Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
OV121107
PROPOSED 1 14' ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION 10' 12' 3' 8' j 14' 1' 6' 1' 14' 12' 8' i 12'_pPAw L0AM 6 mam IRAVB mm" IYAYB wAY$ WRMISE sloe R G4ulo DAW C-LIMAIII UNE UxE UNE LV# IAICIMOSMOMAIKI DAPJGHI o � L/ %O _ /: SCHEMATIC FUTURE SQ - CONNECTION O SAS Y B CENTER. LOCATION TOE y�TyF DLO DETERMINEDDURING DEVELOPMENT OF THIS VACANT PARCEL. A FUTURE DONATION OF CL MEDIAN BREAK AND �fP ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY RE Exr L TURN BAY AT FUTU "-q'� •a..- FOR WOODBURNE AVE. WOO URNE WHEN GOLDER RANC: - ' •�A FIRE STATIONH / NO E CONNECTION TO SAFE Y CENTER IS MADE _ • - , RIGNT-IN, SAFEWAY RIGHT -OUT SHOPPING ,Q'CENTER I115 /r LINEAR FEET OF - \ ACCESS NEEDED AT S THIS LOCATION 125''t 1 ELECTRIC SUBSTATION I _ TANGERINE ll�_OAD - --- -- _----- ------- -------------- z g - g ACCESS LOCATION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY A.DOT NOTE: NUMBER AND LOCATION OF ACCESS POINTS SHOWN _- t ON WOODBURNE AVENUE AND ACCESS DRIVE ; PARCEL7-1ARE CONCEPTUAL %I AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. w WELLS FARGO BANK WALGREENS A k - fL- Page 1 of 11 Civalier, Craig From: Mick Hont [MHont@azdot.gov] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:47 PM To: Civalier, Craig; 'Gustav Paul Oland'; Scott Beck; Keesler, Paul; Paula Gibson; Laws, David Cc: Maria Deal; Todd A. Emery; Neil Simon; Williams, David Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Good afternoon Craig. This email is a follow-up to our telephone conversation this afternoon. ADOT stated that only a 70-ft break in access control is justified at this time. Town of Oro Valley requested that ADOT provide the developer the opportunity to acquire additional access control —in the future-- to accommodate the final cross-section. ADOT will consider the sale of additional access -control if warranted by the final design in order to provide the Town of Oro Valley and the developer the flexibility that it is looking for. Paula Gibson, or her designee, will coordinate the right of way requirements with the developer in order to move forward at this time with the access opening of 70 feet. Thanks Miki "Mick" Hont, P.E. Tucson Asst. DE - Operations Office: 520-3884216 Fax: 520-628-5387 From: Civalier, Craig(mailto:ccivalier@orovalleyaz.gov] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:43 AM To: 'Gustav Paul Oland'; Scott Beck; Keesler, Paul; Paula Gibson; Laws, David Cc: Maria Deal; Todd A. Emery; Mick Hont; Neil Simon; Williams, David Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control To All, We have reviewed the 70-ft brake in access control and find it unacceptable. In order to develop this property per the Town's vision and development guidelines a minimum of 100-ft of access control break would be required. We believe that a 100-ft access control break would pose no traffic safety concerns. The area is urbanized. Multimodal transportation opportunities are essential to the success of this development. In that spirit the Town will require pedestrian facilities be constructed along the Tangerine Road frontage within private property or in the right -of —way, if ADOT approves, as well as bicycle facilities throughout the development. Wide landscape medians are another important element in the access design so that it blends into the Rancho Vistoso development. With the developer and his consultants we are creating community. We ask ADOT to reconsider and not place an unnecessary limit on the access control break so that some flexibility can be maintained through the design process. If you wish to discuss this issue in person Town staff is available. Please contact me with questions or comments. Craig Civalier, P.E. Town Engineer Development and Infrastructure Services Department Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4874 (Office) - 520-907-1837 (cell) - 520-229-4899 (Fax) Caring for our heritage, our community, our future 7/31/2012 Page 2 of 11 From: Gustav Paul Oland [mailto:gpoland@wlbgroup.com] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 4:04 PM To: Scott Beck; Civalier, Craig; Keesler, Paul; Paula Gibson; Laws, David Cc: Maria Deal; Todd A. Emery; Mick Hont; Neil Simon; Williams, David Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control I want to reiterate another component of our conversation. Cutting the break in access control down to 70' is fine as long as we can agree on two items: 1— Neither the Town nor ADOT will require a wider roadway cross-section in the future. I understand ADOT doesn't want sidewalk or multi -use path connections to Tangerine, but we need concurrence for this reduced cross-section from TOV, please. 2 — Because we have yet to prepare detailed design plans for this road, some uncertainty exists as to the precise alignment. So, in order for this break in access control to work we need either the ability to shift it (not elongate it), or the ability to acquire a wider break that would be trimmed down at a later date based on the final design. Either of these arrangements could be memorialized in the final purchase paperwork. Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 • 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Scott Beck [mailto:SBeck@azdot.gov] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:26 PM To: Civalier, Craig; Gustav Paul Oland; Keesler, Paul; Paula Gibson; Laws, David; Williams, David Cc: Maria Deal; Todd A. Emery; Mick Hont Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Quick update for everyone related to a brief discussion Paul, Mick Hont, and I had regarding the actual break in access. In general, ADOT agrees with the provided cross-section but, per our Right -of -Way group, the 10-foot construction grading does not need to be purchased. In addition, sidewalks are not desired in ADOT right-of-way at this time since there are no existing facilities along Tangerine Road nor are there any destinations for pedestrians. As such, the actual break in access should be 70-feet wide. Scott Beck, P.E. ADOT Southern Regional Traffic Engineer 1221 S. 2nd Avenue Tucson, AZ 85713 (520) 388-4231 direct (520) 262-1097 cell From: Scott Beck Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 1:41 PM To: 'Civalier, Craig'; 'Gustav Paul Oland'; Keesler, Paul; Paula Gibson; Laws, David; Williams, David Cc: Maria Deal Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Thanks everyone — we concur with the 114 feet request. Scott Beck, P.E. ADOT Southern Regional Traffic Engineer 1221 S. 2nd Avenue 7/31/2012 Page 3 of 11 Tucson, AZ 85713 (520) 388-4231 direct (520) 262-1097 cell From: Civalier, Craig[maiIto: ccivalier@orovalleyaz.govl Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 9:23 AM To: 'Gustav Paul Oland'; Keesler, Paul; Scott Beck; Paula Gibson; Laws, David; Williams, David Cc: Maria Deal Subject: FW: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control To All, The Town of Oro Valley has reviewed this cross section and concurs with the 114-ft proposed right-of-way, controlled access break. The proposed cross section contains all the elements per our subdivision streets standards that we would consider necessary for the intended use of the property. If you have any questions please contact me. Craig Civalier, P.E. Town Engineer Development and Infrastructure Services Department Town of Oro Valley 520-229-4874 (Office) - 520-907-1837 (cell) - 520-229-4899 (Fax) Caring for our heritage, our community, our future From: Gustav Paul Oland [mailto:gpoland@wlbgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:46 PM To: Keesler, Paul; Civalier, Craig Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi Paul and Craig, I've attached a revised exhibit addressing Scott's comments below. Please call me with any questions or comments. I need for you all to let Scott know that this design is acceptable. His note suggests that he thinks the bike lane, median, etc. add up to a cross-section that is "wider than a typical commercial access roadway". Well, maybe elsewhere, but in OV this level of landscaping and multi -use provision is typical and appropriate. hope you concur. Thanks, Paul Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering - Planning - Surveying - Urban Design - Landscape Architecture Tucson - Phoenix - Flagstaff - Las Vegas - www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. - Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 - 520.881.7492 (fax) - 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Gustav Paul Oland Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:11 AM To: Paula Gibson; Scott Beck Cc: Todd A. Emery; Craig Civalier; Maria Deal; Neil Simon Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control 7/31/2012 Page 4 of 11 OK, but since we haven't engineered the roadway yet it would be nice to have a few feet on either side for design flexibility. Maybe 5 or 10 feet? Is there a mechanism for reinstating any excess break once the roadway has been constructed? We'll revise the cross-section per your note below, although it's worth noting that the last one I presented bas based on a discussion I had with Paul Keesler, to make sure the Town was OK with it before I sent it to you. When I revise it I'll send it to everyone on this email, plus Paul Keesler, so we can get everyone's agreement once and for all. Thanks, Paul Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 • 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Paula Gibson [mailto:PGibson@azdot.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:01 AM To: Scott Beck Cc: Todd A. Emery; Gustav Paul Oland; Craig Civalier; Maria Deal Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control The temporary construction activities do not require a break in access. From: Scott Beck Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:41 PM To: Gustav Paul Oland; Todd A. Emery Cc: Paula Gibson; Craig Civalier; Maria Deal Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Paul — We discussed this issue with Craig Civalier today and just want to verify a couple items. Both the Town and ADOT have expressed the need for 2 northbound lanes from Tangerine Road which would likely continue through the break in access. Please show that on the cross-section. Also, the cross-section is significantly wider than a typical commercial access roadway. It resembles a larger arterial with wide median, 14-ft lanes, and 8-ft bike lanes. Please provide email confirmation from the Town that these wider widths are acceptable. Paula — Do they need break in access for the side slopes to match grade? Or is break in access measured from back -of -sidewalk to back -of -sidewalk? There is a 30-ft difference if temporary construction activities don't require the break in access. Scott Beck, P.E. ADOT Southern Regional Traffic Engineer 1221 S. 2nd Avenue Tucson, AZ 85713 (520) 388-4231 direct (520) 262-1097 cell From: Gustav Paul Oland [mailto:gpoland@wlbgroup.com] Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 4:43 PM To: Todd A. Emery Cc: Paula Gibson; Scott Beck 7/31/2012 Page 5 of 11 Subject: FW: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi Todd, Just checking in on this application. I understand ADOT Phoenix is waiting for your approval. Please let me know if there's anything else we need to provide (other than revised legal descriptions once you've approved this configuration). Thanks, Paul Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 • 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Gustav Paul Oland Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:49 PM To: Todd A. Emery Cc: Scott Beck; Sylvia Hanna; Donna Jones; Neil Simon; Si Schorr (sschorrNrlaw.com); Keesler, Paul (pkeesier@orovalleyaz.gov) Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi Todd, I've attached the drawing we discussed last month showing the trimmed down access control break width. I've confirmed with the Town that this length of break in access control will be sufficient to accommodate the roadway cross-section that'll be constructed. If this is OK with you we'll go ahead and prepare a revised legal description of the proposed break. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Paul Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 • 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Gustav Paul Oland Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:55 PM To: Todd A. Emery Cc: Scott Beck; Sylvia Hanna; Donna Jones; Neil Simon; Si Schorr (sschorr@Irlaw.com) Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi Todd, Thanks for getting back to me. Best of luck working through that two -week tall stack on your desk. What you propose below is reasonable. We'll put together the drawing and send it over in the next few days. Thanks again, Paul 7/31/2012 Page 6 of 11 Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 • 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Todd A. Emery [mailto:TEmery@azdot.govl Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:44 PM To: Gustav Paul Oland Cc: Scott Beck; Sylvia Hanna; Donna Jones Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Paul, I apologize for not getting back with you sooner. I was out of the office for two weeks and have been trying to catch up as best I can. We really need something from you by way of a drawing that shows the proposed size and layout of the access road in order to determine the amount of access control we are willing to relinquish. As soon as you can please submit to us a drawing of the proposed access road that identifies its proposed size and configuration relative to the access control line. This drawing does not need to be detailed plans only a drawing that shows the proposed access roads configuration and size. Relative to that show the proposed access control that is proposed to be acquired. We will then review this and let you know if what is being proposed is acceptable. Thanks, Todd From: Gustav Paul Oland [mailto:gpoland@wlbgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:03 PM To: Todd A. Emery Cc: Scott Beck; Sylvia Hanna; Donna ]ones Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi Todd, I understand ADOT's hesitancy to sell the 225' break in access control, so per one of my voicemails to you I'd like to suggest we cut it down to around 115'. The 225' would be nice because it would allow greater roadway design flexibility, but a 115' break in access control would allow us to construct a standard 80' Oro Valley Urban Non -Residential Collector, plus a median, plus a few feet of buffer on either side. If this is acceptable to you we'll revise our maps to identify a 115' window rather than 225', and then send them back for your review and approval. Another option would be to enter into an agreement whereby the larger break in access control is granted, with the caveat that any excess remaining after the roadway is designed would be converted back to access control. We have some deadlines coming up, and really need to get this resolved, so any haste you can add to your response would be most appreciated by all. Thanks, Paul Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. 7/31 /2012 Page 7of11 Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4"4 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 • 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Sylvia Hanna rmaiIto: SHanna@azdot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:28 PM To: Donna Jones; Gustav Paul Oland Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Donna, I have talked with Paul about the break in access control, I need to talk with Todd, Scott and Paula before we can move forward with this break. I guess you forget that we talked about this one. From: Donna Jones Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:31 PM To: 'Gustav Paul Oland' Cc: Sylvia Hanna Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi, Paul. Have you touched base with Sylvia? Is the design being pursued at this time? Thanks, Donna From: Todd A. Emery Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 8:22 PM To: 'Gustav Paul Oland' Cc: Paula Gibson; Donna Jones; Sylvia Hanna; Maria Deal Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Paul, Please work with Sylvia Hanna in this regard. Essentially we will need to see the design of the road in its final configuration at the point where the access control break is needed for us to be able to determine the appropriate amount of access control that we will sell. Thanks, Todd From: Gustav Paul Oland [mailto:gpoland@wlbgroup.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:41 PM To: Todd A. Emery Cc: Paula Gibson; Donna Jones; Sylvia Hanna; Maria Deal Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi Todd, Per Paula's email below we need to work out the dimension of the break in access control. The attached legal description was prepared to coincide with the attached overall circulation 7/31/2012 Page 8 of 11 exhibit that was included in the TIA that Maria approved. The curve of the road requires a wider swath than normal. What is your preference? Thanks, Paul Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WI-B Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wibgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480. 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) Rpoland@wibgroup.com From: Paula Gibson [mailto:PGibson@azdot.govl Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:57 AM To: Gustav Paul Oland Cc: Todd A. Emery; Donna Jones; Sylvia Hanna; Maria Deal Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Paul: ADOT Tucson District does not agree with the proposed access control break of 225'. Please communicate with District and provide the concept design of the access so the appropriate amount of access control to be broken can be determined. Until resolved, all Right of Way reviews are on hold including appraisal acceptance. Upon written receipt of the approved width from Todd, Right of Way will resume acceptability reviews. Regards, Paula Paula Gibson Arizona Department of Transportation, Chief, Right of Way Group 205 South 17th Avenue, MD 612E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3212 602-712-8758 M 9�4 Arizona Department of Transportation ADOT From: Gustav Paul Oland [mailto:gpoland@wlbgroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:38 PM To: Todd A. Emery; Donna Jones Cc: Paula Gibson; 'nsimon@venturewestaz.com'; 'sschorr@lrlaw.com' Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control 7/31/2012 Page 9 of 11 Hi Todd and Donna, Per Paula's note below I have attached the legal description and a map of the overall parcel. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Paul Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 • 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Paula Gibson [mailto:PGibson@azdot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:37 PM To: Gustav Paul Oland Cc: Todd A. Emery; Donna Jones; 'nsimon@venturewestaz.com'; 'sschorr@lrlaw.com' Subject: Re: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control We can certainly go that direction. Please email just the legal description and exhibit to Donna and Todd so they can confirm with me that the area is correct before R/W initiates its review. ----------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry From: Gustav Paul Oland [mailto:gpoland@wlbgroup.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 02:11 PM To: Paula Gibson Cc: Todd A. Emery; Donna Jones; Neil Simon <nsimon@venturewestaz.com>; Si Schorr (sschorr@Irlaw.com) <sschorr@Irlaw.com> Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi Paula, The QCD Grantee should be "VW/Vistoso Investment 7I LLC". I believe the applicable legal descriptions are included in the "Sales Comparison Approach" section of the appraisal. If they are acceptable to you shall I go ahead and send you the requested original copies? If you need something different please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks, Paul Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480. 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com From: Paula Gibson [mailto:PGibson@azdot.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:47 AM To: Gustav Paul Oland Cc: Todd A. Emery; Donna Jones Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control 7/31 /2012 Page 10 of 11 Appraisals were received today. I'll advise of the Department's acceptance within 15 days of the $73,829.00 offered. A Quit Claim Deed (QCD) for the access break will be utilized. Please provide to me the legal name of the Grantee who will be reflected on the QCD. In addition, a legal description and 8'/z x 11 Exhibit will be required for ADOT Right of Way review of the break in access control. Upon approval, an original sealed description and exhibit will be attached to the QCD and recorded in the Pima County Records. You can forward the legal description and exhibit to my attention at your convenience. If there are any questions I can be reached at the number shown below. From: Paula Gibson Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 1:46 PM To: 'gpoland@wlbgroup.com' Subject: RE: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Paul, The appraisals can be mailed to me at the address below. Thank you. Paula Gibson Arizona Department of Transportation, Chief, Right of Way Group 205 South 17th Avenue, MD 612E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3212 Arizona Department of Transportation n.DOT From: Paula Gibson Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 5:04 PM To: 'gpoland@wlbgroup.com' Cc: Todd A. Emery Subject: Re: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Paul, I'll take 2 copies. If you have any questions please let me know. I'll be providing additional right of way requirements to you next week. Paula 7/31 /2012 Page 11 of 11 Sent using BlackBerry From: Gustav Paul Oland fmailto:Qpoland@wlbgroup.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 11:29 AM To: Paula Gibson Subject: Tangerine Road Break in Access Control Hi Paula, Maria Deal has recently approved our TIA for the break in access control along Tangerine Road in Oro Valley (see attached letter). My understanding is that we now need to submit the appraisal (also attached) for approval. Should that go to you, and if so, how many copies would you like? Thanks, Paul Oland Gustav Paul Oland Sr. Project Manager / LEED-AP The WLB Group, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Urban Design • Landscape Architecture Tucson • Phoenix • Flagstaff • Las Vegas • www.wlbgroup.com 4444 E. Broadway Blvd. • Tucson, AZ 85711-3508 520.881.7480 • 520.881.7492 (fax) • 520.664.4304 (cell) gpoland@wlbgroup.com Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. 7/31/2012 n n L ZA85050!7Neigh7EIParcel IuADOT Access Control Purchase D20111103 Thru Drive ConcepLdwg Plotted: Nov. 03, 2011 ■ RANCHO VISTOSO PAR PROPOSED LAND USE & AC r I WM. SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, LLC TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HSL TANGERINE - PARCEL 7-1 1 AUGUST 2011 \f,alElb 32339 ANDREW R. SMIGIELSKI \ �J Expires 3-31-13 PREPARED FOR HSL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 3901 EAST BROADWAY BOULEVARD TUCSON, ARIZONA 85711 PREPARED BY SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, LLC 3838 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1810 PHOENIX, AZ 85012 T 602.266.SWTE (7983) F 602.266.1115 0 2011 SOUTAWKST Tt c enoxxztpmo LLC, ALL uwRe mzRvm Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Project Description 3 Study Methodology 3 Existing Conditions 6 Existing Traffic Data 6 Access 9 Trip Generation 9 Trip Distribution & Assignment 10 Existing Traffic Operations 10 Future Traffic Operations Without Project 13 Future Traffic Operations With Project 15 Turn Lane Analysis 17 Conclusion 19 Table of Figures Figure 1— Vicinity Map 4 Figure 2 — Site Plan 5 Figure 3 — Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control 7 Figure 4 — Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 8 Figure 5 — Weekday Peak Hour Trip Distribution 11 Figure 6 — Weekday Peak Hour Trip Assignment 12 Figure 7 — 2013 Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project 14 Figure 8 — 2013 Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project 16 Figure 9 — Proposed Lane Configurations and Traffic Control 20 Traffic Impact Analysis 0 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place List of Tables Table 1— Weekday Project Site Generated Trips 9 Table 2 — Level of Service Criteria — Un-signalized Intersections 10 Table 3 — Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service 13 Table 4 — 2013 Peak Hour Levels of Service Without Project 13 Table 5 — 2013 Peak Hour Levels of Service With Project 15 Table 6 — Turn Lane Warrants 17 Table 7 — Calculated Queue Lengths 18 Table 8 — Complete ADOT Turn Lane Length Requirements 18 Appendix Traffic Counts Trip Generation Calculations Capacity Calculations Turn Lane Analysis Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tami Place TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HSL TANGERINE — PARCEL 7-I TANGERINE ROAD/TAMI PLACE Executive Summa The purpose of this traffic study is to evaluate the current and future transportation system within the project study area surrounding the site without and with the project and analyze traffic operations at the existing intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place along with the proposed access points to the project. Existing and Future Traffic Data Without Project Traffic counts were taken at the existing intersections of Tangerine Road/Tami Place and Tangerine Road/Mandarin Lane to document current traffic volumes. The traffic counts included turning movement counts during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The existing intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place currently operates at an adequate LOS B or better for each movement during the weekday AM and PM peak hours and is projected to continue doing so in 2013 without the project.. Future Traffic Data With Project The intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place is projected to operate at an adequate LOS C or better for each movement during the weekday AM and PM weekday peak hour of 2013, with the project. The remaining intersection of Tangerine Road/East Driveway is expected to operate at an adequate LOS B or better in the AM and PM weekday peak hours in 2013, with the project. Turn Lane Calculations The turn lane analysis shows that an eastbound left turn lane is necessary at the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place with the project. With modification, the existing median between Tami Place and Mandarin Lane will provide adequate storage to accommodate eastbound left turns into the project site at Tami Place and westbound left turns onto Mandarin Lane from Tangerine Road. The turn lane analysis also shows that westbound right turn auxiliary lanes are warranted to serve the project site at both the East Driveway and the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place. Recommendations A new eastbound left turn lane is recommended at the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place. New STOP signs should be installed with the project for the new southbound approaches at the intersections Tangerine Road/Tami Place and Tangerine Road/East Driveway. Westbound right turn lanes should be installed to serve the project site at the intersections Tangerine Road/Tami Place and Tangerine Road/East Driveway., Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tami Place i CXa TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HSL TANGERINE — PARCEL 7-I TANGERINE ROAD/TAMI PLACE Proiect Description HSL Construction Services proposes to construct a new multi -family residential development on undeveloped property on the northeast comer of Tangerine Road/Tami Place, in Oro Valley, Arizona. The vicinity of the project is shown in Figure 1. The site is located as shown in Figure 2. The project will consist of a new 256 unit multi -family residential development with an opening year of 2013. Access to the site will be from two new driveways on the north side of Tangerine Road. The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to: • Evaluate the current and future transportation system surrounding the proposed site. • Estimate the traffic generation associated with the project and assign that traffic to the existing roadway system. • Analyze traffic operations at the existing intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place along with the proposed access points to the project site. • Determine the need for auxiliary (left and right turn) lanes at the two proposed access driveways. The author of this report is a registered professional engineer (civil) in the State of Arizona having specific expertise and experience in the preparation of traffic impact analyses. Study Methodology In order to analyze and evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development, the following tasks were undertaken: • Field observation of the proposed site and surrounding area was conducted to evaluate the existing physical and operational characteristics of the adjacent roadway network. • Site traffic volumes generated by the proposed site were calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 8'h Edition, 2008. • Trip distribution assignments were made and used to assign the site traffic to the site access point and the primary roadways within the project study limits. • Capacity analyses were performed for the existing conditions and future conditions without and with the project based on an opening year of 2013. • The intersections were analyzed using the methodology presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM. • The need for auxiliary turn lanes into the new site driveways were evaluated based on the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Traffic Engineering Policies, Guides and Procedures (PGP). Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place A= ti Figure 1 — Vicinity Map N NTS 40n.. Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tami Place Figure 2 — Site Plan -P 0 U 0 x w z x w 0 z Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tami Place Existing Conditions The study location includes the un-signalized intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place. The project site is located on the north side of Tangerine Road, northeast of the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place, approximately 700 feet west of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard on an undeveloped piece of property. Tangerine Road is an east -west route in the area, while Tami Place and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard provide north -south access. Tangerine Road is a four -lane arterial, with two lanes in each direction divided by a 20 foot wide median near the project site. The posted speed limit on Tangerine Road is 45 miles per hour (mph). In the vicinity of the project, the roadway has curb and gutter along the median only and an 8-foot paved bicycle lane on both the north and south sides of the street. There is also a paved pedestrian path that parallels Tangerine Road and is offset approximately 10-feet south of the roadway that is striped for two-way travel. Tangerine Road serves as an arterial route providing east/west access from Interstate 10 (I-10) to the Town of Oro Valley. A review of ADOT's right-of-way maps show that access along Tangerine Road is controlled by ADOT from Oracle Road through the project frontage. With a posted speed limit of 25 mph, Tami Place runs south from Tangerine Road and serves existing single-family homes. Tami Place is a two-lane paved road with no curb, gutter or sidewalk facilities on either side of the road. The intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place is a `T'-intersection that is STOP sign controlled on the northbound approach, while eastbound and westbound traffic are free - flow. The eastbound approach offers a through lane and a shared through/right turn lane while the westbound approach offers an exclusive left turn lane and two through lanes. The northbound approach provides a single shared left turn/right turn lane and an existing crosswalk for the pedestrian path across the south leg of the intersection. Existing lane configurations and traffic control are shown in Figure 3. Existing Traffic Data In order to form a basis for analysis of the project impacts, weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the intersections of Tangerine Road/Tami Place and Tangerine Road/Mandarin Lane. The weekday turning movement counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM in July of 2011. The existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. The complete traffic volume summaries can be found in the Appendix. Traffic Impact Analysis 6 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place I M P= t Figure 3 — Existing Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Tangerine Road tB Z Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tann Place Legend -A- STOP Sign ITraffic Signal A N NTS 0 Figure 4 — Existing Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes <-- 388 (831) ✓= 4 (5) (596) 751 !� (2) 1 n if M Q � O Tangerine Road Q1 `a v rB Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place L J r ,y Q n Legend xx Peak Hour (xx) P.M Peak Hour Veelude-tnps per Hour N NTS 8 Access Access to the project site will be from two new driveways along Tangerine Road. The first access driveway will be aligned with the existing intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place as the new north leg. The new southbound approach will provide a single shared left turn/right turn lane and be STOP sign controlled. The approaches on Tangerine Road will remain free -flow. The second access point will be located approximately 700 feet east of Tami Place. The East Driveway will be a controlled access driveway, allowing only right-in/right-out movements between the project site and Tangerine Road. The new southbound approach will be STOP sign controlled while eastbound and westbound traffic will continue to be free -flow. Sight distance at the access points should be verified during the plan design and review process. Trip Generation Trip generation for the project was developed utilizing nationally agreed upon data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 81h Edition, 2008. So as to provide analysis for the full build -out of the project, trip generation was estimated for the construction of a 256 unit multi -family residential land use based on ITE Land Use Code 220, Apartment. The result is the expected weekday trip generation for the new project as shown in Table 1. The complete trip generation calculations can be found in the Appendix. Table 1— Weekday Project Site Generated Trips Time Period Weekday Trips Apartment Average Daily, Inbound (vtpd) 852 Average Daily, Outbound (vtpd) 852 Total Daily 1,704 AM Peak Hour, Inbound (vtph) 26 AM Peak Hour, Outbound (vtph) 105 Total AM Peak 131 PM Peak Hour, Inbound (vtph) 103 PM Peak Hour, Outbound (vtph) 56 Total PM Peaki 159 vtpd - vehicle trips per day, vtph - vehicle trips per hour Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place N Trip Distribution & Assignment Trip distribution for the project was based on current volumes and traffic patterns near the site. Figure 5 shows the weekday trip distribution for the project as a percentage of net new primary trips. Figure 6 shows the assignment of the new site generated trips to the project intersections within the study area. %lpSfirJ�Y1�iT� o►'� k/Q c% /il� -S�J J Existing Traffic Operations Analysis of current intersection operations was conducted for the weekday AM and PM peak hours using the nationally accepted methodology set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. The computer software HCS (Highway Capacity Software) was utilized to calculate the levels of service for individual movements, approaches, and for the intersections as a whole. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the traffic operations at an intersection or on a roadway segment. Level of service is ranked from LOS A, which signifies little or no congestion and is the highest rank, to LOS F, which signifies congestion and jam conditions. LOS D is typically considered adequate operation at signalized and un- signalized intersections. At un-signalized intersections, level of service is predicted/calculated for those movements which must either stop for or yield to oncoming traffic and is based on average control delay for the particular movement. Control delay is the portion of total delay attributed to traffic control measures such as stop signs and traffic signals. The criteria for level of service at un-signalized intersections are shown below in Table 2. Table 2 — Level of Service Criteria — Un-signalized Intersections Level -of -Service Delay A < 10 seconds B > 10 and < 15 seconds/vehicle C > 15 and < 25 seconds/vehicle D > 25 and < 35 seconds/vehicle E > 35 and < 50 seconds/vehicle F > 50 seconds per vehicle Existing levels of service were calculated for the project area intersections within the study area. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3. Complete capacity calculations are included in the Appendix. Traffic Impact Analysis 10 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place Figure 5 — Weekday Peak Hour Trip Distribution N NTS Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place II Figure 6 — Weekday Peak Hour Trip Assignment N NTS N 1I[jI/y V 6(25) �6 25 27 (15) 6 F253 (53)14 ✓` (26) 51 ==> 7 x Legend xx AM Peak Hour (zx) PM Peak Hour 1,elucle-nips per Hoar Traffic Impact Analysis 12 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place Table 3 — Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection AM Peak PM Peak LOS Delay LOS Delay Tangerine Road/Tami Place Westbound Left Northbound Left/Right A 9.7 B 13.7 A 9.0 B 11.3 Delay - seconds per vehicle As shown in Table 3, the existing study intersection currently operates at an adequate LOS B or better in the AM and PM weekday peak hours. Future Traffic Operations Without Project In order to assess the impacts of the project on future traffic operations, traffic projections were made for the year 2013, which is the year the project is expected to open. A review of the latest available Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes from 2007 and 2010 along Tangerine Road within the project area were obtained from the Pima Association of Governments. These counts indicate an approximate annual growth rate of 4% on Tangerine Road over the past four years. Using a 4% annual traffic growth rate, 2013 weekday peak hour traffic volumes without the project were estimated as shown in Figure 7. As with the current volumes, levels of service were calculated for each of the intersections in the study area for 2013 without the project. Levels of service for 2013 without the project are shown in Table 4. Complete capacity calculations are included in the Appendix. Table 4 — 2013 Peak Hour Levels of Service Without Project Intersection AM Peak PM Peak LOS Delay LOS I Delay Tangerine Road/Tami Place Westbound Left Northbound Left/Right A 9.8 B 13.6 A 9.1 B 12.0 Delay - seconds per vehicle As shown in Table 4, the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place is predicted to experience an adequate LOS B or better for each leg of the intersection in the AM and PM peak hours of 2013, without traffic from the project. Traffic Impact Analysis 13 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place Figure 7 — 2013 Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Without Project (644) 812 =C> (3) 2 Tangerine Road 420 (898) �5(6) � J v U v > M Q L Q y„, M V) cc� G Legend xx A:Vf Peak Hoar (xx) PM Peak Hour delude -traps per Hour Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tami Place 14 N NTS Future Traffic Operations With Project In order to assess the impacts of the project on future traffic operations, levels of service were calculated for each project intersection for 2013 with the project. Weekday peak hour traffic volumes for 2013 without the project were combined with the estimated trips generated by the project to yield weekday peak hour traffic volumes with the project as shown in Figure S. Weekday intersection levels of service for 2013, with the project were then calculated as shown in Table 5. Complete capacity calculations are included in the Appendix. Table 5 — 2013 Peak Hour Levels of Service With Project Intersection 2013 Without Project 2013 With Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak LOS DelayLOS DelayLOS Dela LOS Dela Tangerine Road/Tami Place Eastbound Left Westbound Left Northbound Left/Right Northbound Left/Through/Right Southbound Left/Throu h/Ri ht N/A N/A A 8.4 A 9.8 B 10.9 A 9.1 A 9.8 B 13.6 A 9.1 B 12.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A C 15.1 C 16.6 B 13.6 C 24.4 Tangerine Road/East Driveway Southbound Right N/A N/A A 9.7 B 11.8 Delay - seconds per vehicle Table 5 shows that the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place is projected to operate at an adequate LOS C or better for all movements in the weekday AM and PM peak hours of 2013, with the project. The intersection of Tangerine Road/East Driveway is expected to operate at an adequate LOS B or better in the AM and PM weekday peak hours in 2013, with the project. Traffic Impact Analysis 15 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tami Place Figure S — 2013 Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Tangerine Road IN NOin �6(25) 6 (25) 53 14 �_ 447 6) 413) 431 (929) ( (3) 2 (675) 868 => RT Q N Legend _ xx AM Pea]: Hour (xr) PNI Peak Hour Vehicle -trips per Hour N NTS Traffic Impact Analysis 16 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place Turn Lane Analysis A key element of this study is to determine if right or left turn lanes, on Tangerine Road are required at the new site driveways. ADOT guidelines provide warrants for the inclusion of left and right turn lanes at un-signalized intersections based on speed limit, through traffic volume and turning traffic volume during the peak hour. When needed, turn lanes remove the slowing turning traffic from the through traffic stream, improving capacity and reducing rear -end accidents. Table 6 shows the locations that were evaluated for turn lanes. Table 6 — Turn Lane Warrants Intersection Turn Treatments Warranted? Direction Turn Treatment Analyzed Tangerine Road/Tami Place Yes Eastbound Left Turn Lane Tangerine Road/Tami Place Yes Westbound Right Turn Lane Tangerine Road/East Driveway Yes --t—Westbound Right Turn Lane Based on the 2013 weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes with the project, westbound right turn auxiliary lanes are warranted to serve the project site at both the East Driveway and the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place. The turn lane analysis shows that an eastbound left turn lane is also necessary at the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place. In order to determine the impact of the proposed turn lanes at the new intersections, turn lane storage lengths were determined at all warranted locations. Queue storage requirements were calculated using the following methods as recommended in A Policy of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO, 2004). For un-signalized intersections, storage for vehicles likely to arrive in an average two - minute period within the peak hour should be provided. Vehicles per 2 min. period = (vehicles/hour)=(30 periods/hour) Storage length = vehicles per 2 min. period x 25 feet Based on the 2013 weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes with the project, the storage lengths were found for the warranted turn lanes on Tangerine Road serving the project site. The computed value is typically rounded up to the nearest 25 feet. Table 7 shows the calculated queue lengths for the two project intersections. Traffic Impact Analysis 17 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tami Place The existing westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Tangerine Road/Mandarin Lane limits the space available for the new eastbound left turn lane at Tangerine Road/Tami Place. In order to determine the existing storage required for westbound left turning vehicles at Tangerine Road/Mandarin Lane, the intersection was added to the analysis shown in Table 7. Table 7 — Calculated Queue Lengths Intersection Left Turn Storage Right Turn Storage NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB Tangerine Road/Tami Place Turning Volume (vph) 53 25 Scalculated — 44 21 Srounded — 50 25 Tangerine Road/East Driveway Turning Volume (vph) 25 Scalculated 21 Srounded — 25 Tangerine Road/Mandarin Lane Turning Volume (vph) 2 Scalculated 2 Srounded 25 S - storage in feet, vph - vehicles per hour In addition to the queue lengths shown in Table 7, turn lane lengths on Tangerine Road also include gap lengths and braking distance per ADOT requirements. Table 8 shows complete turn lane length requirements on Tangerine Road. Table 8 — Complete ADOT Turn Lane Length Requirements Intersection Queue Braking Distance Gap Total Length Tangerine Road/Tami Place Eastbound Left Turn Lane 50 85 90 225 Westbound Right Turn Lane 25 85 90 200 Tangerine Road/East Driveway Westbound Right Turn Lane 25 85 90 200 Tangerine Road/Mandarin Lane WestboundiRi ht'' urn Lane 25 85 90 200 All Lengths in Feet, Gap Based on 45 h Posted Speed, Braking Distance Minimum 7 1,e �� ? As shown in Table 8, the total length of 225 feet for the eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place can be expected to adequately store in the existing median, which is approximately � 30 ,feet long. Modifications will have to be made to accommodate the new left turn lane in the existing median. Traffic Impact Analysis HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Qy ,.�f coj�18 Table 8 also shows that the westbound left turn lane at Tangerine Road/Tami Place should have a total length of 200 feet according to ADOT standards. The existing 215 foot westbound left turn lane at Tangerine Road/Mandarin Lane is expected to adequately continue to accommodate traffic volumes. With approximately 700 feet between the West Driveway and the East Driveway, complete westbound right turn lanes can be designed into both of the driveways. Conclusion When fully completed, the proposed project will generate an additional 1,704 vehicle trips per day (vtpd) on weekdays to the adjacent street system from the new project site. Fifty percent of these new trips (852 vehicle trips) will be into the project and fifty percent will be out of the project. The addition of site -generated trips is not expected to affect the level of service of the existing roadways within the study area. The intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place is projected to operate at an adequate LOS C or better in the AM and PM weekday peak hours of 2013, with the project. The intersection of Tangerine Road/East Driveway is expected to operate at an adequate LOS B or better in the AM and PM weekday peak hours in 2013, with the project. The turn lane analysis shows that an eastbound left turn lane is necessary at the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place. The existing median should be able to accommodate eastbound left turns into the project site after it has been modified. The total required length of 225 feet for the new eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Tangerine Road/Tami Place can be expected to adequately store vehicles in the existing median, which is approximately 430 feet long. New STOP signs should be installed with the project for the new southbound approaches at the intersections Tangerine Road/Tami Place and Tangerine Road/East Driveway. Westbound right turn lanes should be installed to serve the project site at the intersections Tangerine Road/Tami Place and Tangerine Road/East Driveway. Proposed lane configurations and traffic control are shown in Figure 9. P:\projects 2011\I 1021 - hsl tangerine (oro valley)\traffic analysis\report\initial\hsl tangerine tia I augI I.docx Traffic Impact Analysis 19 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-1, Tangerine Road/Tami Place Figure 9 — Proposed Lane Configurations and Traffic Control Tangerine Road c �II y J l.1 r � � r gY; . v /1 nH:,.;Nr3w;34?:rivaifa�i•i�iraG Legend —o— STOP Sip Traffic Signal N NTS Traffic Impact Analysis 20 HSL Tangerine — Parcel 7-I, Tangerine Road/Tami Place TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HSL TANGERINE — PARCEL 7-I TANGERINE ROAD/TANH PLACE APPENDIX Traffic Counts Trip Generation Calculations Capacity Calculations Turn Lane Analysis W C.1?2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HSL TANGERINE — PARCEL 7-I TANGERINE ROAD/TAMI PLACE APPENDIX Traffic Counts Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: 4U 4 FIELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. *10 520.316.6745 Project #: 11-1105-002 TMC SUMMARY OF MANDARIN L N. & TANGERINE RD. APPROACH LANES o 0 o N 0EFIR Z- 2 000 TANGERINE RD. < o 0 o TANGERINE RD. MD PM TOTAL N w TOTAL AM MD PM z Q 0 0 0 0 -79- CONTROL 0 0 0 0 J\> �fir-- '--; Q 2 1349 754 595 � 2-WAY STOP 389 830 1219 2 p 0 2 0 2 Eeawe 2 0 2 1 a D l") 2 N V�LJ a O O LOCATION #: 11-1105-002 f TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT O O N MANDARIN LN. & TANGERINE RD. c (Intersection Name) � O O M Z J z 0 1 0 TUESDAY 07/26/11 4 Day Date G Z APPROACH LANES Q COUNT PERIODS AM 700AM - 900AM NOON PM 40OPM - 60OPM AM PEAK HOUR 715 AM NOON PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 430 PM F Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: 410, �FIELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. 520.316.6745 N-S STREET: MANDARIN LN. DATE: 07/26/11 LOCATION: TUCSON E-W STREET: TANGERINE RD. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 11-1105-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 1 82 0 241 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 0 0 104 0 257 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 0 0 98 0 284 7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 219 0 1 101 0 322 8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 196 0 1 86 0 284 8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 89 0 255 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 166 0 0 106 0 272 8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 147 2 0 96 0 246 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL Volumes Approach % App/Depart PEAK NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL 1 20.00 0 0.00 4 80.00 0 #### 0 0 #### #### 0 0.00 1389 99.86 2 0.14 3 0.39 762 99.61 0 0.00 2161 5 / 0 0 / 5 1391 / 1393 765 / 763 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM Volumes 10 0 2 10 0 0 10 754 0.001 2 389 0.001 1147 Approach % 0.00 0.00 100.00 #### #### #### 0.00 100.00 00.51 99.49 0.00 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.500 1 0.000 1 0.861 1 0.940 1 0.891 1 CONTROL: 1-WAY STOP (NB) COMMENT 1: COMMENT 2: Intersection Turning Movement FIELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. 520.316.6745 N-S STREET: MANDARIN LN. DATE: 07/26/11 LOCATION: TUCSON E-W STREET: TANGERINE RD. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 11-1105-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 160 1 0 206 0 368 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133 0 0 149 0 282 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 138 0 0 202 0 341 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 189 0 333 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 1 0 239 0 414 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 1 0 200 0 340 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 2 2 170 0 317 5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 122 1 2 148 0 274 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL Volumes Approach % App/Depart PEAK NL I NT I NR SL I ST I SR EL I ET I ER WL I WT WR TOTAL 0 0.00 0 3 0.00 100.00 0 0 0 #### #### #### 0 0.00 1153 99.48 6 0.52 4 0.27 1503 99.73 0 0.00 2669 3 / 0 0 / 10 1159 / 1156 1507 / 1503 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 430 PM Volumes 10 0 1 10 0 0 10 595 2 10 830 0.001 1428 I Approach % 0.00 0.00 100.00 #### #### #### 0.00 99.66 0.34 0.00 100.00 0.00 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.250 0.000 0.853 1 0.868 ( 0.862 CONTROL: 1-WAY STOP (NB) COMMENT 1: 0 COMMENT 2: 0 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: 41* 4�ELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. 520.316.6745 Project #: 11-1105-001 TMC SUMMAR Y OF TA MI PL. & TANGERINE RD, APPROACH LANES 0110 0 N D. ❑❑❑❑ �� ao O O O H f E TANGERINE RD. < o 0 o TANGERINE RD. AM h1D PM TOTAL w TOTAL AM MD PM 7 QJ Q 0 0 0 L CONTROL 0 0 0 Q = V 2 1347 751 596 1:7==:> 2-WAY STOP 388 831 1219 2 0 3 1 2 =7�1 se&wa 4 5 9 1 Q D n x z o v LOCATION #: 11-1105-001 TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT F M O � < TAMI PL. & TANGERINE RD, c (Intersection Name) o BE m 0 1 0 TUESDAY 07/26/11 a Day Date g APPROACH LANES a COUNT PERIODS H AM 700AM - 900AM NOON PM 40OPM - 600PM AM PEAK HOUR 715 AM NOON PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 430 PM Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: 41* 4f FIELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. 520.316.6745 N-S STREET: TAMI PL. DATE: 07/26/11 LOCATION: TUCSON E-W STREET: TANGERINE RD. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 11-1105-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 157 1 0 81 0 240 7:15 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 152 0 0 103 0 256 7:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 183 0 0 99 0 284 7:45 AM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 222 0 2 102 0 329 8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 1 2 84 0 282 8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 164 0 2 88 0 255 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 105 0 270 8:45 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 145 1 1 97 0 246 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL Volumes Approach % App/Depart NL I NT I NR SL I ST I SR EL I ET I ER WL I WT I WR TOTAL 3 27.27 0 0.00 8 72.73 0 #### 0 0 #### #### 0 0.00 1382 99.78 3 0.22 7 0.91 759 99.09 0 0.00 2162 11 / 0 0 / 10 1385 / 1390 766 / 762 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM PEAK Volumes 13 0 4 I 0 0 0 10 751 1 14 388 0.001 1151 I Approach % 42.86 0.00 57.14 #### #### #### 0.00 99.87 0.13 1.02 98.98 0.00 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.583 CONTROL: 1-WAY STOP (NB) COMMENT 1: COMMENT 2: 0.847 0.942 1 0.875 1 Intersection Turning Movement A* 4 j FIELDDATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC. 520.316.6745 N-S STREET: TAMI PL. DATE: 07/26/11 LOCATION: TUCSON E-W STREET: TANGERINE RD. DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# 11-1105-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 2 2 204 0 367 4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 132 2 0 148 0 284 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 2 205 0 347 4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 146 0 1 188 0 337 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171 1 0 237 0 409 5:15 PM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 139 1 2 201 0 346 5:30 PM 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 139 2 2 168 0 314 5:45 PM 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 123 0 2 148 0 276 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL Volumes Approach % App/Depart NL I NT I NR SL I ST I SR EL I ET I ER WL I WT WR TOTAL 5 35.71 0 0.00 9 64.29 0 0 #### #### 0 #### 0 0.00 1148 99.31 8 0.69 11 0.73 1499 99.27 0 0.00 2680 14 / 0 0 / 19 1156 / 1157 1510 / 1504 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 430 PM PEAK Volumes 11 0 4 10 0 0 Approach % 20.00 0.00 80.00 #### #### #### PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.417 0.000 CONTROL: 1-WAY STOP (NB) COMMENT 1: 0 COMMENT 2: 0 0.00 99.67 0.331 0.60 99.40 0.0 0 1 1439 I 1 0.869 1 0.882 1 0.880 1 TON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HSL TANGERINE — PARCEL 7-I TANGERINE ROAD/TAMI PLACE APPENDIX Trip Generation Calculations Apartment LAND USE: 256 Dwelling Units Apartment TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, EIGHTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS Apartment (220) WEEKDAY Average Rate = 6.65 Trips per Dwelling Unit (DU) T = 6.65 Trips x 256 DU T = 1,704 VPD ENTER: (0.5)*(1704) = 852 VPD EXIT: (0.5)*(1704) = 852 VPD AM PEAK HOUR'(ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) Average Rate = 0.51 Trips per Dwelling Unit (DU) T = 0.51 Trips x 256 DU T = 131 VPH ENTER: (0.2)*(131) = 26 VPH EXIT: (0.8)*(131) = 105 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) Average Rate = 0.62 Trips per Dwelling Unit (DU) T = 0.62 Trips x 256 DU T = 159 VPH ENTER: (0.65)*(159) = 103 VPH EXIT: (0.35)*(159) = 56 VPH *where, T = trip ends 9e( T= TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY 1,704 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) 131 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 159 VPH i53 ( gym ?kko jo3�rin� 55x��;a� TON TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HSL TANGERINE — PARCEL 7-I TANGERINE ROAD/TAMI PLACE APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite information Analyst Imoreno Intersection Tangerine Rd/Tami P/ Agency/Co. JSWTE Jurisdiction Oro Valle Date Performed 712712011 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period JAM Peak Hour Project Description HSL Tan erin East/West Street: Tangerine Road North/South Street: Tami Place Intersection Orientation: East-West[Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 751 1 4 388 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 883 1 4 412 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 3 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.58 1.00 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 5 0 6 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 4 11 C (m) (veh/h) 774 423 lc 0.01 0.03 queue length 0.02 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.7 13.7 15% LCIS A B pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.7 pproach LOS -- -- B Copyright© 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/28/2011 4:21 PM file:UC:\Users\scott\AppData\Local\Temp\u2kD 1 F0.tmp 7/28/2011 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst Moreno Intersection Tan erne Rd/Tami PI Agency/Co. SWTE Jurisdiction Oro Valle Date Performed 712712011 Analysis Year Existing Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description HSL Tan erin East/West Street: Tangerine Road North/South Street: Tami Place Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 596 2 5 831 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 685 2 5 944 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 1 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.42 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 2 0 9 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 5 11 (m) (veh/h) 916 579 lc 0.01 0.02 5% queue length 0.02 0.06 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 11.3 LOS A 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 11.3 Approach LOS — — 8 Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/28/2011 4:23 PM file:HC:\Users\scott\AppData\Local\Temp\u2kA6DF.tmp 7/28/2011 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information nal st Moreno Intersection Tangerine Rd/Tami PI enc /Co. JSWTE Jurisdiction Oro Valle Date Performed 1712712011 Analysis Year 2013 without nal sis Time Period 14MPeakHour East/West Street: Tangerine Road North/South Street: Tami Place Intersection Orientation: East-West[Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 812 2 5 420 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.90 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 902 2 6 466 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T ,Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 4 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 4 0 6 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 6 10 (m) (veh/h) 761 428 lC 0.01 0.02 5% queue length 0.02 0.07 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 13.6 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 13.6 Approach LOS — — B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/28/2011 4:20 PM file:HC:\Users\scott\AppData\Local\Temp\u2kB7C6.tmp 7/28/2011 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst Moreno Intersection Tangerine Rd/Tami PI Agency/Co. SWTE Jurisdiction Oro Valle Date Performed 7/2712011 Analysis Year 2013 without Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description HSL Tan erin East/West Street: Tangerine Road North/South Street: Tami Place Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 644 3 6 898 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.90 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 715 3 7 997 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 2 0 6 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 7 8 C (m) (veh/h) 892 525 lc 0.01 0.02 5% queue length 0.02 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 12.0 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.0 pproach LOS -- -- B Copyright© 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/28/2011 4:22 PM file://C:\Users\scott\AppData\Local\Temp\u2kE748. tmp 7/28/2011 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information nal st Moreno Intersection Tangerine Rd/Tami Pi enc /Co. SWTE Jurisdiction Oro Valle Date Performed 712712011 Analysis Year 2013 with nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description HSL Tan erin East/West Street: Tangerine Road North/South Street: Tami Place Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 14 812 2 5 447 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 17 902 2 6 496 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR ,Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 4 0 5 51 0 27 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 4 0 6 63 0 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 ,Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 17 6 10 96 (m) (veh/h) 1072 761 368 1 407 /c 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.24 5% queue length 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.90 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 9.8 15.1 16.6 LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 15.1 1 16.6 Approach LOS - — C I C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/28/2011 4:19 PM file:HC:\Users\scott\AppData\Local\Temp\u2k3131.tmp 7/28/2011 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst Moreno Intersection Tangerine Rd/Tami PI Agency/Co. JSWTE Jurisdiction Oro Valle Date Performed 1712712011 Analysis Year 2013 with Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description HSL Tan erin East/West Street: Tangerine Road North/South Street: Tami Place Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 53 644 3 6 913 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 66 715 3 7 1014 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 0 5 26 0 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 2 0 6 32 0 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 66 7 8 50 (m) (veh/h) 673 892 429 235 lc 0.10 0,01 0.02 0.21 5% queue length 0.32 0.02 0.06 0.78 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.9 9.1 13.6 24.4 LOS 8 A B C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.6 24.4 [Approach LOS -- -- 8 C Copyright© 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/28/2011 4:21 PM file: //C:\Users\scott\AppData\Local\Temp\u2k65F3.tmp 7/28/2011 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information nal st Moreno Intersection Tangerine Rd/East Dwy enc /Co. SWTE Jurisdiction Oro Valle Date Performed 712712011 Analysis Year 2013 with nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description HSL Tan erin East/VVest Street: Tangerine Road North/South Street: East Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West[Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 868 431 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 964 0 0 478 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 27 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 [Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 33 C (m) (veh/h) 802 /c 0.04 5% queue length 0.13 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.7 LOS A Approach Delay (s/veh) — — 9.7 Approach LOS — — A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/28/2011 4:15 PM file:HC:\Users\scott\AppData\Local\Temp\u2k67F4.tmp 7/28/2011 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst Moreno Intersection Tangerine Rd/East Dw Agency/Co. JSWTE Jurisdiction Oro Valle Date Performed 1712712011 Analysis Year 2013 with Analysis Time Period JPM Peak Hour Project Description HSL Tan erin East/West Street: Tangerine Road North/South Street: East Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 675 929 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 750 0 0 1032 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T T TR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) 18 C (m) (veh/h) 551 /c 0.03 5% queue length 0.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 11.8 LOS 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.8 pproach LOS -- -- 8 Copyright 02010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.5 Generated: 7/28/2011 4:17 PM file:HC:\Users\scott\AppData\Local\Temp\u2kB270.tmp 7/28/2011 W V'J TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HSL TANGERINE — PARCEL 7-I TANGERINE ROAD/TAMI PLACE APPENDIX Turn Lane Analysis Un-Signalized Intersection (Left Turn Storage) Location: Tangerine Road/Tami Place Approach/Leg: Eastbound V = vehicles per hour AM Peak Hour V = 53 vph S = Storage = (V *2 min* 25 ft/veh)/60 min/hr S (ft) = 53 vph*(2 min)*(25 ft/veh) = 44 feet (60 min/hr) Minimum Recommended Storage: 50 feet Unsignalized Intersection (Right Turn Storage) Location: Tangerine Road/Tami Place ApproachlLeg: Westbound V = vehicles per hour AM Peak Hour V = 25 vph S = Storage = (V *2 min* 25 ft/veh)/60 min/hr S (ft) = 25 vph*(2 min)*(25 ft/veh) = 21 feet (60 min/hr) Minimum Recommended Storage: 25 feet Un-Signalized Intersection (Right Turn Storage) Location: Tangerine Road/East Driveway Approach/Leg: Westbound V = vehicles per hour AM Peak Hour V = 25 vph S = Storage = (V *2 min* 25 ft/veh)/60 min/hr S (ft) = 25 vph*(2 min)*(25 ft/veh) = 21 feet (60 min/hr) Minimum Recommended Storage: 25 feet Un-Signalized Intersection (Left Turn Storage) Location: Tangerine Road/Mandarin Lane Approach/Leg: Westbound V = vehicles per hour AM Peak Hour V = 2 vph S = Storage = (V *2 min* 25 ft/veh)/60 min/hr S (ft) = 2 vph*(2 min)*(25 ft/veh) = 2 feet (60 min/hr) Minimum Recommended Storage: 25 feet ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Section 200 - Studies 245 TURN LANE WARRANTS May 2010 The intent of this policy is to offer guidance to warrant the installation of dedicated left or right turn lanes on state routes, whether during new construction, major reconstruction, or in the course of the encroachment permitting process. The primary determining factors to warrant an exclusive turn lane shall be: (a) the combination of through traffic volume and turning traffic volume, (b) the posted roadway speed, and (c) the number of through lanes on the roadway. Note: Dual right- or left -turn lanes should be considered when the turning volume exceeds 300 vehicles per hour. In addition to the criteria presented in the tables below, other factors should be taken into consideration when performing a warrant study such as: shoulder width, percentage of trucks, sight distance, highway grade, horizontal and vertical curvature and crash history. Right -Turn Lane Warrants Peak Hour Traffic Volume on the Highway in Advancing Direction Minimum Peak Hour Right -turn Traffic Volume # of thru lanes per direction 1 < 45 MPH z 45 MPH Posted Posted Speed Seed 2 < 45 MPH z 45 MPH Posted Posted Seed Seed 3 All Speeds s 200 201 - 300 - 30 - - - 301 - 400 - 19 - 55 - 401 - 500 85 14 - 30 - 501 - 600 58 12 140 25 - 601 - 700 27 9 80 18 - 701 - 800 20 8 53 15 - 801 - 900 12 7 40 12 - 901 - 1000 9 6 30 11 - 1001 -1100 8 5 23 9 18 1101 - 1200 7 5 18 8 16 1201 -1300 6 4 14 8 15 1301 -1400 6 4 11 6 12 1400+ 5 3 8 6 10 PGP 245 Page 1 of 2 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Section 200 - Studies Left -Turn Lane Warrants Minimum Peak Hour Left -turn Traffic Volume Peak Hour Traffic # of thru lanes per direction 1 2 (Undivided) Volume on the Highway in the Advancing----------------- Direction < 45 MPH Posted ----------- --- z 45 MPH Posted ---------------- < 45 MPH Posted ---------------- z 45 MPH Posted Speed Speed Speed Speed 5 200 30 15 - - 12 12 40 30 201 - 300 301 - 400 12 12 30 25 401 - 500 12 12 25 18 501 - 600 12 12 15 12 12 12 10 8 601 -1000 1001+ 12 8 10 8 On non -freeway divided highways, left -turn or U-turn lanes shall be provided at median breaks. May 2010 Volumes and traffic factors utilized shall be based on data from ADOT's Multimodal Planning Division (b.t.tp://tpd.azdot.t4ov/ml)(1/data/i.ndex.asp), or shall be based on current traffic counts as approved by the Regional Traffic Engineer. For encroachment permits, analysis of the relevant through and turning traffic volumes shall be completed in the design year as identified in ADOT Traffic Engineering PGP 240, Traffic Impact Analysis. For new construction and major reconstruction, analysis shall be performed based on data for the appropriate design year. Turn lane warrant studies shall be reviewed and approved by the Regional Traffic Engineer. When it is determined that a turn lane is warranted, shoulder width shall be provided as part of the turn lane design in accordance with ADOT's Roadway Design Guidelines (Table 302.4 — Paved Shoulder Width) which shall be used to determine the minimum continuous usable width of paved shoulder along the turn lanes. Turn- lanes shall be designed in accordance with ADOT Traffic Engineering PGP 430 - Turn. Lane Design. In cases where the state route section in question intersects a route under other jurisdiction, it is recommended that a turning movement analysis be performed on the intersecting route as well. PGP 245 Page 2 of 2 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Section 400 - Pavement Markings 430 TURN LANE DESIGN January 2000 This section provides guidance for designing left and right turn lanes for at -grade highway intersections. LEFT TURN LANES In some instances it may be necessary to add the required widening to only one side of the roadway as shown in Figure 430-A. When widening only one side, the taper length is determined by the formula: and by where: T = S x W for speeds of 45 mph or greater T = S2 x W for speeds under 45 mph 60 T = length of taper W = width of the added lane S = posted speed for existing roadways, or design speed for new or reconstructed roadways x S 1- --(Table () I (gCak(nq Olst.♦ oueuel ( Table 2) FIGURE 430-A - WIDENING ONE SIDE ONLY A The preferred way of creating a left turn Iane is by widening the roadway on both sides equally as shown in Figure 430-B. This minimizes the amount of lateral shifting required for through traffic. 430-1 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies. Guidelines, and Procedures Section 400 - Pavement Markings January 2000 Taper Iengths will be reduced by a proportional amount based on the proportion of widening on each side, e.g., by 112 for symmetrical widening. Similar adjustments must be made for other lane widths than the standard 12' illustrated. FIGURE 430-B - SYMMETRICAL WIDENING Example: W = 12' Gap = 140' Storage = 415' * + 50' = 465' S = 65 mph (From Table 430-1) T = 12 x 65 = 390' * From Table 430-2 2 low ADT, minimum trucks Total Length = 390' + 140' + 465' = 995' Gap Length Table 430-1 provides the length of the gap for left turn lanes. See Standard Drawing 4-M-1.03 for the turn lane standard. TABLE 430-1 - GAP LENGTHS POSTED or GAP DESIGN SPEED feet (mph) < 40 60 40 - 50 90 > 50 140 430-2 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures January 2000 section 400 - Pavement Markings Storage Length The storage Iength is a combination of the braking distance (Table 430-2) and a queue length dependent on the anticipated traffic control for the intersection and the traffic demand at the turn. storage length = braking distance + queue length TABLE 430-2 - BRAKING DISTANCE POSTED or DESIGN SPEED DESIRABLE MINIMUM BRAKING BRAKING ENTERING BRAKING BRAKING (mph) SPEED DISTANCE SPEED SPEED DISTANCE (mph) feet h) m h feet 30 29 80 20 20 20 35 34 115 25 25 40 40 38 150 30 29 50 45 43 200 35 34 85 50 47 245 40 38 120 55 52 300 45 42 145 60 56 360 50 47 200 65 60 415 55 52 265 70 64 490 60 56 315 75 70 585 65 61 400 The "Desirable" braking distance shown in Table 430-2 is based on the assumption that a vehicle will have lost a few miles per hour through retardation by the vehicle's engine and drive train prior to braking and that braking will actually begin when the vehicle is fully into the turn lane. The "Minimum" braking distance shown is based on the assumption of: (a) a drop of 10 mph in the average speed of a vehicle by the time it begins to enter the opening or "gap" of the turn lane; (b) there will be a further reduction in speed through engine retardation while entering the turn lane; and (c) assumed braking will begin once the vehicle is 2/3 of the way into the turn lane (see Figure 430-C). 430-3 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Section 400 - Pavement Markings Assumad Braking Location * 213 Gap: 40' for < 40 mph 60' for 40 - 50 mph 95' for > 50 mph January 2000 FIGURE 430-C - MINIMUM BRAKING DISTANCE Example: W = 12' ** Gap = 140' Storage = 265' *** +50' = 315' S = 65 mph 213 Gap = 95' T = 12 x 65 = 390' difference = 45' *** From Table 430-2 2 ** From Table 430-1 low ADT, minimum trucks Total Length = 390' + 95' + 315' = 800' Turn Lane Length = 315'- 45' = 270' The queue length is the portion of the storage length required to temporarily store turning traffic until conditions allow the turning maneuver to be completed in a safe manner. It is in addition to the length required for braking. The queue length is dependent on the anticipated traffic control for the intersection and the traffic demand at the turn. A traffic analysis may be needed to determine arrival rates and queue lengths. Signal Control - The queue length depends on the signal cycle length, the signal phasing arrangement, and the rate of arrivals and departures of left -turning vehicles. Allow 1.5 to 2 times the average number of vehicles that would queue per cycle for periodic heavy demand in traffic flow. 430.4 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Section 400 - Pavement Markings January 2000 Cross Road Stop Sign Control - The queue length is based on the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in the average two minute period within the peak hour. The length should be adjusted for a lack of adequate gaps in opposing through traffic. • All -Way Stop Sign Control ' - The queue length is based on the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in the average two minute period within the peak hour. The length should be further adjusted for a lack of adequate gaps in both opposing through traffic and cross road traffic activity. Each passenger vehicle and each truck are assumed to be 25 and 60 feet in length, respectively. The minimum queue length for all traffic control situations shall accommodate two passenger vehicles or one passenger vehicle and one truck when the truck percentage is greater than 10%, i.e., 50 foot and 85 foot minimum queue lengths, respectively. Where a two-way left -turn lane is to be interrupted with a one-way left -turn lane, the two-way Ieft-turn lane shall end a sufficient distance in advance of the interruption to allow the placement of a minimum gap and necessary storage (see Standard Drawing 4-M-1.03). RIGHT TURN LANES 4_ Storage CBraklnc Dist.+ 0ueuel FIGURE 430-D - RIGHT TURN LANES Taper Length Lengthy tapers are generally not required for right turn lanes, and similarly for left turn Ianes where the median width is 30 feet or greater, since the lane may be simply added to the outside of the traveled way; however, a shorter taper equal in length to the gap (Table 430-1) is provided to transition the edge line from the normal pavement cross section to the edge of the turn lane. 43D-5 ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures January 2000 Section 400 - Pavement Marldngs Gap Length The gap for right turn lanes is the same as that for left turn lanes (see Table 430-1). Storage Length The storage length for right turn lanes is the same as that for left turn lanes; however, when space available for a turn lane is limited and a yield condition or free -flowing right turn is provided, it may be appropriate to assume that braking continues, not to a stop as with left turns, but rather to the turning speed at the intersection radius return. Where traffic slows to 10 mph to turn right, 20 feet may be deducted from the right turn lane queue length. SUNIMARY These guidelines assume that the intersection is not skewed, is on relatively flat grade, does not contain significant vertical or horizontal curves, has adequate sight distance, and has 12-foot wide through lanes. The "Desirable" design is normally used for new construction or reconstruction of a roadway. The "Minimum" design is normally used for retrofits or minor intersection improvements. It is recognized that design methodology must be somewhat flexible in meeting the highway users' needs and that circumstances vary from one location to another so that rigid application of rules or guidelines may not fit every situation. Engineering judgment must frequently be exercised in determining the end product. For instance, shorter turn lanes than the minimum established by this guideline may be acceptable if approved in writing by the Regional Traffic Engineer having jurisdiction. 43M s � paa �Itkr��� itl iS's CAA 4f', � f�w AK ili ds� � � i iaA9�i Y —ram � uuumunnuutnunnn - II I I Iillll I ilfl I Idlllmlul rz Tr aruwIX W^ LMN MM — .ors x i .✓"a a � �.[. 3,�Rll s: u LEY AIR/20 Z9 �s �OUNncn 1g� Planning and Zoning Division F �t MAY V r 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley AZ 85737 @ 1 H Phone: (520) 2294800 Fax: (520) 742-1022 �,! k-i www.orovalleyaz.eov b REQUEST FOR PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: We propose to locate an apartment development on a portion of Rancho Vistoso Parcel 7-I, the remainder of which will be commercial development in accordance with mixed -use development guidelines. W've already had a neighborhood meeting, which was sparsely attended and generally positive given that existing zoning also allows this entire property to be developed as a commercial center. The site plan and building elevations provided are conceptual, and will meet the requirements of the Rancho Vistoso PAD design and architectural guidelines. Buildings on site will be 2- and 3-story in height. In response to comments we heard at the neighborhood meeting we are not currently proposing access onto Woodburne Avenue, although if two access points cannot be obtained from ADOT along Tangerine Road we may need to connect to Woodburne. LOCATION, ZONING ..... PARCEL NUMBER(S)........... TYPE OF REQUEST ............. APPLICANT NAME / FIRM ... APPLICANT ADDRESS ........ APPLICANT PHONE / FAX... APPLICANT EMAIL ............... PROPERTY OWNER .............................................. NW Corner of Tangerine Rd. & Rancho Vistoso Blvd. .......................................................... C-1 Commercial per the Rancho Vistoso PAD ....................................................................................................... 219-54-002K & L ..................................................................................................... Development Plan .................................................................... The WLB Group, Inc., Attn: Paul Oland ......................................................................4444 E. Broadway, Tucson, AZ 85711 ....................................................................................520.881.7480 / 520.318.6170 ............................................................................................gpoland@wlbgroup.com ...........................................................................................................................Venture West 45-1 SIGNATURE: DATE: Zy /i ❑ SUBMITTALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST TEN (10) WORKING DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE DESIRED PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE. ❑ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS "ALL PLANS MUST BE FOLDED PER PIMA COUNTY FOLD." ❑ FIFTEEN (15) COPIES (24X36) OF THE PROJECT CONCEPT PLAN, WITH LOCATION MAP. Revised 11-20-08 I