That memorandum was handed out at the meeting and is attached as well.
In that the preliminary analysis has answered the question of whether or not development after
rezoning will require a signal, I hope you will concur in my determination that further spending
on traffic analysis is not warranted at this time. At some point development at the intersection
may generate the type of traffic that warrants a signal. As Tony noted, the type of traffic
generated by development west of Duff will be the significant determinate.
Thank you for attention to this matter.
incerely,
001i -6
illiam A Armstrong
Enclosure
Cc Kevin Woodard "
pr 22 03 12: 14p p. 2
ARMSTRONG FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
54643 282-STREET-Am"-IOwA 50010 PHONE 515.597.3810 FAX 515.597.3811
E-MA11.jcHF mRaQHuxcOMM.NET
April 22, 2003
APR 2 2 2003 ;
Mayor Ted Tedesco
i!
City Council Cllti'C ERK
CITY OF AMES CITY OF AMES IOWA
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, IA 50010
Re: City Council Meeting April 22, 2003
Agenda Item No. 44
LUPP and Zoning Change Request
Northeast Corner of Duff and Crystal
Dear Mayor Tedesco and City Council:
We respectfully request that the above council.,.action-scheduled for consideration by the City
Council at its regular meeting on April 22,1003 identified as Agenda Number 44 be tabled until
the City Council meeting scheduled for May 27, 2003 due to" matters in connection with our
request that have just now come to our attention.
Very truly yours,
P
Jo C ester
Staff Report
Crystal Street and South Duff Avenue
Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis
This staff report will discuss each warrant for the installation of traffic signals and
explain why conditions at this location do or do not meet the warrant. It is
important for the reader to understand that the satisfaction of a single warrant or
warrants does not in itself require the installation of a traffic signal. It is also
important to understand that engineering judgement is to be used to determine what,
if any, portion of right-turn traffic should be subtracted from the minor street traffic
count when evaluating traffic signal warrants.
Warrant 1
The first warrant for traffic signalization is the Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant. It has two conditions. The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A is
intended for application where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal
reason to consider installing a traffic signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic,
Condition B is intended for application where the traffic on the major street is so
heavy that traffic on the minor street suffers excessive delay or conflict.
Conditions for this warrant must exist for eight hours of a typical workday. Because
the 85`' percentile speed on South Duff Avenue is greater than 40 miles per hour the
traffic volumes needed to meet Conditions A and B are reduced to 70% of the
volumes that would otherwise be required. The volume of traffic on South Duff
Avenue is high enough to top the thresholds required by the conditions set forth in
this warrant and the volume of traffic on Crystal Street is high enough to meet
Condition B. However the volume of traffic on Crystal Street is not high enough to
meet condition A. Therefore, this warrant is not met.
Warrant 2
The second warrant is the Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant. This warrant is
intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason
to consider installing a traffic signal. Because of the speed of traffic on South Duff
Avenue, the threshold volumes were also reduced for this warrant. To determine if
this warrant is met traffic volumes are plotted on a nomograph to see if they fall
above a line on the graph. When volumes for the subject intersection were plotted it
was determined that Warrant 2 is met for the subject intersection.
However, it is important to understand that a traffic signal normally operates all
hours of a day and that therefore it might not be desirable to install a signal based on
a perceived or real need that may only exist four hours, of a day. Therefore, some
traffic engineers do not install traffic signals based on the four-hour warrant. Also, it
should be recalled that much of the traffic on Crystal Street entering onto South Duff
Avenue is right-turn traffic. If this traffic were deducted, Warrant 4 would not be
met. Therefore, based on the above reasoning, staff does not recommend installation
of a traffic signal at this location based on this warrant being met.
Warrant 3
Warrant 3 is the Peak Hour Warrant. It is intended for use at a location where
traffic conditions are such that a minimum of 1 hour on an average workday, the
minor street suffers undue delay. The signal warrant is to be applied only in unusual
cases such as office complexes and manufacturing plants. This warrant has a
condition based on traffic volumes that also uses a nomograph. It was determined as
part of this study that based on traffic volumes the- Peak Hour warrant is met at the
subject intersection.
However, it is also often not desirable to install a signal based on a perceived or real
need that may only exist for only one hour of a day. Therefore, some traffic
engineers do not install traffic signals based on the peak hour warrant. Furthermore,
the situation at Crystal Street and Duff Avenue is not an unusual circumstance where
an office or industrial complex results in hundreds of vehicles attempting to access
South Duff Avenue via Crystal Street at one time. Therefore, staff does not
recommend the installation of a traffic signal at this location based on this warrant
being met.
Warrant 4
This is the Pedestrian Volume Warrant, which is intended to be applied when
pedestrians experience excessive delay. This warrant is applicable only in areas where
pedestrian volumes crossing the major street are greater than 100 per hour for four
hours. This warrant is not met at the subject location.
Warrant 5
Warrant 5 is the School Crossing Warrant. It is intended for use where the fact that
school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a
traffic control signal. This warrant is not applicable at the subject location.
2
Warrant 6
This is the Coordinated Signal System Warrant. It is used when progressive
movement in a coordinated signal system makes it desirable to use a signal to
encourage platooning of vehicles. This location is not within a coordinated signal
system since it is on the edge of the city. Therefore, Warrant 6 is not applicable at
this location.
Warrant 7
This is the Crash Experience Warrant. It is intended for application when the
severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reason to consider installing a
traffic signal. A review of our accident records found that there had been only three
accidents at this location recorded by the Police Department during the past four
years. None were susceptible to correction by the installation of a traffic signal. This
does not indicate that a signal is needed at the subject location. In fact, many more
accidents would be expected if a signal were installed since rear-end and left-turn
accidents often increases after installation of a traffic signal. Therefore, this warrant
is neither applicable nor met at this location.
Warrant 8
Warrant 8 is the Roadway Network Warrant. It is intended for use at intersections
where it might be desirable to encourage concentration and organization of traffic
flow on a roadway network. It is applicable only where two major routes intersect.
Crystal Street is not a major route. Therefore, Warrant 8 is not applicable at this
intersection.
Conclusions
Traditionally traffic engineers have considered Warrant 1 as the most important
"volume warrant". Therefore, it should be noted that Warrant 1 is not met at the
subject location.
It is not desirable to install a signal at this location based on a perceived need that
may only exist four hours of a day and if right-turn traffic was deducted, Warrant 4
would not be met. Therefore, staff does not recommend installation of a traffic signal
at this location based on this warrant being met.
3
It is also often not desirable to install a signal based on a need that may only exist for
only one hour of a day. The situation at Crystal Street and Duff Avenue is not an
unusual circumstance where an office or industrial complex results in hundreds of
vehicles attempting to access South Duff Avenue via Crystal Street at one time.
Therefore, staff does not recommend the installation of a traffic signal at this location
based on this warrant being met.
It is also very important to realize that the installation of a traffic signal often results
in an increase in rear-end and left-turn type accidents. The installation of a traffic
signal at the subject location would likely result in approximately three accidents a
year at this location which would be a much worse accident experience record than
we have had with only three accidents in the past four years.
Recommendation
Based on the findings of this study and the reasoning explained on the preceding
pages the installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at.the intersection of
South Duff Avenue and Crystal Street.
4