Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 2010 10-04
AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse 24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC JASON R. THOMPSON, CHAIRMAN • JONATHAN BARFIELD, JR., VICE - CHAIRMAN ROBERT G. GREER, COMMISSIONER • WILLIAM A. CASTER, COMMISSIONER • TED DAVIS, JR., COMMISSIONER BRUCE T. SHELL, COUNTY MANAGER • WANDA COPLEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY • SHEILA SCHULT, CLERK TO THE BOARD OCTOBER 4, 2010 6:00 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER (Chairman Jason R. Thompson) INVOCATION (The Reverend Mark M. Powell, St. Andrew's On- the -Sound Episcopal Church) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Vice - Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr.) APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Approval of Minor Changes to the Library Advisory Board By -Laws 3. Approval of Board of Education Capital Outlay Budget Amendment #1 4. Adoption of Ordinances for Budget Amendments ESTIMATED REGULAR AGENDA ITEM F BUSINESS TIMES GU S O USI N SS 6:05 p.m. 5. Consideration of Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation 6:10 p.m. 6. Consideration of a Proclamation to Recognize the Week of October 3 -9, 2010 as Fire Prevention Week 6:20 p.m. 7. Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Amendment of the Transportation Official Corridor Map for Military Cutoff Extension 6:25 p.m. 8. Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Cape Fear Skyway 6:30 p.m. 9. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Negotiation of an Installment Financing Contract, Directing the Publication of Notice with Respect thereto and Making Certain Findings and Determinations in Connection Therewith 6:35 p.m. 10. Ratification of Service Agreement with R3 Environmental 6:45 p.m. 11. Consideration of a Contract with UNCW for Provision of Police Dispatch and Emergency Communications Services 6:55 p.m. 12. Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z -905, 9/10) — Request by Tripp Engineering Firm for Ronald Hughes to Rezone 0.31 Acres at 110 Horne Place Drive from R -20 Residential District to O &I Commercial District 7:15 p.m. 13. Public Hearing Rezoning Request Modification (Z -880M, 9/10) — Request by Thomas Nuzio for River Bluffs Development Corporation to Modify the Master Plan for an Existing PD Planned Development by Rezoning 92.9 Acres Located at the West End of Chair Road in the Wetland Resource Protection, Natural Heritage Resource Protection, and Aquifer Resource Protection Land Classifications from R -20 Residential to PD Planned Development District for a Continuing Care Retirement Community 7:35 p.m. 14. Consideration of Pender County Purchase of Property Along US 421 within Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 the New Hanover County Boundary NON - AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS 8:00 P.M. 15. Consideration of a Proclamation Supporting the Cape Fear Regional Health Summit: Addressing Children's Obesity and Health Issues 8:05 p.m. 16. Additional Items County Manager County Commissioners Clerk to the Board County Attorney 8:15 p.m. 17. ADJOURN Note: Times listed for each item are estimated, and if a preceding item takes less time, the Board will move forward until the agenda is completed. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 CONSENT ITEM: 1 DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Chairman Thompson CONTACT(S): Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: Approve minutes from the following meetings: Agenda Review meeting held on September 16, 2010 Regular Session meeting held on September 20, 2010 Work Session meeting held on September 20, 2010 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes. COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 1 -0 This page intentionally left blank. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 CONSENT ITEM: 2 DEPARTMENT: Library PRESENTER(S): Harry Tuchmayer, Library Director CONTACT(S): Harry Tuchmayers, Library Director SUBJECT: Approval of Minor Changes to the Library Advisory Board By -Laws BRIEF SUMMARY: Proposed changes to the Library Advisory Board By -Laws related to the "purpose" and "order of business" are submitted for approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve the changes to the Library Advisory Board By -Laws. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Library Advisory Board By -Laws COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 2 -0 BY -LAWS OF THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD ARTICLE I- PURPOSE The purpose of the New Hanover County Public Library Advisory Board shall be to review and recommend to the County Commissioners written policies to govern the operation and program of the Library. Article 1,Purpose --- �1� i e purpose of the New Hanover C o unty 1 ubl .. Bwardl shall be to r evie w n:... -r. �,� ; . � :c .. ,, -.,. a da n s o n p ., c., e s t fla�e Comn,iissioners and act as l na ARTICLE II- MEMBERSHIP SECTION 1. The Library Advisory Board shall be composed of 12 residents of New Hanover County appointed by the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County. They shall serve a three year term with four members appointed each year. The same person may not serve more than two full consecutive terms. An appointment to fill more than half of an unexpired term shall be considered one term. Members of the Library Advisory Board shall serve without compensation. Library employees and spouses of Library employees are not eligible to serve on the Library Advisory Board. SECTION 2. Three consecutive unexcused absences on the part of any appointee automatically constitutes resignation on the part of the appointee, from the Library Advisory Board, and constitutes automatic acceptance of such resignation of the appointee of the Board of County Commissioners. Excused absences are defined as absences caused by events beyond one's control and are subject to approval by the Library Advisory Board. SECTION 3. Non voting ex- officio members shall be the Library Director and the President of New Hanover Friends of the Public Library. ARTICLE III - OFFICERS SECTION 1. The officers of the Advisory Board shall be a Chair, a Vice - Chair, and a Secretary. SECTION 2. Officers shall be elected at the regular meeting of the Board in the month of September, and shall serve a term of one year. SECTION 3. The Chair of the Board shall preside at all meetings and shall have the usual powers of a presiding officer. SECTION 4. The Vice -Chair of the Board shall act as Chair in the absence or disability of the Chair. SECTION 5. The Secretary shall cause a true and accurate account of all proceedings, L /Admin /LAB / LAB BY- LAWS.DOC Amended 11/02 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 2 -1 -1 minutes and other records of the Board to be made, and to notify the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of any vacancies on the Advisory Board. The Library Director or his designee shall act as a Recording Secretary for the Board. ARTICLE IV- MEETINGS SECTION 1. The Advisory Board shall meet monthly at a regularly scheduled time as determined by the Board. Regular meetings will not be held in July and December. SECTION 2. Special meetings may be called by the Chair or upon the written request of three members for the transaction of business stated in the call for the meeting. Members shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. SECTION 3. A quorum for the transaction of business shall be a simple majority of the Board members. SECTION 4. Regular meetings may be canceled by the Chair with the consent of the officers and the Library Director. Members and the clerk to the Board of County Commissioners shall be notified of the cancellation not less than seven days prior to the time set for the meeting if possible. SECTION 5. All meetings shall be held in accordance with the General Statutes of North Carolina. ARTICLE V- COMMITTEES The Chair shall appoint any committee deemed necessary. ARTICLE VI -ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comment 3. Approval of minutes of previous meeting. 4. Correspondence 5. Director's Report 6. Friend's Report 7. Committee Reports 8. Old Business 9. New Business 10. Adjournment Article 6,�-, Order of.Bu&.'iness C h i - 1. Call to Order Public Comment &.A -Review L /Admin /LAB / LAB BY- LAWS.DOC Amended 11/02 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 2 -1 -2 1� 171.em,'t "s o. Director's Report 7. Com.n'iittee Repo't'ts 8. Old ffi_isinesOtt 9. New Business j o"�_.tt nment ARTICLE VII-PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER Newl Revised shall g overn the proceedin of the Board. ARTICLE VIII-AMENDMENTS SECTION 1. These b ma be amended at an re meetin b a two-thirds vote of the members present, provided the proposed amendment has been presented in writin at the previous meetin L/Admin/LAB/ BY-LAWS.DOC Amended 11/02 Board of Commissioners Meetin 10/04/2010 2-1-3 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 CONSENT ITEM: 3 DEPARTMENT: Budget PRESENTER(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director SUBJECT: Approval of Board of Education Capital Outlay Budget Amendment #1 BRIEF SUMMARY: On September 7 the Board of Education approved Capital Outlay Fund Budget Amendment #1. Board of Education Capital Outlay Budget Amendment #1 carries FY09 -10 dollars to FY 10 -11 for various Board of Education funds as part of Board of Education's carryover process. No additional County funding is required. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve Board of Education Capital Fund Budget Amendment #1. ATTACHMENTS: Board of Education Capital Outlay Fund Budget Amendment #1 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 3 -0 ' ! i ■ M / i / Capit Outl Fun Bud Amendmenl #1 Be it resolved by the New Hanover County Board of Education that the following amendments be made to the Budget Resolution for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, on the 7th day of September, 2010: Increase /(Decrease) Expenditures by Purpose: ._....,.,.,,.,.._. Capital Outlay $ 1 1,903,049.33 Revenue by Source: Fund Balance Appropriation 2005 Bond PSBCF - ADM PSBCF - Lottery DPI School Bus Purchase $ 1, 227, 383.11 7,324,963.65 254,851.24 2 786,497.38 $ 11, 903, 049.33 Explanation: See attached detail Total Appropriation in Current Budget Amount of Increase /decrease of above Amendment S 11,903,049. Total Appropriation in Current Amended Budget $ 11,903,449.33 P ssed b majority vote of the Board of Education of New Hanover County on the day of 6'0-�20 0. Chairman Board of Educatio --'I � : QJ.A �' ck:�� _ Secretary, Board of Educatio Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 3 -1 -1 W NW ■ 11,1111 r Program Project # Project Description Total Public School Capital Building - 8500 ADM Fund Contingency 159,622.24 ADM Fund 9078 Structural Repairs - Williston 95,229.00 Program 074 9061 Mold Remediation 254 Public School Capital Building - 8500 Lottery Contingency 13 Lottery Fund 9037 Retention Pond - Misc Contracts 10,000.00 Program 076 9038 Lakeside Roof Replacement 210,000.00 Program 810 -- 2009110 9039 Mytle Grove Gym Floor Replacement 147 9051 Intercom System Upgrades 58 9053 Fire Alarm Panal Replacement 30, 000.00 9054 Carpet Replacements 38,300.00 9060 Asbestos Abatement 20,500.00 9070 Electrical Upgrades 431 9075 Parking/Grounds Repairs 105, 000.00 9078 Structural Repairs 625,000.00 9084 Seclusion Rooms 30,000.00 9095 HVAC Upgrades 589,500.00 2 DPI School Bus Purchase 6550 School Bus Lease (DPI) 786,497.38 Local Capital Outlay: Program 801 - Contingency 8500 Capital Outlay Contingency 156,948.11 Program 806 - 2005106 9058 Traffic Improvements 1 Program 808 - 2007108 9060 Asbestos Remediation 4 9061 Mold Remediation 2 9065 UST Removal & Remediation 1 9075 Parking/Grounds Repairs 19 Program 809 - 2008109 9078 Structural Repairs 185,524.52 Program 810 -- 2009110 6550 Transportation 180,701.33 9031 Mosley Boiler Replacement 102,092.31 9032 Trask -Laney Fiber Connection 14 9033 Mobile Relocation 30,000.00 9034 Admin Bldg MDF AC 21150.00 9035 Boiler Conversion to Natural Gas 21,000.00 9036 Johnson Pre -K Renovations 71 9058 Traffic Improvemeents 6 9065 UST Removal & Remediation 27,622.00 9078 Structural Repairs 67,996.00 Program 811 - 2010111 6401 Technology 157,952.46 6550 Transportation 153,000.00 1,227, 383.11 2047 Bond - 5110 instructional Furniture & Equipment 37,653.13 Program 820 6401 Technology Equipment 61,600.00 6540 Custodial Equipment 38,598.96 6580 Maintenance Equipment 24,646.23 8500 Bond Contingency 409,740.69 9010 Land Acquisition & Site I mpr 91 9011 Castle Hayne Elementary (E) 293,092.80 9012 Holly Shelter Middle (BB) 1 9014 Carolina Beach Renovation 3 9015 Bc1w&'@slI #i*;�4 &Ming 15,411.44 4nis Winter INI vation 58.155.3$ Program Project # Project Description Total 9017 Snipes Replacement 2 9018 Wrightsboro Renovation 73 9019 Gregory Renovation 900 9020 Sunset Park Renovation 125 9023 Spencer Complex Roof Replacement 39,835.62 9029 2005 Bond Program Management 674,559.23 9030 NHHS Field House 254,304.42 9431 Mosley Soifer Replacement 37,500.00 9036 Johnson Pre -K Renovations 93,404.85 9039 Myrtle Grove Abatement 69,102.50 9040 Admin Building HVAC 209, 529.47 9041 Parsley Stormwater Repairs 72 9060 Asbestos Remediation 38,616.00 9070 Electrical Upgrades 62, 555.72 9075 Parking /Grounds Repairs 117 9081 Keyless Entry Locks 62 9085 Paint Shop Sprinkler System 18,900.00 9088 OCR Title IX Compliance 180,141.50 7 Subtotal Carryover 11,903,049.33 Credit to Revenue Codes; Fund Balance (1 ,227, 383.1'1) 2005 Bond (7 963.65) PSBCF - ADM (254,851.24) PSBCF - Lottery (2 DPI School Bus Purchase (786,497.38) (11,903 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 3 -1 -3 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 CONSENT ITEM: 4 DEPARTMENT: Budget PRESENTER(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinances for Budget Amendments BRIEF SUMMARY: The following budget amendments amend the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. 11 -063 - Health 2011 -14 - Sheriffs Office 2011 -16 - Sheriffs Office RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adoption of the ordinances for the budget amendments listed. ATTACHMENTS: B/A 11 -063 B/A 2011 -14 B/A 2011 -16 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 4 -0 AGENDA: October 4, 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 11 -063 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the following Budget Amendment 11 -063 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment: Fund: General Fund Department: Health/Women, Infants & Children (WIC) Expenditure: Decrease Increase Health /Women, Infants & Children (WIC): Maintenance and Repair — Building and Grounds $3 Supplies 491 Advertising Cost 3 Total $6 Revenue: Decrease Increase Health /women, Infants & Children WIC Grant — State $6 Total $6 Section 2: Explanation The New Hanover County Health Department has received a mini grant award of $6,991 from the NC Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Women's and Children's Health section for Breastfeeding Promotion and Support. These funds will be used to renovate a storage area into usable space for nursing mothers, provide breastfeeding training to child care providers, and run a media campaign promoting breastfeeding. No County matching funds are required. Section 3: Documentation of Adoption: This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 11 -063, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, is adopted. Adopted, this day of , 2010. (SEAL) ATTEST: Jason R. Thompson, Chairman Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 4 -1 -1 AGENDA: October 4, 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 2011 -14 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the following Budget Amendment 2011 -14 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment: Fund: Federal Forfeited Property Department: Sheriffs Office Expenditure: Decrease Increase Federal Forfeited Property: Supplies $10 Total $10 Revenue: Decrease Increase Federal Forfeited Property: Federal Forfeited Property: $10 Total $10 Section 2: Explanation To budget Federal Forfeited Property receipts of 8/31 and 9/20/2010 in the amount of $5,832, and $5,111 received from the GovDeals auction. Federal Forfeited Property funds are budgeted as received and must be used for law enforcement as the Sheriff deems necessary. Section 3: Documentation of Adoption: This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 2011 -14, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, is adopted. Adopted, this day of , 2010. (SEAL) ATTEST: Jason R. Thompson, Chairman Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 4 -2 -1 AGENDA: October 4, 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 2011 -16 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the following Budget Amendment 2011 -16 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment: Fund: Controlled Substance Tax Department: Sheriffs Office Expenditure: Decrease Increase Controlled Substance Tax: Supplies $8 Total $8 Revenue: Decrease Increase Controlled Substance Tax: Controlled Substance Tax $8 Total $8 Section 2: Explanation To budget Controlled Substance Tax receipt on 9/21/10. Controlled Substance Tax funds are budgeted as received and must be used for law enforcement as the Sheriff deems necessary. Section 3: Documentation of Adoption: This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 2011 -16, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, is adopted. Adopted, this day of , 2010. (SEAL) ATTEST: Jason R. Thompson, Chairman Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 4 -3 -1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 5 DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Andrea Stough, Advocate /Outreach Coordinator, Domestic Violence Shelter & Services, Inc. CONTACT(S): Bruce T. Shell, County Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation BRIEF SUMMARY: October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Andrea Stough, Advocate /Outreach Coordinator with Domestic Violence Shelter and Services, requests the Board to adopt a proclamation to recognize October 2010 as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in New Hanover County. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the proclamation. ATTACHMENTS: Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 5 -0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS "DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH" PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, domestic violence transcends all ethnic, racial and socioeconomic boundaries, weakening the very core of our community; and WHEREAS, the effects of domestic violence are far - reaching, forcing battered women and their children to seek safe shelter, law enforcement prosecutors to expend valuable resources and families and friends to grieve at the loss of life; and WHEREAS, 1,083 adults and children sought safe shelter or other direct services at the Wilmington Domestic Violence Shelter and Services, Inc. in the year 2009; and WHEREAS, the Wilmington Domestic Violence Shelter and Services, Inc. provides emergency support and ongoing services for victims and survivors of domestic abuse; and WHEREAS, on Wednesday, September 4, 2002, Gladys Bryant, an employee of New Hanover County for more than two decades, was killed in an act of domestic violence exhibiting to all her coworkers and friends, the prevalence of domestic violence and its consequences; and WHEREAS, many other persons throughout New Hanover County and the United States find themselves in abusive relationships and need to find security and an end to their physical and mental attacks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners refuses to tolerate domestic violence in any form and wishes to create a society that promotes strong values, fosters a safe and loving home environment for every family, and encourages our citizens to redouble their efforts to obliterate the problem of domestic violence from our families, our neighborhoods and our community. BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that October 2010 be recognized as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in New Hanover County. ADOPTED this the 4 th day of October, 2010. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Jason R. Thompson, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 5 -1 -1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 6 DEPARTMENT: Fire Services PRESENTER(S): Donnie Hall, Fire Chief CONTACT(S): Donnie Hall, Fire Chief and Meg Langston, Fire & Life Safety Education Coordinator SUBJECT: Consideration of a Proclamation to Recognize the Week of October 3 -9, 2010 as Fire Prevention Week BRIEF SUMMARY: The attached proclamation recognizes the week of October 3 -9, 2010 as Fire Prevention Week with the theme "Smoke Alarms: A Sound You Can Live With!". RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the proclamation. ATTACHMENTS: Fire Protection Week Proclamation COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 6 -0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FIRE PREVENTION WEEK 2010 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, New Hanover County is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our county; and WHEREAS, fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and in our homes is where we encounter the greatest risk of fire; and WHEREAS, nearly 3,000 people die each year as a result of home fires; and WHEREAS, roughly two - thirds of home fire deaths resulted from home fires in which no smoke alarms or no working smoke alarms were present; and WHEREAS, working smoke alarms cut the chance of dying in a reported fire in half; and WHEREAS, informing the public about the importance of smoke alarm installation and maintenance serves an essential step toward increasing the public's safety from home fires; and WHEREAS, New Hanover County's first responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires and home fire deaths and injuries through prevention and proper education; and WHEREAS, the Fire Prevention Week 2010, October 3 -9 theme, "Smoke Alarms: A Sound You Can Live With!" actively works to motivate New Hanover County residents to implement smoke alarm recommendations in their homes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that October 3 -9, 2010 be recognized as "Fire Prevention Week" in New Hanover County. The Board urges all people of New Hanover County to protect their homes and families by heeding the potentially life - saving messages of Fire Prevention Week 2010, and to support the many activities and efforts of New Hanover County's Fire Department. ADOPTED this the 4 th day of October, 2010. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Jason R. Thompson, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 6 -1 -1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 7 DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO Executive Director CONTACT(S): Vice - Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr. and Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO Executive Director SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Amendment of the Transportation Official Corridor Map for Military Cutoff Extension BRIEF SUMMARY: The Wilmington MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee is requesting the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution supporting the preservation of additional right -of -way for the proposed interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street and direct staff to follow the necessary procedures as outlined in North Carolina General Statute 136 -44.50 to amend the Transportation Corridor Official Map for Military Cutoff Road extension. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt resolution and direct staff to follow the necessary procedures as outlined in North Carolina General Statute 136 -44.50 to amend the Transportation Corridor Official Map for Military Cutoff Road extension. ATTACHMENTS: 2010 MCO Map Resolution COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Chairman Thompson was recused by a vote of 4 -0. The resolution was adopted 4 -0, with the proviso that the bridge in Ogden Park be elevated. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 7 -0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICIAL CORRIDOR MAP FOR MILITARY CUTOFF EXTENSION WHEREAS, a 2004 feasibility study completed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation evaluated a 4 -lane median divided facility from Market Street to US 17 (Wilmington Bypass); and WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 136 -44.50 allows for municipalities and counties to prepare and file Transportation Corridor Official Maps to protect preferred corridors of future roadways; and WHEREAS, the City of Wilmington, on behalf of New Hanover County, filed a Transportation Corridor Official Map for Military Cutoff Extension on August 4, 2005; and WHEREAS, as development continues to occur within the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County, the need to amend the existing map in an effort to preserve a future corridor for this regional transportation project has become evident; and WHEREAS, based on the traffic volumes, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has additional information that will require the need to preserve additional right -of -way for the construction of the interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street; and WHEREAS, the Military Cutoff Extension is funded in the "Draft" State Transportation Improvement Program for right -of -way acquisition in 2014 and 2015 and construction is scheduled for 2017, 2018 and 2019; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2010 the Wilmington MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee supported amending the Transportation Corridor Official Map on file with the New Hanover County Register of Deeds for Military Cutoff Road extension to expand the limits at the intersection of Military Cutoff Road and Market Street. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners supports the preservation of additional right -of -way for the proposed interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street and directs staff to follow the necessary procedures as outlined in North Carolina General Statute 136 -44.50 to amend the Transportation Corridor Official Map for Military Cutoff Road extension. ADOPTED this the 20 day of September, 2010. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Jason R. Thompson, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 7 -1 -1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 8 DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO Executive Director CONTACT(S): Vice - Chairman Jonathan Barfield, Jr. and Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO Executive Director SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Cape Fear Skyway BRIEF SUMMARY: The Wilmington MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee is requesting the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution supporting the preservation of right -of -way for the proposed northern alignment of the Cape Fear Skyway and direct staff to work with the City of Wilmington and Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) to follow the necessary procedures as outlined in North Carolina General Statute 136 -44.50 to file a Transportation Corridor Official Map for the Cape Fear Skyway's potential northern alignment. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt resolution and direct staff to work with the City of Wilmington and Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) to follow the necessary procedures as outlined in North Carolina General Statute 136 -44.50 to file a Transportation Corridor Official Map for the Cape Fear Skyway's potential northern alignment. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Supporting the Cape Fear Skyway COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Chairman Thompson was recused by a vote of 4 -0. The resolution was adopted 3 -1, Commissioner Greer opposing. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 8 -0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CAPE FEAR SKYWAY AND DIRECTING STAFF TO FOLLOW THE NECESSARY PROCEDURES AS OUTLINED IN NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE 136 -44.50 TO FILE A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR OFFICIAL MAP FOR THE CAPE FEAR SKYWAY'S POTENTIAL NORTHERN ALIGNMENT WHEREAS, the Cape Fear Skyway is a proposed 9.5 -mile facility crossing the Cape Fear River that will provide a future connection from US 17 in Brunswick County to US 421 in New Hanover County; and WHEREAS, the proposed Cape Fear Skyway is a regional transportation project that will provide increased benefits to the community that include: additional access to the Port for commercial deployments, direct access to the west side of the Cape Fear River, reduction of future traffic demand on the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, allow for uninterrupted travel across the Cape Fear River, allow for emergency response vehicles to travel across the Cape Fear River without the possibility of delay, decrease evacuation times during natural disasters, improve access to the Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point and provide for improved access to the Port facilities for military deployments; and WHEREAS, due to the possibility of encroaching developments in the potential corridors for the Cape Fear Skyway the Wilmington MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee encouraged New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington, Brunswick County and the Town of Leland to utilize the land use tools available to preserve a corridor for this important transportation project; and WHEREAS, the Wilmington MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee directed MPO staff to prepare a Transportation Corridor Official Map for the proposed Cape Fear Skyway's potential northern alignment; and WHEREAS, the Wilmington MPO and North Carolina Turnpike Authority have developed the Transportation Corridor Official Map that has been prepared for recordation; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2010 the Wilmington MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee encouraged New Hanover County, the City of Wilmington, Brunswick County and the Town of Leland to utilize North Carolina General Statute 136 -44.50 to file a Transportation Corridor Official Map for the potential Cape Fear Skyway's northern alignment. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners supports the preservation of right -of -way for the proposed northern alignment of the Cape Fear Skyway and directs staff to work with the City of Wilmington and Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WMPO) to follow the necessary procedures as outlined in North Carolina General Statute 136 -44.50 to file a Transportation Corridor Official Map for the Cape Fear Skyway's potential northern alignment. ADOPTED this the 20 day of September, 2010. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Jason R. Thompson, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 8 -1 -1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 9 DEPARTMENT: County Attorney PRESENTER(S): Avril Pinder, Finance Director and Wanda Copley, County Attorney CONTACT(S): Avril Pinder, Finance Director and Wanda Copley, County Attorney SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Negotiation of an Installment Financing Contract, Directing the Publication of Notice with Respect thereto and Making Certain Findings and Determinations in Connection Therewith BRIEF SUMMARY: County staff has advised the Board that the County must renovate and /or equip the School Facilities to maintain and enhance the County's public school and certain administrative school facilities to enable the County to perform its public functions, and that the School Facilities will benefit the County and its residents. The Facilities will be financed through an installment financing contract with Bank of America, N.A., obligating the County to repay in installments the amount financed at a fixed annual interest rate of not more than 6.00% over a term not exceeding 15 years, resulting in a total amount financed not to exceed $4,925,744. The County is authorized to finance the renovation and equipping of the School Facilities by entering into the Contract and a deed of trust that create in the Wrightsboro Elementary School and the site on which it is located a security interest to secure payment of the obligation thereby created. The County will finance the cost of the School Facilities pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 160A -20 by executing and delivering to the Bank the Contract providing for the financing of a principal amount not to exceed $4,925,744 and acquire the Wrightsboro Elementary School site pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 153A- 158.1. The County's ad valorem tax rate will not significantly increase to sustain the proposed financing. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt resolution. e TT e ruXrF.1vTC - Resolution Public Hearing Notice COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 9 -0 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA, AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION OF AN INSTALLMENT FINANCING CONTRACT, DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE WITH RESPECT THERETO AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH I. UNDERTAKINGS WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners (the "Board ") of the County of New Hanover, North Carolina (the "County "), desires to provide for the installment financing of capital improvements and renovations to Bradley Creek Elementary School, Mosley Performance Learning Center, D.C. Virgo Middle School, Wrightsboro Elementary School, Emma B. Trask Middle School, Williston Middle School and Roland -Grise Middle School (collectively, the "School Facilities "); and WHEREAS, the Board now proposes to finance the School Facilities through an installment financing contract (the "Contract ") with Bank of America, N.A. (the "Bank "), obligating the County to repay in installments the amount financed at a fixed annual interest rate of not more than 6.00% over a term not exceeding 15 years, resulting in a total amount financed not to exceed $ 4,925,744; and WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 160A -20, the County is authorized to finance the renovation and equipping of the School Facilities by entering into the Contract and a deed of trust (the "Deed of Trust ") that create in the Wrightsboro Elementary School and the site on which it is located a security interest to secure payment of the obligation thereby created; and WHEREAS, subject to the prior approval of the Local Government Commission of North Carolina (the "LGC ") pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 159 -148, the County intends to finance the cost of the School Facilities pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 160A -20 by executing and delivering to the Bank the Contract providing for the financing of a principal amount not to exceed $4,925,744 and acquire the Wrightsboro Elementary School site pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 153A- 158.1; and II. UNDERTAKINGS NECESSARY WHEREAS, the County staff has advised the Board, and the Board hereby finds and determines, that the County must renovate and /or equip the School Facilities in order to maintain and enhance the County's public school and certain administrative school facilities to enable the County to perform its public functions, and that the School Facilities will benefit the County and its residents; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held to receive public comment on the desirability of (a) the County acquiring the fee or any lesser interest in the real and personal property included in a portion of the School Facilities for use by the New Hanover County Board of Education for school purposes and (b) the installment financing of the School Facilities, of which the Board received evidence supporting the need for such financing; and Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 9 -1 -1 WHEREAS, the Board finds and determines that the undertakings are necessary and expedient for the aforesaid reasons and that the School Facilities be financed under the terms, conditions and parameters heretofore stated and to be further determined with more particularity at a later date; and III. FUNDS NOT EXCESSIVE WHEREAS, the sums to fall due under the Contract can be included in the County's budget without difficulty; and WHEREAS, the above factors lead to the conclusion that the payments under the Contract are not excessive for the stated purposes of renovating and /or equipping the School Facilities; and IV. TRANSACTION A PUBLIC PURPOSE WHEREAS, the County Attorney has advised the County that the School Facilities are authorized by law and are purposes for which public funds may be expended pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of North Carolina; and V. INSTALLMENT PURCHASE FINANCING DESIRABLE WHEREAS, the Board finds and determines that short term or pay -as- you -go financing for the School Facilities would place strains on the County's ability to fund general operations and education without a significant tax increase; and WHEREAS, use of the County's unobligated fund balance to finance the School Facilities would reduce the fund below the guideline established by the LGC and would not be in the County's best interest; and WHEREAS, the use of non -voted debt would not provide sufficient funds to complete the School Facilities in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, although the cost of financing under the proposed Contract is greater than the cost of general obligation bond financing, installment contract financing would be preferable to general obligation bond financing because a general obligation bond authorization probably could not be perfected in a timely manner and would not permit the alternative financing structures and repayment provisions available in the proposed negotiated installment contract financing; and WHEREAS, the proposed cost of financing the School Facilities is too great an amount to be funded by current appropriations; and WHEREAS, the Board finds and determines that installment contract financing is therefore the most viable and efficient alternative and that the cost of such financing is reasonable; and Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 9 -1 -2 VI. COMPLIANCE WITH DEBT MANAGEMENT CONTROLS WHEREAS, past audit reports of the County indicate that its debt management and contract obligations payment policies have been carried out in strict compliance with the law and the County has not been censured by the LGC, external auditors, or any other regulatory agencies in connection with such management; and VII. ESTIMATED TAX INCREASE WHEREAS, the Board estimates that the County's ad valorem tax rate will not be significantly increased in order to sustain the proposed financing; and VIII. NO DEFAULT WHEREAS, the County is not in default in meeting any of its debt service or contract obligations; and IX. APPLICATION WHEREAS, it is the Board's intention to adopt this Resolution for the purpose of authorizing the renovation and /or equipping of the School Facilities, making certain findings and determinations, approving the submission of an application for approval of the Contract to the LGC and authorizing such other acts deemed necessary and advisable to carry out the renovation and /or equipping of the School Facilities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER, NORTH CAROLINA, as follows: Section 1 . The Chairman of the Board, the County Manager, the Finance Director and the Clerk to the Board are hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the County to proceed with the preparation of the Contract providing for the financing of an amount not to exceed $4,925,744 at an annual interest rate not to exceed 6.00% and a term not to exceed 15 years, and otherwise proceed with the plan of financing for the School Facilities (which includes the acquisition of the Wrightsboro Elementary School site) described at this meeting. Section 2 . The Chairman of the Board, the County Manager, the Finance Director and the Clerk to the Board are hereby authorized and directed to submit an application for the LGC's approval of the Contract pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 160A -20 and Section 159 -148, and to execute a sworn statement of debt of the County pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 159 -150, in connection with the financing of the School Facilities. Section 3 . The financing team of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, as special counsel, and Bank of America, N.A., as lender, is hereby approved. Section 4 . This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and shall supersede any and all previous resolutions regarding the renovation and /or equipping of the School Facilities on an installment financing basis. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 9 -1 -3 Section 5. That a public hearing (the "Public Hearing ") shall be conducted by the Board on October 18, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, in Room 301, Wilmington, North Carolina, concerning the Contract, the Deed of Trust, the proposed renovation and /or equipping of the School Facilities and the acquisition of the Wrightsboro Elementary School site for use by the New Hanover County Board of Education for school purposes and any other transactions contemplated therein and associated therewith. Section 6 . The Clerk to the Board is hereby directed to cause a notice of the Public Hearing to be published once in a qualified newspaper of general circulation within the County on October 5, 2010. (SEAL) NEW HANOVER COUNTY Jason R. Thompson, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 9 -1 -4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Sections 160A -20 and 153A -158.1 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, as amended, that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners (the "Board ") will hold a public hearing on October 18, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in the Historic Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, in Room 3 01, Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 for the purpose of considering whether the Board for the County of New Hanover, North Carolina (the "County ") should approve the County's acquisition of certain real and personal property related to Wrightsboro Elementary School, which is used by the New Hanover County Board of Education for school purposes, and a proposed installment financing contract and certain related documents under which the County would obtain financing pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 160A -20, as amended, to finance the cost of the Projects hereinafter described and under which the County would secure the repayment of it of moneys advanced pursuant to such installment financing contract by granting a security interest in certain of the Projects and related sites and property thereof under a deed of trust. The Projects consist of the renovation and equipping of the Bradley Creek Elementary School located at 6211 Greenville Loop Road, Wilmington, North Carolina, the Mosley Performance Learning Center located at 1804 South Thirteenth Street, Wilmington, North Carolina, the D.C. Virgo Middle School located at 813 Nixon Street, Wilmington, North Carolina, Wrightsboro Elementary School located at 2716 Castle Hayne Road, Wilmington, North Carolina, Williston Middle School located at 401 South Tenth Street, Wilmington, North Carolina and Roland — Grise Middle School located at 4412 Lake Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina. The combined cost of constructing the Projects is estimated at approximately $4,925,744. Drafts of proposed financing documents are available for inspection in the office of the County Manager. All persons interested in this public hearing are encouraged to attend and express their views. Any person wishing to comment in writing on the proposed installment financing contract and the proposed acquisition of Wrightsboro Elementary School should do so prior to the public hearing described above to the County at 230 Government Center Drive, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, Attention: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners. /s/ Sheila L. Schult Clerk, Board of Commissioners New Hanover County, North Carolina Published: October 5, 2010 Error! Unknown document property name. NYC 719025.1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 9 -2 -1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 10 DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Rick Sapir, Outside Legal Counsel for New Hanover County CONTACT(S): Chris Coudriet, Assistant County Manager SUBJECT: Ratification of Service Agreement with R3 Environmental BRIEF SUMMARY: The County and R3 Environmental have completed contract negotiations, and both parties are prepared to begin a 90 -day transition toward R3 assuming operational control and responsibility of the County's solid waste system. R3 signed the service agreement September 30, 2010. Rick Sapir, the County's outside legal counsel during negotiations, will address provisions in the final service agreement. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Ratify the service agreement between New Hanover County and R3 Environmental. COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Ratify the service agreement. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Ratified the agreement 4 -1, Commissioner Greer opposing. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 10 -0 This page intentionally left blank. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 11 DEPARTMENT: Emergency Management PRESENTER(S): Warren Lee, Emergency Management and 911 Communications Director and David Donaldson, UNCW Police Chief CONTACT(S): Warren Lee, Emergency Management and 911 Communications Director and Debora Cottle, 911 Communications Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of a Contract with UNCW for Provision of Police Dispatch and Emergency Communications Services BRIEF SUMMARY: UNCW relocated its Police Department dispatchers to New Hanover County's Public Safety Communications Center in May 2006 under a three -year contract designed to provide effective and efficient emergency response to the UNCW campus and to improve emergency response times. The collaboration also provided better coordination with other local response agencies in New Hanover County. The three -year agreement obligated the UNCW Police Department personnel who worked in the County's 911 Center to adhere to the same rules and regulations as New Hanover County's personnel and to work shifts consistent with the County's personnel. UNCW personnel were expected to answer 911 and administrative lines, but to only dispatch UNCW Police units. Occasional problems arose with personnel absenteeism and other job responsibilities during the first three -year contract period. At the end of the first three -year period, the University requested to renew the contract for an additional three years. New Hanover County and UNCW entered into a second three -year contract in May 2010. Concurrently, UNCW proposed the possibility of New Hanover County taking over the UNCW Police Department dispatch function if a mutually agreeable funding formula could be reached. New Hanover County Legal, Emergency Management and County Management personnel met with the UNCW Police Chief and UNCW Administration personnel on several occasions to work out an agreement for provision of the Police dispatching services consistent with the services provided by UNCW personnel. Attached is the proposal that was agreed upon by both parties. This agreement provides funding for hiring three (3) full -time entry level personnel, including salary and benefits, under the current New Hanover County personnel wage schedule. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve agreement as presented and adopt ordinance for budget amendment 11 -070. ATTACHMENTS: UNCW Purchase Order # P0017026 and associated contract B/A 11 -070 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Request to table this item until October 18th. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 11 -0 COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: The item was tabled until October 18th. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 11 -0 Seat Thursday, September 16, 2010 -- From UNMILMINGTON - Page 1 of 2 Revised Purchase Order Supplier Name Address Supplier Information Delivery Address UNC Wilmington Bid g -Rm: Attn : Central Receiving 601 S College Rd Wilmington, NC 28403 United States ShipTo Address Code Delivery Information Req Delivery Exped ite Delivery Information Pho ne Fax Payment Terms New Hanover County Finance Dept 230 Government Center Dr Ste 165 Wilmington, NC 28403 US +1 (910) 798 -7187 +1 (910) 798 -7410 0, Net 30 PD Linda Wright CTLREC 9/30 /2011 No Order Information Note to Supplier Please see attached NHC Agreement. LOSS OF FUNDING: Contractor expressly acknowledges and agrees that In the event funds are not appropriated or allocated by state or university for this purpose, UNCW may terminate the order at any time during the period of performance without further obligation to contractor and without contractor recourse of any kind, in law or equity. Attachments for supplier NHC Agreement (25k) Size / Line No. Product Description Catalog No. Packaging Unit Price Quantity Ext. Price 1 of 1 Contract with New Hanover Co. Public Safety Communications 1 1/YR. 134,250.00 1 YR 134,250.00 Center to provide dispatch and emergency communication USD USD functions to UNCW thru UNCW Police Department on a 24 hr. basis for the period 10/1/10 - 9/30/11. ADDITIONAL INFO) This order is governed by the lags of NC and UNCW Standard Terms & Conditions, located at Total 134,250.00 USD www. uncw. edu/ ba/ finance /Purchasing /for_vendors.html, unless noted otherwise in the text of the document. UNCW Certificate of Tax Exemption ID Number: 400032 Billing Information Charge to PO Listed Above Contract no value Quote number Billing Address UNC Wilmington Accounts Payable Box 5903 601 S. College Rd,. Wilmington, NC 28403 United States Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 11 -1 -1 Purchase Order Purchase Order Date PO) /Reference No. Revision No. Revision Date 9/16/2010 P0017026 1 9/16/2010 Buyer Information Contact Linda Wright Email wrightl@uncw.edu Phone +1 (910) 962 -3381 Purchasing Officer SCS Susan Suits Supplier Name Address Supplier Information Delivery Address UNC Wilmington Bid g -Rm: Attn : Central Receiving 601 S College Rd Wilmington, NC 28403 United States ShipTo Address Code Delivery Information Req Delivery Exped ite Delivery Information Pho ne Fax Payment Terms New Hanover County Finance Dept 230 Government Center Dr Ste 165 Wilmington, NC 28403 US +1 (910) 798 -7187 +1 (910) 798 -7410 0, Net 30 PD Linda Wright CTLREC 9/30 /2011 No Order Information Note to Supplier Please see attached NHC Agreement. LOSS OF FUNDING: Contractor expressly acknowledges and agrees that In the event funds are not appropriated or allocated by state or university for this purpose, UNCW may terminate the order at any time during the period of performance without further obligation to contractor and without contractor recourse of any kind, in law or equity. Attachments for supplier NHC Agreement (25k) Size / Line No. Product Description Catalog No. Packaging Unit Price Quantity Ext. Price 1 of 1 Contract with New Hanover Co. Public Safety Communications 1 1/YR. 134,250.00 1 YR 134,250.00 Center to provide dispatch and emergency communication USD USD functions to UNCW thru UNCW Police Department on a 24 hr. basis for the period 10/1/10 - 9/30/11. ADDITIONAL INFO) This order is governed by the lags of NC and UNCW Standard Terms & Conditions, located at Total 134,250.00 USD www. uncw. edu/ ba/ finance /Purchasing /for_vendors.html, unless noted otherwise in the text of the document. UNCW Certificate of Tax Exemption ID Number: 400032 Billing Information Charge to PO Listed Above Contract no value Quote number Billing Address UNC Wilmington Accounts Payable Box 5903 601 S. College Rd,. Wilmington, NC 28403 United States Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 11 -1 -1 Sent Thursday, September 16, 2010 - From UNCWI LMI NGTCN - Page 2 of 2 "New Hanover County's Public Safety Communications Center will provide dispatch and emergency communications functions to the University on a 24 -hour basis. Such services will include those common to the public safety dispatch and emergency communications functions in New. Hanover County, and those which may be identified by University. The primary public safety resource of the University is the UNCW Police Department. However, it is recognized that large scale special events, unusual circumstances and emergencies including, but not limited to, man --made and natural disasters may result in other University personnel (e.g. University's Emergency Management staff) being supported by County in accordance with this Agreement. The term of the service is for the period October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. University shall pay to NHC the sum of $134,250.00. Amount to be prorated in accordance with any revised effective date of this Agreement.. This amount is reflective of the base salary and customary benefits of three Telecommunicat ors and shall be used as a base line for determining costs to University under this Agreement for subsequent years. Future costs to University shall also include increases for market adjustments, merit and other benefits available to County employees. Services are renewable for subsequent twelve month periods unless either party hereto gives 120 days prior written notice of termination. In the event of termination with 120 days prior written notice, County shall prorate . a refund to University." Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 11 -1 -2 AGENDA: October 4, 2010 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 11 -070 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the following Budget Amendment 11 -070 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment: Fund: General Fund Department: Emergency Management & 911 Communications Expenditure: Decrease Increase Public Safety Communications: Salaries $72 FICA 5,533 Retirement 4 Medical 18 LTD Insurance 160 Total $100 Revenue: Decrease Increase Public Safety Communications: Funds from UNCW $100 Total $100 Section 2: Explanation UNCW proposed the possibility of New Hanover County taking over the UNCW Police Department dispatch function if a mutually agreeable funding formula could be reached. This budget amendment reflects the proposal that was agreed upon by both parties. UNCW will pay the County all personnel costs related to the three tele communicator positions. The budget amendment has been prorated for FY10 -11 amount (October 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011). The annual amount is $134,250. Section 3: Documentation of Adoption: This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County, North Carolina, that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 11 -070, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, is adopted. Adopted, this 4 th day of October, 2010. (SEAL) ATTEST: Jason R. Thompson, Chairman Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 11 -2- 1 This page intentionally left blank. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 12 DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director; Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager CONTACT(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director; Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing Rezoning Request (Z -905, 9/10) — Request by Tripp Engineering Firm for Ronald Hughes to Rezone 0.31 Acres at 110 Horne Place Drive from R -20 Residential District to 0 &I Commercial District BRIEF SUMMARY: At its September 2, 2010 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the O &I rezoning. No one from the public spoke on this item. The site is classified as Transition on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification Map. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: ACTION NEEDED: Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A -341 which requires that "Prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest." EXAMPLE for approval: The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R -20 Residential district to O &I Office & Institutional District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of Policies in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan relating to adequate provision of space for each variety of uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest to rezone 0.31 acres at 110 Horne Place Drive from R -20 Residential to Office & Institutional Zoning District to provide greater depth to an adjacent O &I District. ATTACHMENTS: Z -905 Staff Summary Z -905 Petition Summary Z -905 Adjacent Property Map Z -905 Application COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 12 -0 COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 12 -0 CASE: Z -905 PETITIONER: Tripp Engineering for Ronald Hughes REQUEST: Rezone from R -20 Residential to O& 1 Office & Institutional ACREAGE: Approximately 0.31 acres LOCATION: 110 Horne Place Drive LAND CLASS: Transition PLANNING BOARD ACTION: At its September 2, 2010 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the 0&1 rezoning. No one from the public spoke on this item. STAFF SUMMARY The subject property is located in the northern portion of the county in an area classified as Transition on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The subject property fronts Horne Place Drive. The site is currently served by public water, but no sewer is available. The property is accessed from Horne Place Drive, a neighborhood collector street. Horne Place Drive is located on the western side of Castle Hayne Road, a four lane minor arterial street. Neither traffic counts nor levels of service are available for Horne Place Drive; however, service along Castle Hayne Road, at the intersection of Swartville and Old Mill Road, show a LOS of E transitioning to LOS F, slightly past N. Kerr Ave. Traffic counts along Castle Hayne Road have increased from 13,927 (2009) to 14,654 (2010). The subject property is currently zoned R -20 low density residential. Zoning to the north of the subject property is zoned 0&1 and additional commercial zoning is present south of the site along Castle Hayne Road. Mr. Ronald Hughes owns the adjacent property to the east of the site, fronting Castle Hayne Road, 2623 and 2625 Castle Hayne Road, which are currently zoned 0 & I. Therefore the request to rezone would expand his current zoning. The subject property is located within the Ness Creek watershed drainage area which is classified C (Sw). The property is not within the 100 year flood zone. Soil maps indicate that the property has Class II Onslow loamy fine sand. Land Use Plan Considerations: The purpose of the Office and Institutional District is to provide areas where institutional uses, professional office use and other uses compatible to uses of an office or institutional nature shall be encouraged to locate and to provide protection for this type land use from encroachment by other less desirable uses. The principal means of ingress and egress shall be along collector roads, minor arterials, and /or major arterials as designated on the County's Thoroughfare Classification Plan. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 12 -1 -1 The 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan adopted policies relating to land use and urban design. Policy 4.1 of the Land Use Plan promotes the designation of sufficient land area and suitable locations for the various land use types. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) will be required for any development that generates more than 100 peak hour trips. Staff feels the request is consistent with the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan and recommends approval. ACTION NEEDED: Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A -341 which requires that "Prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest." EXAMPLE for approval: The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R -20 Residential district to 0&1 Office & Institutional District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of Policies in the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan relating to adequate provision of space for each variety of uses. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest to rezone 0.31 acres at 110 Horne Place Drive from R -20 Residential to Office & Institutional Zoning District to provide greater depth to an adjacent 0&1 District. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 12-1-2 Case: Z -905 (09/10) Rezone 0.31 acres from R -20 to O &I Commercial Petition Summary Data 110 Horne Place Drive Owner /Petitioner Ronald Hughes /Tripp Engineering Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence Zoning History: Area l0A (July 1, 1974) Land Classification: Transition Water Type: Public Sewer Type: None /Private Recreation Area: Cape Fear Optimist Park and Castle Hayne Park Access &Traffic Volume: Horne Place Drive (neighborhood collector) to Castle Hayne Road (urban minor arterial) with LOS E transitioning to LOS F, slightly past N. Kerr Ave. The ADT on Castle Hayne, slightly north of Horne Place Drive, have increased from 13,927 (2009) to 14,654 (2010). Fire District: Wrightsboro Fire District (WVFD) Watershed & Water Quality Classification: Ness Creek; C: Sw Aquifer Recharge Area: Chiefly a discharge area for ground -water flow Conservation /Historic /Archaeological Resources: None Soils: Onslow loamy fine sand Septic Suitability: Moderate limitation; requires moderate modification and maintenance in Class II Schools: Wrightsboro Elementary School Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 12-2-1 l� O o N Q m TOM m Z� J N J J W' Q Q� _r F O N - CASTLE- HAY - RD N ti co D r cn v Q J a 4! Z O � N r �Z. z W a W a {� T" m u cn N m LO TOM W fit a z a N r I— u{ i c _ LO O E o O 0 O J •u N N IL C - xw. E W V 0 0 J L) o _ cn cn Ix 0 ca O a a v W ZM L- O O a L U O O U O 0 r — O � � a r �s J W �_ r ._ O N N LL - = 0 0 0 0 0 ~ i a .. .. Lnawaa a �U�i�i�i�i�i 0 O O �� L } Z 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 .V 0 N Q- O a` 0 N U 0a m U 2 2 2 2 2 o �J J D Q N R'l �F l� O o N Q m TOM m Z� J N J J W' Q Q� _r F O N - CASTLE- HAY - RD N ti co D r cn v Q J a 4! Z O � N r �Z. z W a W a {� T" m u cn N m LO TOM W fit a z a N r I— u{ i i NEW HANOVER COU Government 230 Center Drive PLANNING &INSPECTIONS suite Flo � Wilmington, NC 2$403 DEPARTMENT 910- 798 -7I65 phone ZONING AMP AMENDMENT 910 - 798 -7053 ax www.nhcgov.com APPLICATION # etx't .. ' ..:..::::::: ::.::::::.:::.. ::.:::.::::::::. T ope tha Name Owner Name Andress .R onald Hughes Saute . 110 Horne Place Drive Company Omer N ame 2 Parce I x,03311 - 005 - 002 - 000 Address Address Acreage /Sq uare F eet 5917 Myrtle Grove load 0 .31 a 13,5 f city, state, zi city, State, zip .e xistin g Z onin g an U se - Wilmington, NC 28409 H72 :side ial Phone Ph one P Z oning and Use 910 -520 -79 &1 C ommercial E mai l mail Land Classification c ommercial susMIssIorr RIE I)IREMENTS PLEASE READ ARTICLE X1 O F THE ZONING ORDINANCE PRIOR TO SUBMISSION Petitions must b reviewed b Planning & Zoning for completeness prior to acceptance. You are encouraged to consult with a Planner prior to submission. For Petitions involving Fi ve acres or less a fee of'$400.00 will' he charged" for those of more than five acres a fee o $ will be charged. This fee, payable to New aver C ]'�'' accompany this petition. The f ollo w ing s�►plernental information is required: 1. One copy of the New Hanover County Tax Map,, which delineates the property requested for rezoning. 2 . Legal description y metes and bounds) of propel requested for rezoning. 3 . Copy of the s 1, division map or recorded plat which delineates the property. 4 . Applicant's answers to the questions on this application. 5 . Authority for appointment of agent form (if applicable 6 . verify that no zoning action has taken place on any portion of the property within the past 12 ,months consult with staff. 7 . . .ny special requirements of the ordinance (For example, Section 53.5 for Planned Development District, Section 53.6 Exceptional Design Zoning District or Section 59.9 .River rot Mixed Use District). 8 . Report on. Community information meeting (see Section 111 -2.1) if applicable. R VILEW PROCEDURES Petitions for change of zoning are first referred to the New Hanover County Planning Board and then acted upon by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. Certain specialized districts River runt Mixed Use, .Planned Development, and Exceptional Design Zoning District) may require review b the Technical Review Committee TRC p rior to application. submission. Page 1 of 3 Board of Commissioners Meeting ZMAR 1 10/04/2010 12-4-1 Complete petitions and supplementary information must be reviewed and accepted by Planning & Zoning twenty (2 o wor YU g days before the Planning Board meeting to allow adequate tine for processing and advertisement as required by the North Carolina General Statutes. Unless otherwise published or announced, Planning Board meetings are held on the first Thursday of each .month at 5:30PM in the Commissioner's Assembly Room at the Old County Courthouse, at Third and Princess Streets, Wilmington, North Carolina. If the Planning Board approves your petition, the request will automatically be referred to the Board of County Com miss loners. If your petition is denied, your m ay appeal to the Board of C omm is si on ers. I lanning & Zoning can advise you regarding appeal pro edUres. Please note there is a 12 -month gait required between subsequent rezoning requests on the same parcel or any part of it, (reference Section 11.1 --3, The owner /applicant and or authorized agent should plan to attend all meefliigs at which this request will be heard. W YOU MUST ESTABLISH F OR A CHANGE of ZONING Your intended use of property upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes require that zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The governing board is required to adopt statements that the change is or is not consistent, reasonable, and in the public's interest. Since amendments to zoning maps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you must explain how your request satisfies each of the following requirements: Fill in below or attach additional pages). 1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development? The requested rezoning will accompany existing adjacent~ o & I property providing for a more efficient utilization of access, utilities and other established infrastructure. By combining with property fronting on Castle Mayne load, a Major north -south transportation artery, the tract enhances the opportunity to support a commercial endeavor without burdens to the surrounding community. 2. Hover would the requested zone change be consistent with the property's classification on the Land Classification Map? The area is defined as transitional. The rezoning of this tract to 0 & I allows additional buffer between retail and residential. The surrounding area is mainly commercial along the frontages with adjoining residential proceeding away from main corridors. The proposed rezoning would mirror adjacent tracts and allow development of a more accessible project. 3. What significant neighborhood changes have occurred to make the original zoning inappropriate, or how is the land involved unsuitable for the uses permitted under the existing zoning? The neighborhood has evolved throughout the recent decade to provide services to residential customers while reducing travel time. The current zoning prohibits the use of the adjacent property as a cornerstone development. The o & i zoning establishes a list of potential uses with sufficient restrictions to provide a balance between heavy commercial and neighborhood residential. The proposed zoning will "align" to mirror existing zoning boundaries. Page 2 o f Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 12 -4 -2 4. How will this change of zon-ing serve the public interest? Public interest will be served by reducing distance traveled to obtain services necessary for adjacent neighborhoods. N arty schools and churches provide clients in need of moods and services necessary for everyday use. Providing an area to fulfill the potential without damage to residential value is critical to insure a harmonious development. In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning reap is presumed to r r t and that I liave the burden of proving why a change is in the public interest. I further understand the singling out of one par eel of land for special zoning treatment unrelated to County policies and the surrounding nei ghborhood could probably be illegal. I certify that this application is complete and that all information presented in this application is accurate to the best of y knowledge, led e, information, and belief. Signature of Petit' ner d r Property Owner Page of 3) Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 12 -4 -3 Ronald Hughes Print Name ZM -05/10 This page intentionally left blank. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 13 DEPARTMENT: Planning PRESENTER(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director; Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager CONTACT(S): Chris O'Keefe, Planning & Inspections Director; Jane Daughtridge, Planning & Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing Rezoning Request Modification (Z -880M, 9/10) — Request by Thomas Nuzio for River Bluffs Development Corporation to Modify the Master Plan for an Existing PD Planned Development by Rezoning 92.9 Acres Located at the West End of Chair Road in the Wetland Resource Protection, Natural Heritage Resource Protection, and Aquifer Resource Protection Land Classifications from R- 20 Residential to PD Planned Development District for a Continuing Care Retirement Community BRIEF SUMMARY: At its September 2, 2010 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the PD rezoning with three conditions. No one from the public spoke on this matter. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: ACTION NEEDED: Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A -341 which requires that "Prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest." EXAMPLE for approval: The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R -15 Residential district to Exceptional Design Zoning District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the New Hanover County Ordinance and the density limitations within areas classified as Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan Land Classification Map. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest to add 92.9 acres to an existing 237 acre Planned Development at the western end of Chair Road when all infrastructure improvements as outlined in the plan and approved with specified conditions are installed. ATTACHMENTS: Z -880M Staff Summary Z -880M Petition Summary Z -880M Adjacent Property Map Z -880M Master Plan Z -880M Application Z -880M Traffic Impact Analysis COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -0 COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: A motion to continue the item until the November 15, 2010 meeting passed 3 -2, Commissioners Greer and Davis opposing. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -0 CASE: Z -880M, 09/10 PETITIONER: Thomas Nuzio for River Bluffs Development Corp. REQUEST: From R -20 Residential to PD Planned Development ACREAGE: Approximately 92.9 Acres added to prior approved 237 acres for a total of 329 LOCATION: West end of Chair Road LAND CLASS: Wetland Resource Protection & Aquifer Resource Protection PLANNING BOARD ACTION: At its September 2, 2010 meeting, the Planning Board voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the PD rezoning with the conditions that 1) The collector street that provides interconnectivity between Chair Road and Rock Hill Road must remain unobstructed by gates and the road would remain open to the public (as assurance was given to participants at the required neighborhood meetings); 2) An updated master plan which includes the missing components; and 3) An approval letter for an amended TIA that meets the modified DOT /MPO scoping requirements for this proposed expansion must be submitted at least one week prior to the County Commissioner's hearing on this matter. No one from the public spoke on this matter. (Since the Planning Board meeting, condition number two has been satisfied.) STAFF SUMMARY This proposal is a modification of a prior approved Planned District. The applicant wishes to amend a few aspects of the original master plan and add about 92 acres to the overall master plan. The subject property is located in the northwest portion of the county in an area classified as Wetland & Aquifer Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Classification map. The property is accessed from Chair Road, a two lane local street which intersects with Castle Hayne Road about one mile to the east. Neither traffic counts nor levels of service are available for Chair Road; however, service along Castle Hayne Road in this vicinity was shown at LOS F in 2007, meaning traffic counts exceed the capacity of the roadway by a multiplier of 2 or more. Traffic counts along Castle Hayne Road increased from 13,927 (2009) to 14,654 (2010). The subject property is located within two watershed drainage areas, Ness Creek and Little Creek, which are both classified C (SW). There is a small portion of AE flood hazard located on the 780 Chair Road parcels. The base flood elevation along the rear portion of the property is 8'. There is also a recorded private utility easement located on parcel R02400- 002- 005 -002 that consumes the entire parcel. A portion of the property to be 9/21/2010 Page 1 of 4 Z -880M Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -1 -1 rezoned is also located in the Special Highway Overlay District (SHOD). Parcels included in the SHOD include 780, 1710, 2211 and 2223 Chair Road, 1333 and 1339 Rock Hill Road. Parcel number R02400- 002- 004 -000 contains Rock Hill Cemetery and is protected conservation area with no mandatory setbacks. Soils are a broad mix of Class I and II classifications with a small area of Class IV Dorovan and Johnston soils. Public water and sewer service is not currently available in the vicinity. Land Use Plan Considerations: This rezoning petition envisions a planned development which will include a continuing care retirement concept as well as limited commercial activities. The site is located at the end of Chair Road and is currently vacant, wooded land with many mature trees, particularly in the western portion of the project. Most of the acreage is on the west side of 1 -140. The original PD zoning was approved in 2008 and included 207 single family units, 47 multi - family units, 300 retirement units and 15.17 acres of commercial use for a country store and an RV /boat storage facility as an amenity for the property owners. The modified Master Plan shows an additional 229 units, consisting of a combination of single family units and multi - family units, totaling 780 units total for the PD community. The additional acreage also provides thirty -five percent or approximately 31.99 acres of supplementary recreational and open space. The Medical /Nursing Facility is proposed to be moved from its original location in Tract C to one of the proposed additional parcels east of the I -140 bridge on 20.28 acres. The master plan shows a multipurpose trail interconnecting the single family and multi- family residential tracts of Tract A and Tract F. Amenity areas are also shown on the revised plan. The infrastructure to support the project is not yet in place. Applicant proposes to connect the development to county water and sewer in the initial phase (estimated to begin 2012). The final plan requires that the formal subdivision process will be followed and the applicant will have to show provision of adequate water and sewer or septic prior to approval of plats. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) indicates trip generation of approximately 5,740 vehicles per day, with p.m. peak hour traffic around 563 vehicles. Recommendations from an amended Traffic Impact Analysis suggested that the development should only be required to construct a new 50 foot minimum width storage and 150' taper, southbound turning lane along Castle Hayne Road. At this time there is not a letter confirming approval of the scope of the amended study and there is no approval letter from MPO and DOT that concurs with the recommendations of the TIA. 9/21/2010 Page 2 of 4 Z -880M Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -1 -2 The location is included in a small area plan produced for the Wrightsboro community in 1991. At that time, traffic, drainage, parks and litter were the predominant community concerns. Improving safety and reducing traffic delays along Castle Hayne Road was an objective in the plan. It also encouraged the county and NCDOT to require more than one access road to new and existing developments. Among other objectives expressing a desire for better drainage maintenance, public sewer, parks and library facilities, a final objective was to maintain the moderate growth rate that Wrightsboro had experienced over the past decades and to continue the established pattern of single family zoning in the area. Scattered ruins on part of the property indicate past uses of the site, but no evidence of significant historic structures exist. This project encompasses two of the four Resource Protection land classification sub- classes. The northwestern portion of the property to be rezoned is designated Aquifer Resource Protection and the southwestern parcels are Wetland Resource Protection. The 2006 Update of the Joint CAMA Plan describes the purpose of the Resource Protection class as to provide for the preservation and protection of important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife and recreational resources. The Resource Protection class has been developed in recognition of the fact that New Hanover County, one of the most urbanized counties in the State, still contains numerous areas of environmental or cultural sensitivity which merit protection from urban land uses. The protection strategies developed for each of the subclasses is intended to be more in tune than previous plans with the specific resource being protected and not a one - size- fits -all approach. The following paragraphs summarize the nature of the resource, the threat to the resource, and the focus of protection strategies. 1 Aquifer Resource Protection — This subclass occurs in the Northwest part of the County North of Smith Creek, and is the area where the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee Aquifers secondary recharge occurs. The impacts that the resource is being protected from is diminished recharge of the aquifer and contamination of the aquifer by inappropriate land uses. 2 Wetland Resource Protection — This Resource Protect subclass is primarily in the northeastern part of the county. The impact from which protection is needed is loss of wetland areas to development. The primary resource protection strategies focus on encouraging preservation of wetlands and wetland functions. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff generally supports the modification for several reasons. First it complies with maximum density limitation of no more than 2.5 units per acre in Resource Protection classification. Second, the required Continuing Care component remains part of the master plan. Finally, the expansion provides an important street connectivity to Rock 9/21/2010 Page 3 of 4 Z -880M Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -1 -3 Hill Road for alternative flow of traffic as well as emergency evacuations of the Chair Road /Rock Hill Road area. At the time of this writing, the Traffic Impact Analysis has been modified but has not been reviewed and approved by MPO and DOT. It is our hope that the letter of approval will be provided prior to the Commissioners' meeting. If that is not the case, Staff would recommend continuing this item until our traffic experts have completed their review and approval. The required expectations for roadway improvements is an important consideration when weighing the reasonableness and public interest aspects of expanding the project. Presuming the letter of approval is provided prior to the commissioner meeting as requested, Staff recommends the following additional conditions of approval: 1. The collector street that provides interconnectivity between Chair Road and Rockhill Road must remain unobstructed by gates and the road would remain open to unencumbered public use. 2. Required improvements outlined in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis must be installed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy within the Planned Development. ACTION NEEDED: Adopt a statement in accordance with NCGS 153A -341 which requires that "Prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the governing board shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest." EXAMPLE for approval: The County Commissioners find that this request for zoning map amendment from R -15 Residential district to Exceptional Design Zoning District as described is: 1. Consistent with the purposes and intent of the New Hanover County Ordinance and the density limitations within areas classified as Resource Protection on the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan Land Classification Map. 2. Reasonable and in the public interest to add 92.9 acres to an existing 237 acre Planned Development at the western end of Chair Road when all infrastructure improvements as outlined in the plan and approved with specified conditions are installed. 9/21/2010 Page 4 of 4 Z -880M Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -1 -4 Case: Z -880M (09/10) Rezone 92.9 acres from R -20 to PD Petition Summary Data Owner /Petitioner Thomas Nuzio for River Bluffs Development Corp. Existing Land Use: R -20 Residential (Vacant) Zoning History: Area Castle Hayne (July 1, 1985) Land Classification: Wetland Resource Protection & Aquifer Resource Protection Water Tyke: Public (not available at this time) Sewer Tyke: Public (not available at this time) Recreation Area: Cape Fear Optimist Park and Castle Hayne Park Access &Traffic Volume: Chair Road (local) to Castle Hayne Road (major arterial) no counts on Chair Road or Rock Hill Road. Rock Hill Road (local) to Castle Hayne Road (major arterials). The ADT on Castle Hayne Road, slightly South of Chair Road and Rock Hill Road at the between Swartville Road and Old Mill Road, have increased from 13,927 (2009) to 14,654 (2010). Fire District: Wrightsboro Fire District (WVFD) Watershed &Water Quality Classification: Ness Creek- C(Sw); Little Creek Watershed - C(SW), and Prince George Creek -C(Sw) Aquifer Recharge Area: Nondescript area - relatively poor aquifer and not a recharge source for principal aquifers Conservation /Historic /Archaeological Resources: There is a small portion of AE flood hazard located on the 780 Chair Road parcels. The Base flood elevation along the rear portion of the property is 8'. There is also a recorded private utility easement located on parcel R02400 -002- 005 -002 that consumes the entire parcel. Soils: Johnston soils; Kenansville fine sand; Dorovan soils; Stallings fine sand; Baymeade fine sand; Onslow loamy fine sand; and Seagate fine sand. Septic Suitability: Kenansville fine sand is suitable to slight limitation. Baymeade fine sand, Seagate fine sand, Stallings fine sand, and Onslow loamy fine sand have moderate limitations and require moderate modification and maintenance. Johnston and Dorovan soils are unsuitable. Schools: Wrightsboro Elementary School Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -2 -1 C U 4- - r N M le Lt's W 1- CO 0 O r N M q* 47 t0 f- CD Q1 O r N M � LO t0 f- CO Q1 O r N M � Ltd t0 1- CO 09 O r N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M C6 C V i 4- � �C O d op Q) N C Q C FL O cnm 00 N )0 N L aaaaaaaa i U L Q� 'lam a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ix it w Ix Oc Oc Ix m C_ R> ; o U U U U U U U a a} U U 00 U 00 U O ' ■ ■ Z_ J J J J J J J U Z .X L I Ep rO J J m W W W W W W W W p p U O 0 t o m � >� H H H H H H H Z O O J a� �� a a a a a a a a a a z J w _0 v' ° Utz- ---- -- Z U J a ~yz Ya00000000 z JJC , U >- U p a w w w w w w w w �] ��_ M a o U a o 0 0 0 0 0 o z J m m w Y a Z Z Z O ° � O Z � o L M M U) Cl) fn U) Cl) 0 lx J 2 U Z J Z iu i i iu iu iii iu iu iii 0 0 0 � Ed CL N O O a) _ cn U) N cn (n N cn z ° H 0 2 2 H� a W a a a T L N Q CD p w J �i] J Oc w H H J p p p p p p p p CD �� }aaaaaaa=>- L U ��� z U mmmv,�nv,v,v,aaaa O ', ° 0 E p 3 0 p p p p p p p � W J N a m m~ o a LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL a W y M a o t� 0 '� a a a a a a a Z � w V a a� Z a J � H Y Y Y Y =_ > > > > >> z z z 0 a) � a ., +,� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H C) J p N 1V m () LL U) J U) J J J J J J J J „aio ,� ~(D - c� LL 0 ���������m o����� ggOoommmm zzz � ` a ZZZZ mmmmmmmm�,�,�, O mm E N - �� O p O J� p Z p J J J U O O W W W W�������� m m m U J a� : o - - -U > > > > > > > > > > > >0000� O 'r O 0 .v O a m m U U U U U U U U U p 0 0 � Y Y Y J��� z������������������ H 0 0 o• -mmEc -2 o • N > E U Q- > w G d p p Q. CD • N C UJQ° • 4 f • a0 • CO) • ■.' . N 0 N + ■ f O Na =Jha3N N3N J ■ �', N Do r ■ N N ■ »»» \ >»�i»> N O �ttil1 \Q • ■ ■ O Q � • N • w • N � O 00 N N ♦ N o N7= 81'lbl N N • : Q M • • M ■ r ■ O� . ■ a ♦ �♦ ; O 1 00 ♦♦ r ■ •♦ J ♦ to ar GO uj Al !i C 7 h ♦ ` �t tix 77 • ■ N 4, ♦ ■ M N N ; Board of Commissi ers Meeting 10 /0 010 ZZc) 0. < < ui U ¢ W LU ui < < < < 0 < Z LU ti < L) W W w :E W z LLJ a LL Cf) D- < < < (D LLI uj Lu < m 2 L L Q� Li < U x W z LU < 0 0 C) Q z LLI C) LL < 0 < a_ C) F - U) 0 W W oc� ii W > m W < < LJJ LLI < D W > U) LW < 0- C7 0 z [if D z z W 0- Ll z 0 0 LLI C) CL D LLJ CL 0 - Z 0 D ct) C/) C-) 2� LL < 0 LL < LL 0 C, m L < z 0 > W 2: W T E 0 l<) < > bEo w � z < W, Oz < w < W 0- 1 W 2 W t < O < m x LU W G Z L-i O> 'n E an� z wo �m- Z< 8 I Z < WO IT LU - wz< w 0 < > 0 2: z W LU >� F- z 0 < y 0 ljl z , w- .6 'If o w Ile < z - 0 <z W , wf W Fj w F) < D z '< U) > �' :z 0 < z F "-> > < 0� o of 0 0 7: I 0 , 0 n o l o Lu Z :5 IL W O W 6 , 1: W < m 3: U)c z z c Z - g I Lj ' < < c ' W W Z, C , L < < N U) w z [if < < 0 C0 0 E >- 6 '>' >w ww 1� w zc F- u Q t- - 0 T fto W �- c [if [if < Z ww 0 .< jz 0 �: ' o ' o 0 0 c U o < < > 3� < a- co W < c 00 w C) < L) 0 0 � F X W W 0� M 2f C) 0� Z > U CZ 0 0. < z DC) Of < < :i g :�i , W Z w � �H 0, 2f 13 C � f)f 0 > w> Z_ OM > 7i Xz '< - m z ' < W D � z t: .>'� 1 1 2 w z L'i < < Cc) Ul) 9 , z < <7 l< I Z w :) Qf Fif < < U) t 0 CC 10 LL LL act CO (9 _j I " = r- im 0 LU -C: am > ES o UJ —J F - D- E -2 A > 75, CO M LLJ cf) Z c: Z: z U) L co cm Z;; cn ZZc) 0. < < ui U ¢ W LU ui < < < < 0 < Z LU ti < L) W W w :E W z LLJ a LL Cf) D- < < < (D LLI uj Lu < m 2 L L Q� Li < U x W z LU < 0 0 C) Q z LLI C) LL < 0 < a_ C) F - U) 0 W W oc� ii W > m W < < LJJ LLI < D W > U) LW < 0- C7 0 z [if D z z W 0- Ll z 0 0 LLI C) CL D LLJ CL 0 - Z 0 D ct) C/) C-) 2� LL < 0 LL < LL 0 C, m L < z 0 > W 2: W T E 0 l<) < > bEo w � z < W, Oz < w < W 0- 1 W 2 W t < O < m x LU W G Z L-i O> 'n E an� z wo �m- Z< 8 I Z < WO IT LU - wz< w 0 < > 0 2: z W LU >� F- z 0 < y 0 ljl z , w- .6 'If o w Ile < z - 0 <z W , wf W Fj w F) < D z '< U) > �' :z 0 < z F "-> > < 0� o of 0 0 7: I 0 , 0 n o l o Lu Z :5 IL W O W 6 , 1: W < m 3: U)c z z c Z - g I Lj ' < < c ' W W Z, C , L < < N U) w z [if < < 0 C0 0 E >- 6 '>' >w ww 1� w zc F- u Q t- - 0 T fto W �- c [if [if < Z ww 0 .< jz 0 �: ' o ' o 0 0 c U o < < > 3� < a- co W < c 00 w C) < L) 0 0 � F X W W 0� M 2f C) 0� Z > U CZ 0 0. < z DC) Of < < :i g :�i , W Z w � �H 0, 2f 13 C � f)f 0 > w> Z_ OM > 7i Xz '< - m z ' < W D � z t: .>'� 1 1 2 w z L'i < < Cc) Ul) 9 , z < <7 l< I Z w :) Qf Fif < < U) t 0 CC 10 xry NEW ������. COUNTY 230 Government Center Drive x Suite I 1 0 _ PLANNING & INSPECTIONS `+ Wilmington, n, IBC 28403 } 4 DEPARTMENT ph-one . - -5� A i..F i '' '' ZON MAP AMENDMEN wwwi Y V 1 V ■AF A PLICATI N .7. ........... . ................:.. Marne Owner Marne Address Thomas Nuzio, Nice President Chair loa Associates, LLc Chair Road (Vest) Company Owner Name 2 Parcel ID River Bluffs Development Corp SEE ATTACHMENT Address Address AcreagelSquare Feet 7036 Wrightsville Ave., Ste. 101 Same 92 .9 City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Existing Zoning and U se Wilmington, NC 28403 Same R- Phone Phone. Proposed Zoning and Use 910 - 256 - 5772 Sate PD Email Sala Land Classification Wetland and Aquifer burro r 7 3 rah . om Same : Resource Protection SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS PLEASE S R ARTIC X1 OF THE ZONING DII I C PRIOR TO SUBMISSION Petitions rust be reviewed by Planning & Zoning for completeness prior t o acceptance. You are encouraged to consult with a Planner prior to submission. F r Petitions involving five 5 acres or less a fee of $400.00 will he charged; for those of more than five 5 acres a fee of $600.00 will be charged. This fee, payable to NewHanover County, MUST accompany this petition. The following supplemental information. is required: l.. One copy of the New Hanover County Tax Map, which delineates the property requested for rezoning. 2. .Legal description (by metes and bounds) of property requested for rezoning. 3. Copy of the subdivision reap o recorded plat which delineates the property, 4. Applicant's answers to the questions o n this application. 5. Authority -for appointment of agent form if applicable) 6 . Verify that no zoning action has taken place on any portion of th property within the past 12 months (consult with staff). 7. Any special requirements of the ordinance (For example, Section 53.5 for Planned Development District, Section 53.6 ,exceptional Design Zoning District or Section 59.9 R i ve r f ront Mixed Use District. 8. .deport on Community information r e Ling (see Section 111 - 2.1 ) i f appli able. REVIEW PROCEDURES Petitions for change of zoning are first referred to the New Hanover County Planning Board and then acted upon by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners. Certain specialized districts River r nt Mixed Use, Planned Development, and Exceptional Design Zoning District ) may require review by the Technical .Review Commute (T RC) prior to application submission. Page I of 3 ZM - 4/1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13-5-1 (2 Complete petitions and supplementary information must be reviewed and accepted by Planning & Zoning tweitty 0 wo ldng days before the PI annin board r ect ing to al I ow adequate time for prroe s i ng and adveill s ement as pie wire by the North Carolina General Statutes. Unless otherwise published or announced, Planning Board Meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month at :3 OPM in the Coin nmlls i one es Assembly Room at the Old ounty Courthouse, at {Third and Princess Streets, Wilmhigto n, North Carolina. If the B1 ann1n Board approves your petition, the request wi lr autornaficalty b referred to the Board of Cou my Commissioners. If your petition is denied, you may appeal to the Board of Commissioners, Planning & Zoning can advise you regard i n appeal procedures. please note there is a 12-month wait requi red be tween subsequent rezoning requests on. the same parcel or any part of it, (reference Section 111-3). The owner/applicant and or authorized agent should plan to attend all. meetings at which this request will be, heard. WHAT YOU MUST ESTA13LIS FOR . CHANGE OF ZONING Your intended use ropera, upon rezoning is completely irrelevant, except for conditional use district proposals. The North Carolina General Statutes requ i re that zoning regu Iations shall be, made ire accord ance with a comprehensi a plan Fite govern in board is req ufised to adopt statem ents that tyre chair ge is or is not consis ten t, reasonable, and ht th Public's interest. Since amendments to zoning naps should also be based on a Land Use Plan, you must explain hoer your request satisfies each of the fol ]owing requirements: ('iii. i n below or attach additional pages). 1. How would the requested change be consistent with the County's Policies for Growth and Development SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A", 2. How would the requested zone change be consistent With the property's classification on the Land CiassYfie tion Map? SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" 3. What significant neighborhood charges have occurred to make the, original zorling inappropriate, or how is the land involved unsu nable for th e lases perm otted under the existing zon in SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "All I. Text Page 2 of 3 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -5 -2 ZMA- 1 4. How will this cha nge of zo ning se rve the pubfir, interest SEE ATTACH9D EXHIBIT "A" In signing this petition, I understand that the existing zoning map is presumed to be core; et and that I have th bu M en of Proving why ch a nge is in the pug blie I further un d ersta nd the singling ou t of on e pa reel of Ian d fo r special zoniiii g trea tni ent ii nr l to to County p oficies and the u rotinding it el �b �rhoo would r b bl a illegal. I ce rtify fli t this application is complete ll Mat ]] 1nforrli l��n ��'e exl a ��i � �xs application �i��� � � e��r �� #�� �� t` i�t r���r, inform and b Signature of Petitioner and r Property Own r C hair R and As sociates, LL Wilmington oldi Corp . , member - Manager R L= 0000 Ali I#L Signature of tio) River Bluffs D evelopment Corporation Thomas Nuzio, Vice President Pri nt Naive Burrows S mith, Vi Preside Print Name Pgeo' ZM-0511 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -5 -3 ATTACHMENT T ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION Lift of Mam Marcel ID s, ..arid_ Deed Books and Parg s OWNER* Chair Road Associates, LLC PETITIONER: River Bluffs Development Corporation AGENTS: Michael S. Cole, Sr. Donna Ray Mitchell ColeJenest & Stone, P.A. DATE: August 6 201 PROPERTY: : Approx. 92.9 acres Chair Road (Vilest) Tax Map Flo. 322666 14.13 Acres 2211 Chair Rd. Parcel I D #R266- 661 -- 027 -660 Deed Book 6062 a Page 1191 recorded August 07, 2606 _ Tax harp I. 322606 7.69 Acres 2233 Chair Ind. Parcel I D#R2666 -6 1 -030 -666 Deed Book 6626 at Page 611 recorded May 26, 2006 Tax Map No. 322666 1.92 Acres 2226 Chair Rd. Parcel I D#R62666 -66 1 - 629 -060 Deed Book 6662 at Page 119 1 recorded August 0 7, 2006 Tax Map No. 321011 6.66 Acres 786 Chair Fed. Patrol ID #I6206- 662 - 606.606 Deed Book 5439 at Page 671 recorded Sept. 2, 2609 Tax Map No. 321011 3.73 Acres 786 Chair Rd. Paul ID #I6246- 062 - 604 -606 Deed Book 5439 at Page 686 recorded Sept. 22, 2609 Tax Map No. 321011 7.31 Acres 736 Chair lid. Parcel ID#R62 0 - 662 -606 -666 Dead Book 6439 at Page 669 recorded Sept. 22, 2669 Tax Map Igo. 321011 7.66 Acres 780 Chair Rd. Parcel ID #R62466y62 -066 -604 Deed Book 5439 at Page 647 recorded Sept. 22, 2609 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -5 -4 Tax Map fro. 321011 7.33 Acres 780 Chair Rd. Parcel ID## 4g - 002- 905 -gg3 Deed Book 5331 at Page 930 recorded June 02, 2006 Tax Map Flo. 321011 6.53 Acres 1323 Flock Dill Fed. Parcel I D# RO2400- 002 -00 --002 Deed Book 5439 at Page 547 recorded Sept. 22, 2039 Tax Map Igo. 321011 2.06 Acres 1339 Rock Hill Rd. Parcel Il ##I 82400- 002 -019 -000 Deed Book 5439 at Page 523 recorded Sept. 22, 2009 Tax Map No. 321011 2.55 Acres 1333 Rock Hill Rd. Parcel ID # 40 - 002. 005 -001 Deed Book 5430 at Fags 529 recorded Sept, 22, 2000 Tax Map No. 321011 2.09 Acres 1710 Chair Rd. Parcel I D##I 02400- 002 -02 -000 Deed Book 5439 at Page 499 recorded Sept. 22, 2009 Tax flap fro. 322005 Portion of 171.21 Acres 1333 Flock Hill Fed. Parcel I g2 00 -001- 005 -000 Deed Book 5439 at Page 529 recorded Sept. 22, 2009 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -5 -5 EXHIBIT "A" T PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (PROPOSED CHANGE FROM R-20 TO PD DINNER. CHAIR ROAD ASSOCIATES, LLC DEVELOPER/ PETITIONER. RIVER BLUFFS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AGENT: Michel S. Cole, Sr. Donna Ray Mitchell Y olJonst & Stone, P.A. DATE: August 5, 2010 PROPERTY: 92.9 a., western end of Chair Road New Hanover County, North Carolina PROJECT NAME: Rose Hill Landing 1. How wo uld the requested charge Ise consistent with the Coun y"s Policies for Growth and eire /o mergt The subject rezoning area is approximately 9 .9 acres and is located at the western end of Chair Road, north of Wilmington, and immediately south of and adjacent to the General Electric plan property, as more particularly described in the survey/legal description and the site plan enclosed with the rezoning application. Rezoning this property to PD presents a unique opportunity for the County to have this entire property, which is undeveloped, planned and developed in a comprehensive manner. B requiring approval of a faster Land Use Plan, the PD District promotes an efficient development pattern that will allow flexibility In building design, layout and sitting, mixtures in housing types and lend uses, usable open space, and the preservation of significant natural features. Allowing the property to be developed under PD zoning, rather than in a piecemeal fashion under the current R -o zoning or a series of smaller rezoning and /or special use permits, will ensure a more comprehensive planning approach — including stormwater management, ent, site and traffic engineering, and the preservation of open space — which could not otherwise be achieved. 3 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -5 -6 The proposed rezoning of this site to PD and the development of the proposed Rose Hill Landin PD Development would he consistent with the County , . }� o��oie f or G and De v e l op m en t, Including the GAMA Lead Use Plan. As one of the few remaining large vacant tracts under unified ownership in the County, with proximity to the Castle Flayne area, the General Electric plant and the nearby 1.140 interchange, the P ID Dl tri ot ordinance provides the best framewor for developing this unique dverfront rn Ixed -use development of farg er tracts of Ian d. The Rose Half LandIng projeot, In particular, envisions development of a high quality combination of vario housing types including a significant retirement component. This project expands t o overall development area to 313,42 acres with e pro [mately 20 acres of the additional land dedicated to e medical /nursing facility. Section E (Mousing) of Part fl of the Wilmington-New Hanover County 2006 CAMA CAM Plan Update s pecifically st ates: "There is need for adequate housing for the special n eeds population, elderly, and disabled in the City and County." (2006 CAMA Plan Update, Pt. Ii, Sec. E, issue 17, p. . With regar d to the special needs and elderly populations in the City and County, this - Section of the 2006 CAMA Plan Update fUrtl er states that the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County "shall.. . cooperefe with non -pmflt organizations to ensure are adequate supply of housing for special needs, the elderly, and the disabled." (Policy 17.2). The Implementation strategies for Policy 1 7.2 provide: Imp Strategics for Policy 17.2 1 7-2. 1 Establish a housing program for the special nad, elderly, And disabled, that is integrated throughout the community. 17.2.2 Conduct a study to develop recommendations for a program To include group luring arrangements and nursing hones for the elderly and ether special needs populations. 17.2.3 Initiate a program to address special housing needs with the private sector, 17.2.4 Modify zoning regulatlons where appropriate to encourage housing populations with special needs such as the elderl and dtsaid# (2006 CAMA Plan Update, Pt, if, Sec. E, Policy 17.2 p, o ) ( added). As state in the PD District ordinance: The PD District is tai li hed to foster the mixing of various land uses, Cinder appropriate planning controls, that would otherwise not be possible under general district r'e u Ire enf , It is designed to promote economical and efficient patterns of lard use which are ensitive to natural features and site amenities and which decrease automobile travel time and trip length; encourage trip consolidation; reduce energy consumption and demands; and encourage unified and compatible development between laird uses for the benefit of all County residents. Board of Commiioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -5 -7 NHC Zoning 0 rdinance ^'53.5 e t seq. A PD rezoning would provide an excellent transition between th 1- zone (General Ele tri plant) and the R zone PID Districts with a signIficant Continuing Care Retirement Center component now assures y text amendment) that roadway /thoroughfare requirement can be safirsfied. The Requirements in the IUD zoning portion of the Ordinance help insure compafibility with adjoin and surround land uses, A fringe use area, two hundred (200) feet in width, is required along the exterior property lines of the PD District where the e xterior property lines of the PD D'strict are adjacent to residential uses and/or platted residential lots, The Zoning Ordinance provides that "[I]f a fringe use area is required, only residential uses o r open space may be permitted within~ that fringe area" and " he m aximum building height within the fringe use area shall b thirty -five ( feet." The requ Ired s etback is calculated by the bulld1ng height m ultipl led b a factor of 2,75, but in no case shall the minimum setback be less than 25 feet. The part of the yard adjacent to the residential districts shall be used only for buffering and as specified in Section 67 of the Ordinance. Y The PID portion of the Zoning O rdinance also controls land use mixtures, and no more than th rt percent 30% of the entire PD district shall he used for light industrial, commercial, and office, are [nstl tuticnal purposes. Density is regulated by the PD portion o f the Zoning Ordinance. Those and other provisions of the PD portion of the Zoning Ordinance will promote a mixed - u se development that will be in harmony with the overall development of the area. The proposed Rose Hill Landing development, with Its continuing care retirement center will be a mu ch-needed addition to the northern part o the County. This proposed project will also increase the County's tax base and provide critical housing and care options for the elderly p puletlo . Th traditional single- and multi - family components of the proposed Rose Hill Landing community will also provide attractive housing options for the additional employees General El ectri c Is hiring in the canning months as well as residents in the growing C Marne area. In addition t o the special needs and elderly population housing policies stated above, the following are some of the policies contained i the New Hanover C ounty L Us Dian that will be promoted by the proposed PD rezoning and the project's master conceptual plan: O ,Polic 2.3 Encourage development patterns that preserve natural areas buffers, and trees by developing standards for cluster development and other deve lopment types that allow greater design e I 1 i ty. Urban De§i Character Design are lafr' : afi �► � Encourage innovative e l p `te t strategies while providing flexible design guidelines that enhance the aesthetics and minimize adverse environmental impacts of the built environment. Board of Commissoners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -5 -8 Facilities and Sgry1ces P olicy 9.3 Explore alternative forms of financing for the Infrastructure improvements needed to have a high quality level of service and to prevent a decline In the levels of service provided to County and City residents. Infrastructure needs to he addressed in this effort shall include transportation, education, surer, grater, recreation, libraries, police, fire, storm grater management, schools and o ther services deemed to he appropriate. Storm Water Pg Uc 1 * r tect water quality by ans ring that d rainage f rom lard use activitles has a rate of flog and volume charaoteriisti s as near to redevelopment conditions as possible. It is also significant to rote that just to the Immediate north of the subject property is the Castle Mayne Study area and the Castle Mayne Community Plan, which stems from a 2005 Community Improvement Meeting held by the New Hanover County Planning Department at the North Camp s of Cape Fear Co m m u nity College. ThIs Castle Mayne Study Area "has been targeted for redevelopment an or improvement". (Castle Hayne Community Plea Q uick Facts, 1124/04 Meeting.) At this Community Improvement fleeting, more than five years ago which was attended by over 160 members of the C OMMUnIty, the ideas that generated the most public support included the following: Bu lid! ngC ruction ,.. Change zon in ordinances to allow for more except a I uses... Business[Commercial Need restaurants /more good businesses. Need a new grocery store. Adopt a mixed use strategy for commercial corridor that combines retail, public service and residential uses. Other Spread rede elo p m e nt concept further south from ta rg ate d area... (Castle Hayne Community Plan Quick Facts, 1/24/04 Meeting) Board of Commisoners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -5 -9 The proposed PD rezoning and the Rose Hill Lands g project will advance many of the goals identified In the New Hanover County Land Use Plan and Community Flan, In addition to the economic benefits the County will derive from this project— including an increased and diversified tax base and job creation — the expanded development and proposed rezoning wrfi complement the surrounding land uses and provide housing for the residents of Castle Hayne and the northern part of the County. The Rose Hill Landing master conceptual plan is clearly consistent with the New Hanover Land Use Plan and policies for well-planned growth. 2. How Aguld tho re uested zone change be consistent with the ro a 's classification on the Land k M a The property's classification on the Land Classification Map is wetland Resource ource Protection and Aquifer Resource Protection. The proposed overall density of this PD development is consistent with the Land Classification Map. The proposed Rose Hill Landing project is sensitive to the - natural surroundings and seeks to preserve a number of significant trees, natural features, and topography of this unique landscape which will further enhance the project, No heavy commercial or industrial uses of the property are proposed. 3. What signiffoan neighborhood changes ave occurred to ma e ors final zoning inapproioriate, or how is the land involved unsulta i for the uses p ermitted under the 6xisting.zoni . Much has changed in the northern part of the County since this essentially vacant property was originally zoned R-20. [host of the surrounding zoning classifications and land uses, particularly to the east and south are residential In natu.re with 1-2 to the north. The expansion of the General ElectrIc plant and the dynamic job and economic growth associated with that expansion, as well as continued growth in the Castle Flayne area, has made a PD development with a mixture of uses and housIng typos on this site not only feasible but preferred over the typical R-20 development pattern. The PD portion of the Zoning ordinance will provide a more appropriate framework for developing this unique +300 acre property than the current R-20 zoning designation. 4. will this change of zoning serve the public interest , This zoning change wlii allow development of this site with single family homes, multi-family Units and a high - quality continuing care retirement canter, med1callnursing facility, which is a major element of the project. With the expected growth In the retirement age pop iatron, these facilities would be an important asset to New Hanover County. There are currently no continuing care retirement centers in this area of the County as envisioned by the applicant. The project will provide a variety of housing, create jobs and increase and diversify the County tax base. The l portlon of the Zoning Ordinance would also provide for development fees to be paid directly to the County for the benefit of both the Board of Education and the County Fire Services Department, which benefits and serves the public interest. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13-5-10 Staten.ert of Planning Obiectives Comprehensive ensive environment lly sensitive/sustainable development approach to 300 acres of unique property. Well-designed pedestrian and vehicular connectivity. HIgh quality, aesthetically pleasing development. Preservation tlon incorporation of natural landscape features into site design. • Variety of housing types with strong sense of place. Architectural standards /controls, Continuing care retirement center com ponent with medicallnursin facilit. 0 Limited compatible, well - integrated commercial uses that complement ent the residential uses. 0 Pedestrian-friendly evelopment with walking paths and shared open space. Multiple amenities: of pool /landscaping /r onumentation. Estimate of Total Residential oo lation: As indicated on the Master Lard Use Plan accompanying t .e rezoning applicatlon the project envIslons 780 single - family, multifamily and retirement units. While the allocation of single- family, multf-farnily and retirement units Vill vary depending upon a ono l /market conditions and consisting of a single resident famii r size, the retirement units will generally consist of one or two residents, w1th many consisting of a single resident. m S tatement Regarding Prior Zon AcUOR No zoning action has taken place on any portion of the property within the preceding past 1 months. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13-5-11 REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE ROSE HILL LANDING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Prepared For: Burrows Smith River Bluffs Development 7036 Wrightsville Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403 Prepared By: Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 5 808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27609 NC Corporate License # C -0910 September 2010 RKA Project #10068 A /? S1 0 +%- .� SEAL T 40 0 89 ZZ o Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... ..............................1 1.1. Site Location and Study Area .................................................. ............................... l 1.2. Proposed Land Use .................................................................. ............................... l 1.3. Existing Land Uses ................................................................... ..............................2 1.4. Existing Roadways .................................................................. ............................... 2 2. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE .................................... ............................... 6 3. EXISTING (2010) PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS ................... ............................... 7 3.1. Existing (2010) Peak Hour Traffic ........................................... ..............................7 3.2. Analysis of Existing (2010) Peak Hour Traffic ........................ ..............................7 4. BACKGROUND (2015) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............... ..............................9 4.1. Existing Traffic Growth ........................................................... ..............................9 4.2. Adjacent Development Traffic ................................................. ..............................9 4.3. Analysis of Background (2015) Peak Hour Traffic Conditions .............................9 5. TRIP GENERATION ............................................................... .............................12 5.1. Site Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................... .............................13 5.2. Comparison of Existing Zoning Trips and Proposed Use Trips ...........................14 6. COMBINED (2015) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ...................... .............................17 6.1. Analysis of Combined (2015) Peak Hour Traffic ................... .............................17 7. CAPACITY ANALYSIS ......................................................... .............................19 7.1. Castle Hayne Road and I -140 westbound Ramps .................. .............................19 7.2. Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Eastbound Ramps .................... .............................20 7.3. Castle Hayne Road and Chair Road ........................................ .............................21 7.4. Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road ................................... .............................22 7.5. Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road ................................... .............................23 7.6. Castle Hayne Road Capacity Analysis .................................. ............................... 24 7.7. Chair Road Capacity Analysis .................. ............................... 7.8. Rockhill Road Capacity Analysis ........................................... .............................24 8 . CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... ............................... 26 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -2 9. RECON MENDATIONS ......................................................... .............................29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Highway Capacity Manual Levels of Service and Delay ........ ............................... G Table 2 Trip Generation Table ............................................................. .............................12 Table 3 Trip Generation Comparison ................................................... .............................14 Table 4 Analysis Summary of Castle Hayne Road and I -140 westbound Ramps ............ 19 Table 5 Analysis Summary of Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Eastbound Ramps .............20 Table 6 Analysis Summary of Castle Hayne Road and Chair Road .... .............................21 Table 7 Analysis Summary of Castle Mayne Road and Rockhill Road ............................22 Table 8 Analysis Summary of Rockhill.. Road and Site Drive ............ ............................... 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Site Location Map ................................................................... ............................... 3 Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan ................................................................ ..............................4 Figure 3 Existing Lane Configurations ................................................... ..............................5 Figure 4 Existing (2010) Peak Hour Traffic .......................................... ............................... 8 Figure 5 Background (2015) Peak Hour Traffic .................................... .............................11 Figure 6 Site Trip Distribution Percentages .......................................... .............................15 Figure 7 Site Trip Assignment .............................................................. ..............................1 6 Figure 8 Combined (2015) Peak Hour Traffic ....................................... .............................18 Figure 9 Recommended Improvements ............................................... ............................... 30 ' 11 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -3 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Appendix A Traffic Count Data Appendix B Adjacent Development Trip Generation and Assignment Appendix C Internal Capture Trip Calculations Appendix D Capacity Calculations — Castle Hayne Road and 1-140 westbound Ramps Appendix E Capacity Calculations — Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Eastbound Ramps Appendix F Capacity Calculations — Castle Hayne Road and Chair Road Appendix G Capacity Calculations ---- Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road Appendix H Capacity Calculations -- Rockhill Road and Site Drive Appendix I NC LOS Roadway Analysis Output Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -4 REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT ROSE HILL LANDING DEVELOPMENT NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1. INTRODUCTION The contents of this report present the findings of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Rose Hill Landing Development in New Hanover County, North Carolina. This TIA provides an update to the TIA report previously completed for a portion of the development (previously known as River Bluffs). The purpose of this study is to determine the potential impact on the surrounding transportation system created by traffic generated by the proposed development as well as recommend improvements to mitigate the impacts. In order to accomplish this objective, this study analyzes existing (2010) traffic conditions, background (2015) traffic conditions without the site and combined (2015) traffic conditions with the site in place during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The scope of work for this TIA report was determined based on coordination with the Wilmington MPO and NCDOT. 1.1. Site Location and Study Area The proposed development is located on the west side of Castle Hayne Road at Chair Road, west of the intersection with Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Refer to Figure 1 for an illustration of the site location map. The following intersections are included in this study: a) Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) and I -140 Westbound Ramps b) Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) and I -140 Eastbound Ramps C) Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) and Chair Road d) Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) and Rockhill Road 1.2. Proposed Land Use The total development property is approximately 313 acres and is proposed to consist of 530 single family homes, a continuing care retirement community of 250 units, a 5,000 s.f. country store, an eight room bed and breakfast, and a 6,000 s.f sit down restaurant. mmissiol 13 -6 -5 Access to the development is proposed via multiple access points to Chair Road as well as a connection to Rockhill Road. Development trips can utilize both Chair Road and Rockhill Road to access Castle Hayne Road. It is expected that the site will be fully built out in 2015. Refer to Figure 2 for an illustration of the development property. 1.3 Existing Land Uses Existing land uses within the study area consist primarily of residential uses and some vacant land. The subject property currently exists as undeveloped land. 1.4. Existing Roadways + Y. Castle Hayne Road (NC 133) is a four -lane, roadway north of Chair Road and a two -lane roadway south of the Chair Road and connects areas to the north of Wilmington to US 74. The posted speed limit along Castle Hayne Road is 45 mph. According to the most recent ADT data provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Castle Hayne Road had a 2007 ADT of 14,000 vehicles per day (vpd) north of I -140. I- 140 is a four -lane highway in the vicinity of the site and serves as a loop around the north side of Wilmington. According to the most recent ADT data, I -140 had a 2007 ADT of 15,000 vpd west of Castle Hayne Road. Chair Road is a two -lane local street that dead -ends west of Castle Hayne Road. No recent ADT data is available from NCDOT. The estimated 2010 ADT on Chair Road is 500 vpd. Rockhill Road is a two -lane street that ends west of Castle Hayne Road. No recent ADT data is available from NCDOT. The estimated 2010 ADT on Rockhill Road is 1,700 vpd. Existing lane configurations (number of traffic lanes on each intersection approach), lane widths, storage capacities, and other intersection and roadway information was collected through field reconnaissance by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. (RKA). Refer to Figure 3 for an illustration of the existing lane configurations within the study area. 2 Board of Commissioners Meetin 13 -6 -6 Stud Intersection Board of Commissioners Meeti 13-6-7 úÍÛÊØ ÍÖ ùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ×ÊÉ ï××ÈÓÎÕ Castle Hayne Road 0 a c� H 300 250 GE w ■ I -140 B Ramps Dr a 300 175' d N I -140 o a • 0 ° I -140 EB Ramps r...: v:::: r: Chair Road q y •� 3x '.�'. �' <.:•� = -, ��: ,.'.F r,-- 100 it �. Site Drive Rockhill Road � 100 �1 LEGEND Unsignalized Intersection Castle Hayne J& - - - - - Road o Signalized Intersection --� Existing Lane (Storage) 5 Board of Commissioners Meetin R A �1r'I E Y K E �I P ASSOCIATES ROSE HALL L14111DING DEYELDP�l�IE11jT NEYY H�I1VD YER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Existing Lane Configurations Scale: Not 13 -6 -9 to Scale Figure 3 13 -6 -9 2. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Study intersections were analyzed using the methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board. Capacity and level of service are the design criteria for this traffic study. Synchro (Version 7) was used to complete the analyses for all unsignalized and signalized study area intersections. Synchro 7 was developed by Trafficware Corporation and allows the user to input data into the Synchro software and calculate the output based on methodologies in the 2000 HCM. The unsignalized capacity analysis does not provide an overall level of service for an intersection; only delay for an approach with a conflicting movement. 1 ✓. The HCM defines capacity as "the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles can reasonably be expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions." Level of service (LOS) is a term used to represent different driving conditions, and is defined as a "qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists and/or passengers." Level of service varies from Level "A" representing free flow, to Level "F" where breakdown conditions are evident. Refer to Table 1 for HCM levels of service and related average control delay per vehicle for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Control delay as defined by the HCM includes "initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay ". An average control delay of 50 seconds at a signalized intersection results in LOS "D" operation at the intersection. TABLE 1 Highwav Capacity Manual - Levels of Service and Delav i r� . � Q UNSIG , ALIZED �INTERSE:CTIU:N . �. y, s. >:'.,. »n.- +......:.....ti........_ -. a,SasY >ea'(.J�'d�?3w a.5:S,. .>,r >r ..., -..., ._.. -.�..- —,.. ....5..�. a... �-. Iv.- Y-.[.....-.. iat»». ..�GX..,..T..:5.5C1.�a....,.... � ✓�... .- 1... —, .., x�... ,..X •..W:t::A. ':» v S ,G i• ' ..i.. i��7 w�:'= ' -. `._:. ...- •H: "..E'.;.::.•.3'.',.« ..,, - N RSE: CTIO - - E' _:J.�. .��.»»xs...�«x..(.k� ,.::x w::.f::� ...,.... �,.,_..- �...<- ........ .,�.. .... r.�. «..... .,.>.•. -.,. ... -...�. + L, s ., 1 � ;� � .,. .c�' :. ' -xrnr' .... .r .. .... r -cc- rn •.xcv �c.. s ° a r •�i J f" - qq ` k r` .F .. RO�4 _ ... . j �s_.. EVEL .O � + �r t........ x.. Z ,AVE�R.AE�CONTROL �. :1. E k xa r� k, s.... x c. LE A� T L �.rx� n. '. r z F _ _ Y �` a F ; .��LE �L ..aa • H Lti E rPER.,, .. .P _rte.:v a..a`M.... - _ ... ...... .. .� .. s f .. LR C -t. _PER �YEHI� .. ... l L 4 :af. ER �E.,. . ..e c:;.• . •DELAY . a: } .... - >rl.. SECONDS .fee., �.� w wi.e �.w �b�..i..t F.. Pn -:r.: aar. ><r" � .«+• � y-^ is r � E. ND ...::..: �:'::.- ....,..... �.'.': P. �i�l•tiMM r a•i++rrrHf. ew i:E .e`c ��»..<- '.'�te�.: A 0 -10 A 0 -10 B 10 -15 B 10-20 C 15 -25 C 20 -35 D 25--35 D 35 -55 E 35 -50 E 55 -80 F X50 F >80 6 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -10 3.. EXISTING (2010) PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 3.1. Existing (2010) Peak Hour Traffic Existing peak hour traffic volumes for the existing study intersections were obtained from traffic counts conducted by RKA during the weekday AM (7:00 — 9:00 AM) and PM (4:30 — 6:30 PM) peak periods on the dates noted. • Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Westbound Ramps July 27, 2010 • Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Eastbound Ramps July 27, 2010 • Castle Hayne Road and Chair Road May 25, 2010 • Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road May 25, 2010 Y, Traffic volumes were balanced between intersections where appropriate. The PM peak hour traffic count at the I -140 Westbound Ramp showed essentially no turning volumes into or from the GE Driveway. Turning volumes to and from the GE Driveway were taken from the previous TIA report prepared for the River Bluffs development. The eastbound right turn volume from the GE Driveway shown in the previous TIA report was balanced down to allow traffic volumes to balance between intersections based on the recent 2010 counts. Refer to Figure. 4 for existing (2010) weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. A copy of the raw traffic count data is located in Appendix A of this report. 3.2. Analysis of Existing (2010) Peak Hour Traffic The existing (2010) weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the current levels of service at the study intersections under existing roadway conditions. Signal timing information was provided by the NCDOT and field observations. The results of the analyses are presented in Section 7 of this report. Refer to Appendices D- G for detailed capacity analysis results at the study intersections. 7 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -11 Unsignalized Intersection Castle H ayne Sig Intersection Road o XlY AM/PM weekday Peak Hour Traffic 8 Board of Commissioners Meeti I -140 I -140 EB Ramps Castle Hayne Road N ON kn 74142 n C3 ``� ` Q1 r---- 29618 .Owj 116173 GE I -140 WB Ramps Driveway f m, 29137 21189 -� 641282 a� M ' Unsignalized Intersection Castle H ayne Sig Intersection Road o XlY AM/PM weekday Peak Hour Traffic 8 Board of Commissioners Meeti I -140 I -140 EB Ramps 13 -6 -12 RAill EY KE M P ASSOCIATES 0 ROSE LULL LANDING DEVEL4P1l�IE11lT NEW HA NO VER CO UNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Existing (2010) Peak Hour Traffic Scale: Not to Scale Figure 4 13 -6 -12 40. BACKGROUND (2015) PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS In order to account for growth of traffic and subsequent traffic conditions at a future year, background traffic projections are needed. Background traffic is the component of traffic due to the growth of the community and surrounding area that is anticipated to occur regardless of whether or not the proposed development is constructed. Background traffic is comprised of existing traffic growth within the study area and additional traffic created as a result of adjacent approved developments. 4.1. Existing Traffic Growth Based on coordination with the Wilmington MPO and NCDOT as well as a review of ADT's r on Castle Hayne Road, a compounded annual growth rate of 3.0% was used to generate projected (2015) traffic volumes. 4.2. Adjacent Development Traffic Based on coordination with the Wilmington MPO, there is one approved development that is anticipated to have an effect on the study area. The Sunset Reach residential development is located on Rockhill Road to the south of the proposed development. Sunset Reach will consist of 53 single family residential units upon full build out. Sunset Reach currently has one unit built. For the purposes of this analysis, trip generation was conducted based on 53 single family residential units and these trips were assigned to the existing study intersections using the same trip distribution as was used for the proposed development (see section 5, below). Refer to Appendix B for the adjacent development trip generation. Refer to Figure B -1 in Appendix B for the adjacent development trip assignment. These adjacent development trips were added to the projected (2015) traffic volumes to determine the background (2015) peak hour traffic. Refer to Figure 5 for an illustration of the background (2015) AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. 4.3. Analysis of Background (2015) Peak Hour Traffic Conditions The analysis of background traffic conditions allows a determination of impacts created by the site by comparing the analysis results of future traffic conditions with the same future traffic conditions including the addition of site traffic. The background (2015) AM and PM 9 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -13 peak hour traffic volumes Were analyzed using the lane configurations and traffic control conditions as shown on Figure 3. The results of the analysis are presented in Section 7 of this report. Refer to Appendices D -H for detailed capacity analysis results. 10 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -14 I -140 LEGEND ' Castle Hayne nsi alined Intersecti Road V11 Signalized Intersection X/Y - w- AM/PM weekday Pear Hour Traffic 11 Board of Commissioners Meeti I -140 EB Ramps Castle Hayne Road M M r- M kn 0 a 86149 v 34319 135189 �E o I -140 wB Ramps Driveway ° 34143 24/103 kn M M 741327 P-* c1q I -140 LEGEND ' Castle Hayne nsi alined Intersecti Road V11 Signalized Intersection X/Y - w- AM/PM weekday Pear Hour Traffic 11 Board of Commissioners Meeti I -140 EB Ramps 13 -6 -15 RAM EY KEM P ASSOCIATES, 0 ROSE HILL LANDING DEVELOPMENT NEW HANG YER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Background (2015) Peak Hour Traffic Scale: Not to Scale Figure 5 13 -6 -15 50, TRIP GENERATION The average weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips for the proposed development were calculated utilizing methodology contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 8h Edition. A detailed breakdown of the trip generation results can be found in Table 2. TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION - V0 AM go gN ------- Single family home trips, were calculated using ITE Trip Generation equations. The CCRC trips were generated using ITE rates since equations did not provide trip calculations for both peak hour periods. Trips for the country store were generated using land use code 820 (Shopping Center) assuming a 5,000 s.f, store. This store will be located within the development and would be expected to serve the development. ITE rates were used to generate trips for the country store since the ITE equations would result in PM trips that are too high for this type of use. The bed and breakfast trips were generated using ITE code 320 for motel land use assuming 8 rooms. 12 Board of Commissioners Meetin � � Yt _ �:::?<.' i •a. ::a;�. - ;;Y+�s}:�•t!;;:'a : • J. �,y _ _ A -fir- � ;?� � 'i:•?: ': + >$:f" /1:: � /F`�k± �" _ F�`�R�'...x�3::r� Y. , °\ - C . \ y, -,cy . A.r \ ..F ;`i• ,`.'A`��'S / � 44 +�]�� " "\ .. 'YF:���'�` - '� -:: ..:: ,•��' -� _ i!{ �+. .. • #;' � � _ . }. R ' / � "l / •,R .,"vim .hi " + � "'i.- :'6 °t `ice? }` .::; , Y , };' ,�5�" r{,, R ✓/✓ •F.r.S•{..' ^�Y] "' --- `'lam:'- ,� \" r F %:i•F. ,.: r:. - \ - "'S i' /.. },n : � • F x ;i:i �. ��� .L ?C ?' ,L " \• ?:•: »'� �" + ", .. " ° .:: •. , 1'k ":,.F ". � .: :� : is , ! ..... {,� -�� ! . .�:.:- .F /� " "r,: F: n� ", -.y:., :: .. .. .,. ", .. +. . 3 , o .F - " " " "" ... a +• � .! ..'1.:..i + . ]Y:" +.Y., +.•.,,•1, " ". F. , "" "a " ", � 'n «..L. .1 F " " "A. "- ' ",,:- "`- ] "`.;.:';: /� , "+. c +� . , ". � •........ :: ?.:.F ✓•} �•. ,+ !!L ,+!.:.::+ \r t• " " " " ",�, ... , .; "_<., ",.: �.. . + +. :.,• •;., a -:,:., ..:.:. ' ,�..,- .`e.:.... : - -: ", -::" , . - .. '". �.. '. , . $ .,�.:� �;;'..;:;; +'. F �'. } ? """_ "�" ""� .. .. kryv' c"""" "" " ." . F �'�., �. a, ». :3k' '•,. «. +... ..... ; : ' ... � .,•:::.::.., "...:•.. � s: +R . � "- < -`.:_ 'c:>] .ax s. tofu. p b"cz�"t:'- ;:.]r -"• � ✓�. > ° + ++ \.,. + ., �. .n .',1 ..." i� "," .. \.. .. 5.." ". " " ",: " ",,,• > " " " ". s. +.. ., r r � v: -'::v, rrY.�Y:: ..L.,. F'• ?•:!.�.;� ) a.r + .+. �..... ..v.. . r... r. r �. c< ... " ", " "" ".,k.. »F f ..,. � " ". - .." ".," " ", ":: " ".... ,.. ." ., Fr:.. -_:: = t \:`.'::::'.`.:!n' t";i1�.' Y? Y. +�•:K4 }YY}Y� ' ✓ rr. S "� " " " "»" ,." .n.. .. .....n . . , .... A. " �. ..!. . " " " " "�.,.. "_,. "... b✓ r.. , +[...: .. "" " "" "" . "" " " ".sE ... n , „ ,... �:" - a+F ".5....... nY...v?N"," "" " "�) " " "., E.. ,,..Y F , .. � ' ' MM: . ," �, ". .h" n... v.h �L " " "r "... ...- ..5 .. .F•.. rR r" � // {S'., ��.'. "" .. .�3,. . C� " "" .. ." .. " " " " " " ". " " "E- :::::: }. •�'Ni } •:..I /rrn \ \•: !.•: F fA. � \. ... " �, . ",c "}.w. .... .. / :.:L.Yx• ?:fir � ;, ��, "] "]: -�... S S 6 :::k�:� � Y.C. kss4•; F ' }+. '.hi•n sky r. .'n:. `- ' " }- >-;r`::i'l :-:" :�::J +.�:... _ +/,•'3 : -ice" :.Yu•: ::•:\ •: },� F FF • t1�• l•.. , �\ ..... rr 'ti4 "� ". .e. ... ." �} ��. �,,� -- - -..." .,. � "b. . + +...1 +.... n. , .,1G: �. -- -•- - -- t. � a " " °. `Che � .. :� ">: ":� . ,Y :.?i • % � \ � a r..i. Fir . $r. . }. F< ' /:°i. 'e•F: /. -: "t F..�m Y °�.fGi'f •t•: '�'.".t ii: -: ":r ..: }. .Y ......., ..: ":: ". .^ " "...1. �" 4$T4�. "•F ?- �F - -},\ '3` - �/✓��: +F .�v.'�. > C " " ":::: ; : " � '�31 ��� F "A3Y ":!:> "::: ".�.:���.'.`EV' `"- ,: ; " ;: y:: tS%''l� •. /' / "�`h n �.W Single Family Residential. ( 210 ) 530 d.u. 4,822 95 286 297 174 Continuing Care Retirement 250 d.u. 703 Communi ( 225 ) 30 15 35 3 8 Country Stare (820 5,000 s.f. 215 3 2 9 10 Bed &Breakfast (320 8 rooms 75 2 4 5 5 Sit -Down Restaurant (932) 6,000 s.f. 763 0 0 39 27 SUB -TOTAL 5 130 307 385 254 - Internal Capture (3% Daily, 3% PM) 197 0 0 12 8 External Trips 6 130 30 13 -6 -16 7 373 246 13 -6 -16 An internal capture rate of 3% was calculated for the daily and PM peak hour trips using ITE methodologies. Refer to Table 2 for the internal capture trips and the net external trip generation. Refer to Appendix C for the internal capture trip calculations. It is estimated that the site will generate a total of 6,381 new external trips during a typical weekday with approximately 437 trips (130 entering and 307 exiting) expected during the AM peak hour and approximately 619 trips (373 entering and 246 exiting) expected during the PM peak hour. 5.1. Site Trip Distribution and Assignment r Trip distribution percentages used in assigning site trips for this development were estimated based on a combination of existing traffic patterns, location of employment centers, and engineering judgment. Trip distribution percentages were reviewed by the Wilmington WO. The site trip distribution is as follows: 10% to /from the north along Castle Hayne Road • 5 % to /from the west along I -140 • 10% to /from the east along I -140 • 75% to /from the south on Castle H ayne Road 56% of trips will travel along Chair Road • 44% of trips will travel along Rockhill Road Refer to Figure 6 for an illustration of the site trip distribution percentages. The total site trips shown in Table 2 were assigned to the study intersections based on the distribution percentages shown on Figure 6 and are illustrated on Figure 7. Trip distribution percentages at the site driveways were determined based on the layout of the site shown in the preliminary site plan. 13 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -17 S.Z. Comparison of Existing Zoning Trips and Proposed Use Trips Current zoning • allows 595 single family dwelling units to be constructed on the parcel of the proposed site. Trips were generated for 595 single family dwelling units and compared to the trip generation of the proposed land uses (from Table 2). As compared to the existing zoning, the proposed land uses result in an increase of 1,017 trips per day, of which 10 additional trips will occur during the AM peak hour and 95 additional trips will occur during the PM peak hour. Refer to Table 3 for a summary of the existing zoning trip generation and, the proposed land use trip generation. TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON ff F t ..rt .; .. };.. a. x . +,. .: •.; ., ..+ . - <4 "... � „ ? "ct „� ....,..,.- .�..: <,; ` � . �. - :... : : :: ..'.>•'; � .a ” "" ..`: � -:,�,: .. " a” N :�: o- +` C .!F .- „,.:. �” .x .. } `. : : :.,., ..; ..: » " " " " "... aX "/r rY'. r'..Y?� . yi... " " " " . ,�•'• " .. �. " "."", . +... ".. 8.-: :. ......... .,LE 1. 'n. \ ........r ......... )... ........ ....... 'cue :. F• :......" .. ��.... n, ,h ..,..n ............ ........ .. 7j r'f... ,,......:.. \"' 4"".. ". ".. "... " " " " " "...... ".. " ". ".," f �: .....;dam} .. ..........., .,.tt•. ......., ..... r" .Fl..n.......,., ".......... � " ".. " "._.. "..... ,.. "......" "..,. "., ?i•' ...... �a"�.P.u..` li.}.':�+..4:+n 7;, /FF. ✓.. n4.S�+�..�NF� %�%R, "�3 "!2 Y,k�,.Y"- ::',f..r � " "." ,.,.n:- " »5 " " ". ,,;; $$��>> F3.. _ - 7� - r : ?.: •: 5.. `i:5,i:s: � :- . S .. i.. " " ". ".... ." pp. �. ...,... :. �.: • : :. ".. " "...... " " ". ".... ... ...... " " " ". " "..... ". ,. " ". " ".... .v.. .. � , ..... ......: .....�: n• .1.•.' } }.. •a. k .Y:6: {� ?• ,r.`FC ?:r" it." .:��:k;: ;+ � \ ... } .}: •.: • :.,• .t} ..fin ...�_. .. .. .- -... �.. ............ . ... �.r�... ?.. ?;j is � ' .F .•.fir..- ,•.v�s'�;:..,., {• .:c...• ...: ;: <,•::•::: + . ,..::... *..�..: F.. . r- ;:;a;:; , .. -` -r 9t...... / �'' - '�.. F�i> :.,':�:::F : ! /.• }.. F:.,.:. • ,. P MHO \ SAY #�: 'sff FSfi F..,�. - � ` "c' <• ----- - - - - -- ------------- f b i. 3 �• : 4'11• �11i:. " FF nit.. • �.0 s;fi%: % > -' "- �:... y� "f. ., �... S {• • F n v, ✓/� .5n;. `}: Y +, .�... rn"• Yom' '•:,�,5'":rr - "� -: �:r� ,.0 �.. } 1 <3'� •4 ' Existing zoning - Single Family Residential y 595 d.u. 5 107 320 330 194 Proposed Land Uses various 6 130 307 373 246 Increase in trips with Proposed Land Uses 1 017 ' 23 -13 43 52 14 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -18 1 10 % 1 Castle Hayne Road a Q 10% GE � _ • ■ o I 140 �B Ramps Driveway a as a kn 5% I -140 10% y '! a a N 5 v /v i I -140 EB Ramps p ter'.. rt::.i o Cha Road yy � 4'y' J•� � [� ''gyp "'` - �• l (40%) o •• Z . _ : .. s.•�krS�f�¢r<'�a`.+lj,�.�,' �1�: a3v�•er'J3� Site Drive a a a 44 % Rzt Ro ckhill Road 9 v �J r Iv l (3 5 %) v a LEGEND 1 75 flo Castle Hayne Unsignalized Intersection ad & - - - - - Ro o X(Y) � Entering (Exiting) Trip Distribution Percentages 15 Board of Commissioners Meeting RAMEY ItEMP �ASSOCIATES Signalized Intersection ROSE HILL LANDING DEVEL4P1l�fE.11rT NEyYH�411�DYER CDUNTY,IITORTH C�4ROLIN�I Site Trip Distribution Percentages 13 -6 -19 Scale: Not to Scale Figure 6 13 -6 -19 Castle Hayne Road M ASSOCIATES 0 C*� NEW HAN4 VER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Site Trip Assignment - 13/37 GE • I -140 WB Ramps Driveway row N � k I -140 LEGEND ' Castle Rayne Unsignalized Intersection Road Signalized Intersection XJY—► AM1PM Weekday Pear Hour Site Trips 16 Board of Commissioners Meeti RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES 0 k J NEW HAN4 VER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Site Trip Assignment - r- N 1 Figure 7 7119 i 0 ° I -140 EB Ramps ' - = 11 k= Chair Road 49139 123/98 kn Site Drive 00 L 57/164 00 M m Rockhill Road r 28/22 107186 M � LEGEND ' Castle Rayne Unsignalized Intersection Road Signalized Intersection XJY—► AM1PM Weekday Pear Hour Site Trips 16 Board of Commissioners Meeti RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES 0 ROSE HILL LANDING DEVELOPMENT NEW HAN4 VER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Site Trip Assignment - Scale: Not to Scale Figure 7 13 -6 -20 60. COMBINED (2015) TRAFFIC CONDTIONS In order to estimate traffic conditions with the site fully developed, the site trips (Figure 7) were added to the background (2015) traffic volumes (Figure 5) to determine combined (2015) traffic conditions. Refer to Figure 8 for an illustration of the combined (2015) peak hour traffic volumes with site. 6.1. Analysis of Combined (2015) Peak Hour Traffic Study intersections were analyzed with the combined (2015) traffic volumes using the same methodology previously discussed for existing and background traffic conditions. The study intersections were analyzed with improvements necessary to achieve a desirable level of operation. The analysis results are presented in Section 7 of this report. Specific improvements at each study intersection are discussed in Section 8. Refer to Appendices D- H for the detailed capacity analysis results at each intersection. 17 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -21 13 -6 -22 76 . CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7.1. Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Westbound Ramps The signalized intersection of Castle Hayne Road and I--140 Westbound Ramps was analyzed under existing, background, and combined conditions utilizing the lane configurations shown in Figure 3. Signal timing information for this intersection was provided by the NCDOT. Field observations indicate that the intersection operates under free -run conditions. Refer to Table 4 for a summary of the analysis results. Refer to Appendix D for computer printouts of the Synchro capacity analysis. reports. TABLE 4 Analysis Summary of Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Westbound Ramps a ++ " "� "�• �" "tea., i....� .nix , ......,•� ."" "" - �..�.. +r . J +." +" " . ", .. JJ + . + , "h. " ". „ " ; F•. ...... "" ..� .»•; .:' ;.t; .. .. .. i< 4. .. .. n�ii "t,." , ?. .., ..., ". r.., ..,. " " " " ". r..... " "." "... ". . "J-.. y ..: "" .J... .., .,. ..." ,... .." ..: y� {.� ^ `: � >::$:;'�;::;o:;:= i, <<::;c:- =:; :i'ss� is �:::r:i� #:i', <:': x.,• .... " "x " "" , ." 2 " . . ,. ,. • ::: +: •.:. _: .:::: " " /•. :S .+ ". -. "." ..� .Ji... ......., ........ h,. " " " " " " " " "+....... ...:`i'Y/ ....5' ...... " "" ",. .... ", " "" "..i .. " ". " "" . "" .... " .. ..... ...... ; ; ;. .. F. ". " "" ". ", ".,v r ?: ;r ", ."""""..,""' ^" ;'/r + "/FiG. • ;h• ; ;; �`i / % "= .:.::;:��::� �`t �n::'�'i l + i.. _ s o. �J //'c• " » ", :SF�4;. "•::�::- �::: -:�: �'�� -: - %,c h ':��•; :�:.,:� .�Y' y, J� r . ">" ." .......... ".. " ". " " " "" + ".. "" + , \ .. , ......v ... .. , �........," " ". "... ".,. ". ".... ". .... ". ........... ........... J , r + : " " " "" ...+. $. 3 y B oa�� ' fi .4- ' + +'s1 ' +'\. •� X .�FF " "...... r.. r.... r. ,�,.'\ ,. 7 YJ+ ✓ r+.. nnrn. ".\ .� }� 11 Y.Z`. r $.. �\ A"F ": .:f •. �� � .w. }. .. JJ +.O" r . i �6 +� ..¢h + , J a �x' i��l• %.r•, `4 i 5 ��:: 'u'J � . + '�C >>- + '. - - :`- '�it. "• nS C. �,�. " " " " ".. ":w - ",�.::: Q w" " "� . + "" T ", " " " " "" ;5� :% ..i ..... ...... n 5.. r r..., o t� " + "" + " "... s,.... ... „ . .. r ,,. " " " " . ........ ....... ... r.... .. . ".. " "" .rn. ........J " ".. "`..,,,.. :,. "- ...... � , ". .. "..." ...+..... f. , n•Y; YY; '; ^C{. . v.... .. " + " " ":.y ., ,.. +. .... ....... " " " " " " " " " ". ". " " "...... .... .. "..... .... .7. � " "_ " ".. ,.. " " " "" ......+ J. .. ,.. L.; .. �.. -rr r.. 4," � " " " +� " " "." .. ,. .. ... r} ".. � " ".." t " "," " .z , ". ,ci�a ..r e \ " " " " " " "" " � .. :.. .n rw .." a"e f ' ?{ � "� " . E x "+ ' �, +?:� Y is i ~'� � -:4 :.t..4� � J.S. ,.:T: -:• ?� r i- ,. -:ll: ,s... •.F /r. .J y, � "+ ..5. ;F . +.+ . n; . r. " "� +« , v f �' f`: - ..�+d � ;F + 1 •rb �y " ". " "" .. / Y< i.''J.:� ` -ifi• \,... "... ".. "...... ". " ". "� Yz, i " +" �$:� e; ?iF i ? ":�; of �: »:✓r. �:: .. ;�:_ �•� \ :�> C ".�a / f�•r_: " " -• " , J -'Jl�. ":'J:: +'o - "-�. J - : C - :" •.• .�. .J " + •r/ J . +.? �,� ���'LCi�:O YL'�J .• �.f4 {{f -;: J " 1 " �: -," y+, fi � +.. . h t ":x-�` . . -. - - ... .,. .. ";� ,v N`�'' t'y �S <>k tiw.� r:i.�+'":a�: JicY "" . " - s �� ,- J3';r ], .� ., { '"`" \, ,.. ." ... ., .. ?' ......., "� " "... � "" "� ".... ".... .. .. < a " . $$J`J •5 n.. >� ' +1:� F "..;;,. , " ._ .:..F...... ". " ". "..." •ms's: $Y '':.L.... r.�:'• rte''. }� ..,. ," " "F ".... " " " " " " ". ,,.. .Ct" .< .....,.... ". ".. " " ". " "........ ". +. � J., k "" ......... " " ". " "." ." .. s.'L .. -✓. R-i•:n:;;yi; :.:f -': ": "' -��-:- iii:= :' -- '-: = +� +:3 : -� - : - `: "•.?`- :- >:- :i= d '- : -:; -<" . ...:.... ]..••,: ;; - -: + icy "c:,:+:- : «i:,,••;•?x• ; ;. ;:, +Y. .:'i . �... :::. ? ! .i F r .,, " {::::'S.':Y- J.l.a,. -J .. �'; � ... �...::::- > ". ".... �.... � ;. :._. >•;".]-::,:.;. +:.. -: ,.?.'Y ; ;. h...... / '+-,Y+• % .. :, "_;:;, 'aJ • �' r� .+Y ?, . •r.•n•n.. x<., h - ••" ,•! t2 ` fir #, •. > i• � "%' h.+. •\ + ��- , �:- ' " " ": ":" �" �'. . " ", Fi/. •t. ;iO: ii ' �' - ?f:; � [� �, -. ..Y+.4 ., ''"�'' �- "- - � �'+ , . �t „ "r" ..� " " " " " " " " "�.. ". "... r i ". " " " + "" "f < .#$. ��/ "!,>'.. rr/ "" " " ": / ..... �, "" ,C F. .,, " "" ." .� " ", ".., ". ". ".Y -.� "" .. J .. -, -: , ...+ � �y��y;,. fi n...... ", . " " " ". " ", " " " " " " "..,. r� rY .F:•. ... rhh�y . .�.. ,�.. "... .. Er -., .; J.•. ;; .{ ; + F . +�� ! �+ " }`-:: ;: + JiY + ?:•: t. " "" ..... ".� ".� " "...... + •Y$ ;+ Y: .,,...:.: s ", . ... . ... ., . r. �" ....... J- i .. " " " "" ;, ; i , .! +..fJ ,. ?+c �, 2= �= : ":�: " :;`.+J , �" ,_, ", " " " " " "� :v�J:�l�•}}. ,•i.???•., -., ,�,,.�a ]::::: ]: �i " +i: " �• iii #r Li .y •. h .. J�� :��u.�i�i/ ; +. /� y •; J ;. \.�. 'IF.F. Sc :Y ;Fx - .Ji . ' ?: ..'.h'..'• . "E .. , +?� "J ,+: c'•2!Ji,,: .g " " "F ".,;..r.::: "..:.a ". ". ,.. ... .:,., - ". -• J ?: ?, SiR,' .>C ; ?f ?7bX \ yi:x -� ..,- ..:.,: < :, ":,:.:r ..•...i. " !'.... �.""". +^S&'h�dfS. ^•. \fib: +iii; :;3:i -'- " //, // . � J.J �- - / / ++i✓;;f + »' = may •.�. +�$' ' "`.` = -S� - i �k �i:- :✓,iFF�CL�tr� EB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT D D EXISTING (2010) WB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT E D B CONDITIONS NB 1 LT 2 TH 1 RT B A SB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT B A EB 1 LT, 1 TK I. RT D E BACKGROUND WB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT E D ( 2015 ) CONDITIONS l NB 1 LT z s 2 TH 1 RT B A SB 1 LT, 2 TH, 1 RT B B EB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT D E COMBINED (2015) WB 1 LT, 1 TH, 1 RT E D CONDITIONS NB 1 LT, 2 TK 1 RT B A SB 1 LT, 2 TK 1 RT B B Capacity analysis indicates that the intersection currently operates at an overall LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour. Minor delays and queues currently occur during the AM peak hour on the westbound off -ramp due to relatively high traffic volumes entering the GE Driveway. It is anticipated that this intersection will operate at LOS C under both background and combined conditions with no improvements needed. 19 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -23 All intersection approaches are expected to operate at the same levels of service under combined conditions as under background conditions. 7.2. Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Eastbound Ramps The signalized intersection of Castle Hayne Road and I -140 Eastbound Ramps was analyzed under existing, background, and combined conditions utilizing the lane configurations shown in Figure 3. Signal timing information for this intersection was provided by the NCDOT. Field observations indicate that the intersection operates under free -run conditions. Refer to Table 5 for a summary of the analysis results. Refer to Appendix E for computer printouts of the Synchro capacity analysis reports. Y" TABLE 5 Analysis Summary of Castle Hayne Road and I--140 Eastbound Ramps YX+ i .. .+,.i . Y n. � " .t t. �t XX +.. +. i r. r}.}i, ..++ { Y,��.� ? . F,} r. \� f CC� •; :�1 .±1. ,.r "FF.. '�•+ ! :rF .,� a ?� ,.• .F y? a $'+� ".cY•. .�.r "c` /� "....... + "., "" " ": " ": "" „ � "f. �.: �: ":" �.," �d.. Fa;l x.. ": "" ..,.......+...+.. ...•;• •: ?' .,. .r. "....+..:...: ..,. "" ... . " ". C: "_ . ",::.::::: •:: " ":" " " ". ," .F .^r -. " ". L� 1. s :::: "_:::..: ;: + -- "+ 333.+• "- lE: ":: "_•.- � ".:..:.:::. t , :l + f +fi n , ' ' :; �1.. _:,:. F� � Al ' ';� � � Y C � .r \.:}]" f f �x :ii +l y�� � 41;•:! , 1.� + }. ...i i±1•n .F+ i .,, . 1 11 N .... .:�..-• ----.., .. ", - -... - -- "FS'" ..� ., " " " ". " ".. "." -'- - -'.. -." " ..." + • i. +r .............. ... -..- --'...........,.. ".. ." .... ,. "..: .... ---� - •7.^.i _ - .r r. :- �ti:��� - -� " ...:.......... LL•: a r + " " ". ".::: ?:.::., +:: " " F _ +, M y � N" {r ." h ✓ " 7 yy �` � ON . 3 L+ ' �' .L !•`c r`i SS .. c . 1 > ..s ra .r. ?'A .kFi., ..1 .f., nw" ::f:.: y�Y . ' r " ",: .sue �.... .�'. a -� S.R. S ER I r:r. f F %, :'.- .. ". � ..frq`.�...d.•?i.. ^ z. +. .,: •.L- : ".. Y. ,;'�]:< a:�L: SFr ,. X+xZ% ".a /iS',i "'- »".✓::w C� " ", ...n•.. +:..]-]:', .: :: "::: %`•:::.;..,.�.:: i:..::" ..� COQ+] W }��;1''.�1U:'.• \ x;- \.'c.- "- �f ii4' :� •; l `L �'�\ " ", ". " ., r. •.. ... , " " " " " "a. "" ", " "... ". "." ] c + " ".. n. "`- ;F:- ' " "::i " ^ - ":i• 4: ��. "w`• . 41 '!� ';• ,. .. ? .1. .],C. Q" .. "" S? ; } , r \.r.. . t'• �•.: 1' .}y.+; {. •.+i f. $�v'} i . +} .•�;' / -: "� 't"£.::,: " "" .., " " "" k -- ... \. `�,,+ •." ,�rY :.�+ 1� rr1 n+ .'S1 •. t . r p� -�.r :iµ\�Yr .�4 r . JF . " " " " "." - ".. -: r. � � Y",1.. - "L ✓ . ... f �r. : �. r,5 IX s .,T "C� -�- r WIG .� ,NT�.1�`IONS fr{�2, }%t i +iC:+i:;;::�ctt:: ]�.: ..: �,•� "' -- �''.= 35�;5� "F..iii::$Y: "<�<,t: . •.r�,��- " .,1.,, +�].5....F:� F . }- :- Z -'- "` , ..... ".,. eC, s:ar: aF':.:5;:�. , ".? 6: r•`•: , i'. »: :i-= i:> ". ,:, S3 . {'„ \. . "G. :,1 .::.:. ::.. ::..:: "_: ". �.r .}.�.. r>� Y . :S - ",ri _ :Y:• s..J. ;..: •.;F .: \': L.�. . A •i •`- •. F` :'•:o: ti: :+..�. i' � F: �� $.: .v K: ��cc .!:'::: -: ^}\ .s�. s r`h s .:;4c } .:;•:..•:�`>:c.:.. :.'n,.x - ' "f:::$::: -: •�,Yr .�.� • , -�t"�� ;ice; �.�:r� , '; i.:4:.:i }5 : S,'- , ti . '� " \i' . o.. 4.rY- 5 11 '�r' i:."Yrit -:+ '"`"'4 .3`S :ice:'' - -- � :�• :• ?111 ".� �" Y i'Y {. n.v • ------------- �j'.•::i:};:i \ }. +Y�n'"- ����- i:- $ "'- :- ��` \ "„ s � ?;�Y .� 3a ` ""�'A • " " " "'- r:,:::: : -,Y ± =- ','� -J'.' '3 f . •; .K•). n l� _ �rY.. .0 s,." i�: �" tsk.y3.3::.; .1.r ;'..:J:.:�i •.rff•'.::F .k' ^: .�t: \' ':.Y ::iE�n. �.4 . :'k!}! }+i.:: ;•. Y:• '.:�{,':c::r..Fx..++ ;- :1:- :.�"`•; }�:: L ,,,!i !i+•; +• \• Y ' ' A " " " - .c am - q p .�� _ , "4� .C"d ? - \`: k "x •J' +:� �r,." i , . Ylx n� ;'..`1•i. ': tsR: �:i ":}fF� >`- `�e�'.':! + .: ei 'a.. Y "1 > } ; {. �ciiJ :'V:•. ^i ;::,. "]:::t= i:':ifi� iii';±.,' "��'�: ": "r =.F� ' Y•] '_ Vii' ` r •`•;;' �' - r . .:a \ ..sl »` k`�ci' +•:�:£4ti:•`. + ;S� l f.":� 3� k.{ `:ii`µ `s:i'•' :.FF.: �A\1'\f' __ : -Y' " "" o-" t r K• ". G. i ? + � /F +1 [. .r , {.r "Z, r C .L' } i . £.k� S \ k + +. � e`. • ;a�... "rte :� "vvA ='�-: �+ r}! . fr.......... �..+. ?,... "Fi ... S " "..x'::.::.r.. «. r :., . �:.r. , ". "" ".. v :•. ^ ... r.. f. r.i. F... .+ . ". " "7 .. ".." ". :. .. , \,� ", "" . " ". �l . ! • �k. • iR. r � F w• „ . ".. .+• +.4 ;+r.; •. • ;+ ;. ; F• . ✓,.; rr :F. !•.... �1 " "` ;; F.•. ..n, S. rY. nfY.i. " : Y+f.. +.iSl..h • YF R% 5.�. r 1• - ' "]iif�. e ..} '�.r'i'�fi. \] L .. ... ��• .E`af .f .r..: :. t+�ccu:. .4 .A ".i•.. +w- : ?.::. ]� -" a.� . x. F . .: f:.: ..�- .::!. Y ",Y "..f -: .?�+�`aCL\- ,:: }�';?,� F . %:�!�:: :.:�i�:+. +•:.✓ �. -`` / •EY. �.. C:.".'tE. .,.�.'_ - , ]+ 6� t::�:L "" ":?E . ].. ";"''''�`i �t �� ca � "� :ia:{• . riEa� wB 1 LT--RT C D EXISTING (2010) NB 2 TH, I RT A A CONDITIONS ,A SB 1 LT, 2 TH A A wB I LT -RT C D BACKGROUND NB 2 TH, 1 RT A B 2015 CONDITIONS } SB 1 LT, 2 TH A A V%TB 1 LT -RT D E COMBINED (2015) NB 2 TH, I RT A A CONDITIONS SB 1 LT, 2 TH A A Capacity analysis indicates that the intersection currently operates at an overall LOS A during both the AM and PM peak hours with all approaches operating at L D or better. It is anticipated that this intersection will continue to operate at LOS B or better under both background and combined conditions with no improvements needed. 20 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -24 7.3. Castle Hayne Road and Chair Road The intersection of Castle Hayne Road and Chair Road was analyzed under existing, background, and combined conditions utilizing the lane configurations shown in Figure 3. Refer to Table 6 for a summary of the analysis results. Refer to Appendix F for computer printouts of the Synchro capacity analysis reports. TABLE 6 Analysis Summary of Castle Hayne Road and Chair Road Capacity analysis indicates that under existing and background conditions, the eastbound approach of Chair Road and the major street left turn movement from Castle Hayne Road are expected to operate at LOS B or better. Under combined conditions with site traffic, the northbound left turn movement is expected to operate at LOS B and the eastbound minor street approach is expected to operate at LOS B during the AM and PM peak hours. Queuing analysis indicates that 95 percentile queues on Chair Road are not expected to be significant. In addition, traffic volumes on this approach are expected to be lower during other periods of the day. 21 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -25 1. Level of service for minor street approach. 2. Level of service for major-street left -turn movement. 7.4. Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road The intersection of Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road was analyzed under existing, background, and combined conditions utilizing the lane configurations shown in Figure 3. Refer to Table 7 for a summary of the analysis results. Refer to Appendix G for computer printouts of the Synchro capacity analysis reports. TABLE 7 Analysis Summary of Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road Capacity analysis indicates that under existing and background conditions, the eastbound approach of Rockhill Road and the major street left turn movement from Castle Hayne Road are expected to operate at LOS C or better. Under combined conditions with site traffic, the northbound left turn movement is expected to operate at LOS B while the eastbound minor street approach is expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. Although the approach is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour, queuing analysis indicates that 95 percentile queues on Rockhill Road are not expected to be significant. In addition, traffic volumes on this approach are expected to be lower during other periods of the day. 22 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -26 *Improvements denoted in B OLD 1. Level of service for minor street approach. 2. Level of service for major-street left -turn movement. Based on turn lane warrants contained in NCDOT's "Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways ", a southbound right turn lane on Castle Hayne Road is warranted under combined conditions. 7.5. Rockhill Road and Site Drive The intersection of Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road was analyzed under background and combined conditions utilizing the lane configurations shown in Figure 3 and Figure 9, respectively. Refer to Table 8 for a summary of the analysis results. Refer to Appendix H for computer printouts of the Synchro capacity analysis reports. TABLE 8 Analysis Summary of Rockhill Road and Site Drive Capacity analysis indicates that under background and combined conditions, the major street left turn movements and the minor street approaches are expected to operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 23 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -27 *Improvements denoted in BOLD 1. Level of service for minor street approach. 2. Level of service for major-street left -turn movement. 7.6. Castle Hayne Road Capacity Analysis According to the most recent NCDOT ADT counts, Castle Hayne Road had a 2007 ADT of approximately 14,000 vpd. Based on recent peak hour traffic counts, the roadway is estimated to carry 14,000 vpd in 2010. Projecting this to the build out year (2015) using a 3% growth rate, the anticipated future year ADT is approximately 1 6,200 vpd. In the heaviest direction, site trips are estimated to contribute approximately 4,300 vpd along Castle Hayne Road which is south of Rockhill Road. The future 2015 ADT on Castle Hayne Road south of Rockhill Road is projected to be approximately 20,500 vpd with full build out of the site. According to NCDOT LOS software for two -lane highways, Castle Hayne Road has a maximum AADT of 28,800 vpd for LOS D. It should be noted that Castle Hayne Road is a multi -lane facility at Chair Road and to the north. The capacity of this multi -lane section is much higher than the two -lane capacity used in the analysis. Refer to Appendix I for NCDOT LOS software output. 7.7. Chair Road Capacity Analysis There are no recent ADT counts on Chair Road; therefore the 2010 ADT was estimated based on peak hour traffic counts. The 2010 ADT on Chair Road is estimated to be approximately 500 vpd. Projecting this to the build out year (2015) using a 3% growth rate, the anticipated future year ADT is approximately 600 vpd. Site trips are estimated to contribute approximately 3,600 vpd along Chair Road near Castle Hayne Road at full build out. The future 2015 ADT on Chair Road is projected to be approximately 4,200 vpd with full build out of the site. According to NCDOT LDS software for two -lane roadways, Chair Road has a maximum AADT of 5,800 vpd to achieve LOS C. Refer to Appendix I for NCDOT LOS software output. 7.8. Rockhill Road Capacity Analysis There are no recent ADT counts on Rockhill Road; therefore the 2010 ADT was estimated based on peak hour traffic counts. The 2010 ADT on Rockhill Road is estimated to be approximately 1,700 vpd. Projecting this to the build out year (2015) using a 3% growth rate, the anticipated future year ADT is approximately 2,000 vpd. Site trips are estimated to contribute approximately 2,100 vpd along Rockhill Road at full build out. The future 2015 24 Board of Commissioners Meeti 13 -6 -28 ADT on Rockhill Road is projected to be approximately 4,100 vpd with full build out of the site. According to NCDOT LOS software for two -lane roadways, Rockhill Road has a maximum AADT of 5,800 vpd to achieve LOS C. Refer to Appendix I for NCDOT LOS software output. 25 Board of Commissioners Me 13 -6 -29 8, CONCLUSIONS This traffic impact analysis was conducted to determine the potential traffic impacts caused by additional traffic generated by the proposed Rose Hill Landing development located west of Castle Hayne Road at Chair Road in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Based on the most recent plan, the site will include 530 single family homes, a continuing care retirement community of 250 units, a 5,000 s.f. country store, an eight room bed and breakfast, and a 6,000 s.f sit down restaurant. Access to the development is proposed via multiple access points to Chair Road as well as a connection to Rockhill Road. Development trips can utilize both Chair Road and Rockhill Road to access Castle Hayne Road. Access to Chair Road will be provided in the initial phase(s) of development, and the connection to Rockhill Road will be made in the future. The findings of a traffic study prepared by RKA for Phase 1 of the development indicates the Chair Road access will be sufficient to accommodate Phase 1 trips without the need for the Rockhill Road connection and without the need for improvements at the Chair Road/Castle Hayne Road intersection. The study intersections were analyzed under existing (2010) conditions, background (2015) conditions without the site, and combined (2015) conditions with the site in place during the' weekday AM and PM peak hours. Based on discussions with the Wilmington MPO, the 53 unit Sunset Reach residential development will contribute traffic to the study intersections under background and combined conditions. Tfi Generation It is estimated that the site will generate a total of 6,381 new external trips during a typical weekday with approximately 437 trips (130 entering and 307 exiting) expected during the AM peak hour and approximately 619 trips (373 entering and 246 exiting) expected during the PM peak hour. 26 LL Board of Commissioners Meetin 13 -6 -30 Castle Havne Road and I -140 Westbound Rambs Analysts indicates that this intersection is expected to operate acceptably under existing, background, and combined conditions with no improvements needed. Castle Ha e Road and I -140 Eastbound Ramps Analysis indicates that this intersection is expected to operate acceptably under existing, background, and combined conditions with no improvements needed. Castle Hay_ne Road and Chair Road Analysis indicates that the minor street approach and major street left turn movement are r expected to operate acceptably under existing, background, and combined conditions without improvements. Providing the second access to Rockhill Road minimizes site trip impacts on the intersections and eliminates the need for improvements. Queuing analysis indicates queues are not expected to be significant. Based on the results of this study, a traffic signal would not be necessary at this intersection to provide an acceptable level of service. In addition, peak hour traffic volume projections suggest it is unlikely the minor street approach left turn volumes would be high enough over a multi -hour period to meet warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. Castle Hayne Road and Rockhill Road Analysis indicates that the minor street approach and major street left turn movement are expected to operate acceptably under existing and background conditions. Under combined conditions, the minor approach of Rockhill Road is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. Queuing analysis indicates queues are not expected to be significant as an unsignalized intersection. Similar to the Chair Road intersection, pear hour traffic volume projections suggest minor street approach left turn volumes would not be high enough to meet warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. According to the NCDOT's "Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways," a southbound right -turn lane on Castle Hayne Road is warranted under combined 27 13 -6 -31 conditions. The intersection is analyzed with a southbound right turn lane on Castle Hayne Road. Rockhill Road and Site Drive Capacity analysis indicates that under background and combined conditions, the major street left turn movements and the minor street approaches are expected to operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. It is recommended to construct the southbound Site Drive with one ingress lane and one egress lane. Castle Hayne Road Capacity Analysis The future 2015 ADT on Castle Hayne Road south of Rockhill Road is J ro'ected to be p approximately 20,500 vpd with full build out of the site. According to NCDOT LOS software, Castle Hayne Road has a maximum AADT of 28,800 vpd for LOS D. It should be noted that Castle Hayne Road is a multi -lane facility at Chair Road and to the north. The capacity of this multi -lane section is much higher than the two -lane capacity used in the analysis. Chair Road Capacity Analysis The future 2015 ADT on Chair Road is projected to be approximately 4,200 vpd with full' build out of the site. According to NCDOT LOS software for two -lane roadways, Chair Road has a maximum AADT of 5,800 vpd to achieve LOS C. Rockhill Road C ap acity,.Analysi s The future 2015 ADT on Rockhill Road is projected to be approximately 4, 100 vpd with full build out of the site. According to NCDOT LOS software for two -lane roadways, Rockhill Road has a maximum AADT of 5,800 vpd to achieve LOS C. 28 Board of Commissioners Meetin 13 -6 -32 91 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of this study, specific geometric improvements have been identified and are recommended as part of the proposed development. Refer to Figure 9 for an illustration of improvements. The specific recommendations include the following: Castle Hahne Road and Rockhill Road ■ Construct a southbound right turn lane on Castle Hayne Road with a minimum of 75 feet of full -width storage and a 150 foot taper. ■ Based on the peak hour traffic volume projections, it is unlikely that the minor street approach left turn volumes would be high enough over a multi -hour period to meet r. warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. Rockhill Road and Site Drive ■ Construct the Site Drive connection with one ingress lane and one egress lane 29 13 -6 -33 13 -6 -34 � Castle Hayne Road ° H � 3 00' GE 1 . I -140 WB Ramps Driveway 300' g —j 175' ° ter N I - 140 0 0 I -140 EB Ramps Chair SITE Road loo, _j � a Site Drive Rockhill Road 100' A4 a H a LEGEND H Unsignalized Intersection Castle Hayne R A M E Y K E M P g Signalized I n t e r s e c t i o n Road _ A S S O C I A T E S � Existing Lane (Storage) ROSE HILL LANDING DEVELOPMENT NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Recommended Lane (Storage) Recommended Lane Configurations 30 Scale: Not to Scale Figure 9 Un 13 -6 -34 TECHNICAL APPENDIX Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -35 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -36 Drinfnel- All Wnhir+let-n Castle Hayne Road ............ --------------- RAM E Y K E M P 1.140 EB Ramp 7 Castle Hayne Road ASSOCIATES 89 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 2 Raleigh, NC 27609 Southbound PH: 919 872 -5115 File Name : CastleHayne @I -140EB FX: 919 878 -5416 Site Code :07271011 Start Date :7/27/2010 Page No : 1 Drinfnel- All Wnhir+let-n 08:00 AM Castle Hayne Road 94 1.140 EB Ramp 7 Castle Hayne Road 5 89 19 2 11 Southbound 255 Westbound 9 Northbound 13 1 29 2 Start Time Left Thru Trks Left Ri ht Trks Thru Right Trks Exclu. Total lnclu. Totali Int. Total 07:00 AM 52 138 5 2 29 0 77 15 5 10 313 323 07:15 AM 10 133 6 6 26 1 76 18 5 12 269 281 07:30 AM 10 169 9 7 27 2 68 19 3 14 300 314 07:45 AM 12 149 13 8 38 5 102 18 4 22 327 349 Total 84 589 33 23 120 8 323 70 17 58 1209 1267 08:00 AM 6 94 4 7 29 5 89 19 2 11 244 255 08:15 AM 9 106 13 1 29 2 76 10 5 20 231 251 08:30 AM 3 109 4 4 18 1 81 16 8 13 231 244 08:45 AM 6 107 9 6 32 1 80 14 2 12 245 257 Total 24 416 30 18 108 9 326 59 17 56 951 1007 *` ** BREAK * * ** 04:30 PM 25 132 3 3 21 2 95 22 5 10 298 308 04:45 PM 68 97 5 7 13 2 84 21 1 8 290 298 Total 93 229 8 10 34 4 179 43 6 18 588 606 05:00 PM 61 117 5 6 16 8 86 13 1 14 299 313 05:15 PM 95 110 5 11 30 1 113 26 3 9 385 394 05:30 PM 73 119 4 5 19 1 120 28 3 8 364 372 05:45 PM 78 112 3 8 28 3 105 27 4 10 358 368 Total 307 458 17 30 93 13 424 94 11 41 1406 1447 06:00 PM 53 100 3 1 16 2 97 21 3 8 288 296 06:15 PM 55 86 1 2 12 0 61 15 2 3 231 234 Grand Total 616 1878 92 84 383 36 1410 302 56 184 4673 4857 Apprch % 24.7 75.3 18 82 82.4 17.6 Total % 93.2 40.2 1.8 8.2 30.2 6.5 3.8 96.2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -37 RAME KEMP ....... --- ---- ... .... ASSOCIATES 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27609 PH: 919 872 -5115 File Name : CastleHayne @I -140EB FX: 919 878 -5416 Site Code :07271011 Start Date :7/27/2010 Page No :2 In Tota I HeaK Hour Analysis From u 1:UU AM to 11:40 AM - reaK I or I Castle Hayne Road Southbound 1 -140 EB Ramp Westbound Castle Hayne Road Northbound Start Time Left Thru App Total Left Ri ht App. Total Thru Ri ht A . Total In Tota I HeaK Hour Analysis From u 1:UU AM to 11:40 AM - reaK I or I Peale Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 52 138 190 2 29 31 77 15 92 313 07:15 AM 10 133 143 6 26 32 76 18 94 269 07:30 AM 10 169 179 7 27 34 68 19 87 300 07 :45 AM 12 149 161 8 38 46 102 18 120 327 Total Volume 84 589 673 23 120 143 323 70 393 1209 % Apo. Total 1 12.5 87.5 1 16.1 83.9 1 82.2 17.8 PH F 1 .404 .871 .886 1 .719 .789 .777 .792 .921 .819 1 .924 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 443 fi73 1116 F -- 5891 8 Thru Left �-F Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 A All Vehicles T F+ Thru Right 3231 70 612 393 1005 Out In Total �o 3 N O �► o .�. rn rA r w 70 N N V - Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -38 R A M E Y K E M P ............. ..... ..... ...... . ... ....... r: 55:3 j ASSOCIATES 5 5 � 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27809 PH: 919 872 --5115 File Name : CastleHayne a@1 -140EB 1 X: 919 878 Site Code : 07 Start Date : 7/27/2010 Page No :3 In Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 FM to U51 b F'M - FJeaK 1 of 1 Castle Hayne Road Southbound 1 -140 EB Ramp Westbound Castle Hayne Road Northbound Start Time Left I Thru I App. Total! Left Right App. Total Thru Right I App. Total In Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 FM to U51 b F'M - FJeaK 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05 :00 PM 05:00 PM 61 117 178 6 16 22 86 13 99 299 05 :15 PM 95 110 205 11 30 41 113 26 139 385 05:30 PM 73 119 192 5 19 24 120 28 148 364 05:45 PM 78 112 190 8 28 36 105 27 132 358 Total Volume 307 458 765 30 93 123 424 94 518 1406 % App. Total 40.1 59.9 24.4 75.6 81.9 18.1 PHF .808 :962 .933 .682 .775 .750 .883 .839 .875 .913 Castle Hayne Road Out I n Total 517 765 1282 4581 307 Thru Left �-/ Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 P All Vehicles T F+ Thru Right 4241 94 488 518 1006 Out In Total Castle Hayne Rand �o C) '* CD v m N W r w ;U CD 0 w v v N o] .p Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -39 AMEY KEMP - --- --- ........ ASSOCIATES 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27599 PH: 919 872 -5115 File Name : CastleHayne a@l -140WB FX: 919 875 -5416 Site Code : 07272010 Start Date : 7/27/2010 Page No : I reTT."M m- enr:str. WAIRL►nOtoM— 08:00 AM Castle Hayne Road 75 6 1 -140 WB Ramp 18 Castle Hayne Road 20 GE Entrance Road 40 71 2 4 2 0 Southbound 0 12 Westbound 320 08:15 AM Northbound 107 4 Eastbound 23 53 16 2 Start Time Left Thru Right Trks Left I Thru Right I Trks Left I Thru I Right I Trks Left I Thru I Right I Trks Exclu. Total Inclu. Total I�>it. Total 07:00 AM 27 190 3 12 24 60 15 1 41 83 3 1 24 15 49 ❑ 14 534 548 07:15 AM 18 121 6 7 28 51 25 2 30 50 2 6 2 3 7 0 15 343 358 07:30 AM 23 139 5 18 41 75 11 3 45 50 2 1 0 1 5 0 22 397 419 07:45 AM 22 119 11 14 23 110 23 2 53 69 1 1 3 2 3 0 17 439 456 Total 90 569 25 51 116 296 74 8 169 252 8 9 29 21 64 0 68 1713 1781 08:00 AM 13 75 6 6 18 59 20 2 40 71 2 4 2 0 2 0 12 308 320 08:15 AM 11 107 4 14 23 53 16 2 29 65 3 4 ❑ 0 0 0 20 311 331 08:30 AM 15 105 2 7 14 34 7 5 27 60 3 6 2 1 4 0 18 274 292 08:45 AM 12 83 1 8 17 22 15 3 26 81 2 2 1 0 1 0 13 261 274 Total 51 370 13 35 72 168 58 12 122 277 10 16 5 1 7 0 63 1154 1217 * * ** BREAK * * ** 04 :30 PM 26 139 ❑ 5 21 0 8 2 3 106 2 3 3 0 0 0 10 308 318 04:45 PM 32 150 0 5 15 0 8 3 2 99 6 4 1 0 0 0 12 313 325 Total 58 289 0 10 36 ❑ 16 5 5 205 8 7 4 0 ❑ ❑ 22 621 643 05:00 PM 22 180 ❑ 3 22 0 9 8 0 106 4 3 0 ❑ 1 0 14 344 358 05:15 PM 33 225 0 4 14 0 13 4 0 156 5 5 0 0 0 0 13 446 459 05:30 PM 28 187 0 2 20 0 6 5 0 150 3 3 0 0 0 0 10 394 404 05:45 PM 32 181 0 0 17 0 14 7 0 124 7 5 0 0 ❑ ❑ 12 375 387 Total 115 773 0 9 73 0 42 24 0 536 19 16 0 0 1 0 49 1559 1608 06:00 PM 29 139 0 1 13 0 6 2 0 103 5 5 0 0 0 0 8 295 303 06:15 PM 17 135 0 2 12 0 8 0 0 66 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 240 242 Grand Total 360 2275 38 108 322 464 204 51 296 1439 52 53 38 22 72 0 212 5582 5794 Apprch % 13.5 85.1 1.4 32.5 46.9 20.6 16.6 80.5 2.9 28.8 16.7 54.5 Total % 6.4 40.8 0.7 5.8 8.3 3.7 5.3 25.8 0.9 0.7 0.4 1.3 3.7 96.3 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -40 R A M E Y K E M ff .... ..... . . ........... . ASS V 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27000 PH: 919 872 - 5115 File Name : CastleHayne a@I -140WB FX: 919 878 -5416 Site Code : 07272010 Start Date : 7/27/2010 Page No :2 Castle Hayne Road Out in Total 355 L 1 1039 Castle Hayne Road 90 1 -140 WB Ramp Left Castle Hayne Road GE Entrance Road Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound _ 3 Start Time i Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 27 190 3 220 24 60 15 99 41 83 3 127 24 15 49 88 534 07:15 AM 18 121 6 145 28 51 25 104 30 50 2 82 2 3 7 12 343 07:30 AM 23 139 5 167 41 75 11 127 45 50 2 97 0 1 5 6 397 07:45 AM 22 119 11 152 23 110 23 156 53 fig 1 123 3 2 3 8 439 Total Volume 90 569 25 684 116 296 74 486 169 252 8 429 29 21 64 114 1713 % App. Total 13.2 83.2 3.7 1 23.9 60.9 15.2 1 39.4 58.7 1.9 25.4 18.4 56.1 PHF .833 .749 .568 .777 1 .707 .673 .740 .779 1 .797 .759 .667 .844 .302 .350 .327 .324 1 .802 Castle Hayne Road Out in Total 355 L 1 1039 251 5691 90 Ri ht Thru Left L' �CD O(D ~ N J 0 J Nom B � c w W 0 �0 Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 A All Vehicles CD 3 O -� CO �► rn a vv cn -- +l T r+ Left Thru Ri ht 1691 2521 8 749 429 '! 178 Out In Total .astla Havnp Rnari Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -41 .... AMEY KEMP A S S 0 C I A T E S 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27609 PH: 919 872 --5115 File Name : CastleHayne a@l -140WB FX: 919 878-541 Site Code :07272010 Start Date : 7/27/2010 Page No :3 I nt. Tota I Peak Hour Analysis I-rom 12:uu F'M to wi b rM - reaK 1 or 1 Castle Hayne Road Southbound 1 -140 WB Ramp Westbound Castle Hayne Road Northbound GE Entrance Road Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right: App Total Left Thru Right App Total I nt. Tota I Peak Hour Analysis I-rom 12:uu F'M to wi b rM - reaK 1 or 1 Out In 578 888 Total F 1466 Left Thru Right 0 773 115 Ri ht Thru Left Out r..a�tlp In Total Havnp Rnarl L+ Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 22 180 0 202 22 0 9 31 0 106 4 110 0 0 1 1 344 05:15 PM 33 225 0 258 14 0 13 27 0 156 5 161 ❑ 0 0 0 446 05:30 PM 28 187 0 215 20 0 6 26 0 950 3 153 0 0 0 0 394 05:45 PM 32 181 0 213 17 0 14 31 0 124 7 131 0 0 0 0 375 Total Volume 115 773 0 888 73 0 42 115 0 536 19 555 0 0 1 1 1559 % App. Total 13 87 0 63.5 0 36.5 0 96.6 3.4 ❑ 0 100 PHF .871 .859 .000 .860 .830 .000 .750 .927 .000 .859 .679 .862 .000 .000 .250 .250 .874 Castle Hayne Road Out In 578 888 Total F 1466 Left Thru Right 0 773 115 Ri ht Thru Left Out r..a�tlp In Total Havnp Rnarl L+ r �G y O ° I-- O J fY n w r ++ 0 Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 P All Vehicles *1 T F Left Thru Right 1 01 5361 19 7" 1402 Out r..a�tlp In Total Havnp Rnarl 0 =r W a ;U m r 3 �W NQ C.0— Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -42 RAMEY KEMP .......... ASSOCIATES .......... .. Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27909 PH: {919 }872 -5115 FX: {919 }878 -5416 r_'rni irn&-- Grintnri- %Inhir% n&-- File Name : CaslteHayne a@Chair Site Code : 05252010 Start Date : 5/25/2010 Page No : 1 08:00 AM Castle Hayne Road 1 Castle Hayne Road 1 Chair Road 6 1 7 1 Southbound 18 Northbound 322 08:15 AM Eastbound 3 16 2 _ Start Time Thru Right Trks Left Thru Trks Left Right Trks Exclu. Tota[ Inclu. Total Int. Total 07 :00 AM 137 0 2 2 92 3 1 1 0 5 233 238 07:15 AM 135 1 8 0 91 1 1 5 0 9 233 242 07:30 AM 180 1 8 2 137 3 1 5 2 13 326 339 07:45 AM 220 1 10 4 148 7 1 2 0 17 376 393 Total 672 3 28 8 468 14 4 13 2 44 1168 1212 08:00 AM 181 1 11 1 113 6 1 7 1 18 304 322 08:15 AM 124 3 16 2 89 7 0 3 0 23 221 244 08:30 AM 113 4 6 2 95 10 0 3 0 16 217 233 08:45 AM 101 1 9 6 80 7 2 8 0 16 198 214 Total 519 9 42 11 377 30 3 21 1 73 940 1013 ** *BREAK * ** 04:00 PM 137 1 3 7 113 6 2 6 0 9 266 275 04:15 PM 131 0 8 3 113 2 0 0 0 10 247 257 04:30 PM 122 1 6 2 113 1 1 3 0 7 242 249 04 :45 PM 117 1 5 5 131 3 1 2 ❑ 8 257 265 Total 507 3 22 17 470 12 4 11 0 34 1012 1046 05:00 PM 127 2 5 5 127 3 0 4 0 8 265 273 05:15 PM 127 2 3 2 152 0 0 4 0 3 287 290 05:30 PM 106 0 4 2 133 6 0 4 0 10 245 255 05:45 PM 109 1 6 6 119 3 0 4 0 9 239 248 Total 469 5 18 15 531 12 0 16 0 30 1036 1066 06:00 PM 79 1 3 9 83 2 0 4 0 5 176 181 06:15 PM 74 3 3 8 104 3 2 3 0 6 194 200 Grand Total 2320 24 116 68 2033 73 13 68 3 192 4526 4718 Apprch % 99 1 3.2 96.8 16 84 Total % 51.3 0.5 1.5 44.9 0.3 1.5 4.1 95.9 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -43 RAMEY KEMP .......... ............. . . .............. ... . .. .... . ASSOCIATES Ramey Kemp &Associates, Inc. 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27909 PH: (919)872 -5115 FX: (919)878 -5416 File Name : CaslteHayne Chair Site Code : 05252010 Start Date : 5/25/2010 Page No :2 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 493 720 1213 41 716 Right Thru 1 Nt a m M ❑ N J W r L U r +-' r Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 A All- Vehicles +� T Left Thru 7 489 735 49fi '1231 Out In Total Castle Ha P_ Read Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -44 Castle Hayne Road Castle Hayne Road Chair Road Southbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Thruj Right I App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right Ap p. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 135 1 136 0 91 91 1 5 6 233 07:30 AM 180 1 181 2 137 139 1 5 6 326 07:45 AM 220 1 221 4 148 152 1 2 3 376 08:00 AM 181 1 182 1 113 114 1 7 8 304 Total Volume 716 4 720 7 489 496 4 19 23 1239 % App. Total 99.4 0.6 1 1.4 98.6 1 17.4 82.6 PHF .814 1.000 .814 1 .438 .826 .8161 1.000 .679 .719 1 .824 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 493 720 1213 41 716 Right Thru 1 Nt a m M ❑ N J W r L U r +-' r Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 A All- Vehicles +� T Left Thru 7 489 735 49fi '1231 Out In Total Castle Ha P_ Read Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -44 RAMEY KE .......... . ................. ............... ,ASSOCIATES Ramey Kemp &Associates, Inc. 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27909 PH: (919)872 -5115 FX: (919)878 -5416 File Name : CaslteHayne a@Chair Site Code : 05252010 Start Date : 5/25/2010 Page No :3 Chair Road Castle Hayne Road Castle Hayne Road Northbound Southbound Start Time Left Thru7 Ri ht Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 06:95 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 127 117 1 05:00 PM 152 127 2 05:15 PM 133 127 2 05:30 PM 543 106 0 Total Volume 97.5 477 5 % App, Total .893 99 1 PHF 1054 .939 .625 File Name : CaslteHayne a@Chair Site Code : 05252010 Start Date : 5/25/2010 Page No :3 Chair Road Castle Hayne Road Northbound . Total Left Thru App. Total 118 5 131 136 129 5 127 132 129 2 152 154 106 2 133 135 482 14 543 557 287 2.5 97.5 4 .934 .700 .893 .904 File Name : CaslteHayne a@Chair Site Code : 05252010 Start Date : 5/25/2010 Page No :3 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 544 482 1026 51 477 Ri ht Thru N cn e— 0 � J '7 r s U Q Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P All-Vehicles 4� T Left Thru Z 14543 1048 Out In Total __Castle Have Road Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -45 Chair Road Eastbound Left Right App. Total I nt. Tota1 1 2 3 257 0 4 4 265 0 4 4 287 0 4 4 245 1 14 15 1054 6.7 93.3 .250 .875 .938 .918 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 544 482 1026 51 477 Ri ht Thru N cn e— 0 � J '7 r s U Q Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 P All-Vehicles 4� T Left Thru Z 14543 1048 Out In Total __Castle Have Road Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -45 RAMEY KEMP ASSOCIATES Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 5808 Faringdon Place, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27909 File Name : CastleHa ne RockHill PH: (919 )872 -5115 y FX: (919 )878 -5416 Site Code : 05251011 Start Date : 5/25/2010 Page No : 1 r-"rr%1 rr Lft DAnfnri_ % /in tur•lne 08:00 AM Castle Hayne Road 189 Castle Hayne Road 11 Rockhiii Road 98 5 7 24 ❑ Southbound 16 Northbound 351 08:15 AM Eastbound 135 6 17 Start Time Thru Trks Left I Thru Trks Left I Right I Trks Exclu. Total I Inclu. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM ... Right 129 2 2 3 92 3 14 20 0 5 256 261 07:15 AM 149 0 7 8 83 1 3 11 0 8 254 262 07:30 AM 165 3 10 8 126 4 13 24 0 14 339 353 07:45 AM 198 8 9 3 136 7 7 23 0 16 375 391 Total 641 13 28 22 437 15 33 78 0 43 1224 1267 08:00 AM 189 7 11 10 98 5 7 24 ❑ 16 335 351 08:15 AM 135 6 17 5 82 6 3 9 0 23 240 263 08:30 AM 121 3 7 8 96 9 3 16 2 18 247 265 08:45 AM 105 1 9 7 86 7 2 9 ❑ 16 210 226 Total 550 17 44 30 362 27 15 58 2 73 1032 1105 ** *BREAK * ** 04:00 PM 135 7 3 13 122 7 2 12 0 1 ❑ 291 301 04:15 PM 125 1 9 13 116 3 2 10 0 12 267 279 04:30 PM 120 7 5 21 116 1 5 8 0 6 277 283 04:45 PM 107 8 4 15 129 2 6 12 1 7 277 284 Total 487 23 21 62 483 13 15 42 1 35 1112 1147 05:40 PM 121 5 5 18 116 3 3 9 0 8 272 280 05:15 PM 125 4 4 25 139 0 4 9 0 4 306 310 05:30 PM 103 3 4 17 124 5 2 8 0 9 257 266 05:45 PM 109 8 5 15 126 2 2 10 ❑ 7 274 277 Total 458 20 18 75 505 10 11 36 ❑ 28 1105 1133 06:00 PM 83 3 3 19 95 3 2 11 ❑ 6 213 219 06:15 PM 85 3 3 16 108 3 7 8 1 7 227 234 Grand Total 2304 79 117 224 1990 71 83 233 4 192 4913 5105 Apprch % 96.7 3.3 10.1 89.9 26.3 73.7 Total % 46.9 1.6 4.6 40.5 1.7 4.7 3.8 95.2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -46 ire R A M E Y K E M P ............ . M 7w ., ASSOCIATES Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27909 File Name : CastleHayne a@RockHill PH: {919 }872 -5115 FX: (919 )878 -5416 S ite Cod : 052510 Start Gate : 5/25/2010 Page No :2 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 473 719 1192 181 701 Rif3ht Thru 1 H o cat M o� �n J Y Lj 1 1041 �. U E Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 A All- Vehicles +I T Left Thru 29 443 783 472 1255 Out In Total Ca�tl� Havnp Rn:;d Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -47 Castle Hayne Road Castle Hayne Road Rockhill Road Southbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Thru L Right I App. Total Left Thru App. Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 0715 AM 149 0 149 8 83 91 3 11 14 254 07:30 AM 165 3 168 8 126 134 13 24 37 339 07:45 AM 198 8 206 3 136 139 7 23 30 375 08:00 AM 189 7 196 10 98 108 7 24 31 335 _ Total Volume 701 18 719 29 443 472 30 82 112 1303 % App. Total 97.5 2.5 6.1 93.9 26.8 73.2 Y PHF .885 .563 .873 .725 .814 .849 .577 .854 .757 __ .869 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 473 719 1192 181 701 Rif3ht Thru 1 H o cat M o� �n J Y Lj 1 1041 �. U E Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 A All- Vehicles +I T Left Thru 29 443 783 472 1255 Out In Total Ca�tl� Havnp Rn:;d Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -47 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 518 497 1015 241 473 Ri ht Thru 1 �LO O r F- o LO c CO C " , + ❑ Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 P All-Vehicles Left Thru 79 500 511 579 199❑ Out In Total Castle HA% P_ Rnad Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -48 .............. RAM KEMP .......... # ?'` . ........... - - - --------------- ... . ... ASSOCIATES Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 5808 Faringdon Place, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27909 File Name : CastleHa ne RockHill y PH: {9'19 }872 -5'115 FX: (919 )878 -5416 S ite C : 052 Stark Date : 5/25/2010 Page No :3 Castle Hayne Road Castle Hayne Road Rockhill Road Southbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Thru Right I App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 06:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 120 7 127 21 116 137 5 8 13 277 04:45 PM 107 8 1 15 15 129 144 6 12 18 277 05:00 PM 121 5 126 18 116 134 3 9 12 272 05:15 PM 125 4 129 25 139 164 4 9 13 306 Total Volume 473 24 497 79 500 579 18 38 56 1132 % App. Total 95.2 4.8 13.6 86.4 32.1 67.9 PHF .946 .750 .963 .790 .899 .883 .750 .792 .778 .925 Castle Hayne Road Out In Total 518 497 1015 241 473 Ri ht Thru 1 �LO O r F- o LO c CO C " , + ❑ Peak Hour Data T North Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 P All-Vehicles Left Thru 79 500 511 579 199❑ Out In Total Castle HA% P_ Rnad Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -48 APPENDIX B ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -49 TRIP GENERATION TABLE - Sunset Reach Residential Development (Adjacent Development) Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -50 GE Drivewa e- E NJ Unsignalized Intersection Castle Hayne Road o Signalized Intersection X/Y --- AM/PM weekday Peak Hour Traffic Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -51 RAMEY KEMP <0 ASSOCIATES ROSE DILL LANDING DEVELOPMENT NEWHANQVER COUNTY , NORTH CAROLINA Adjacent Development Peak Hour Traffic Scale: Not to Scale Figure B -1 APPENDIX C INTERNAL CAPTURE TRIP CALCULATIONS Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -52 w LU L 0 �o W 0 0 a� Q� U� J Q ,n Z w W Z � o il. W �) w 0� D� ati W L M U J M d L w 0 H� [0 � 'd C co a x 0 a a Co E a O an us W OC U m H N r W o m co a co a m o • -0 sz C E S m a d E m 0 m rtii ❑ ❑ 0 tj 0 o v v � . co ❑ Zty a x T w 0 o E C � � d N W 2 )S o � 0 c '0 0 N © ° cn J m Y ti 00 v IL Q W 11 f �n LO [0 � 'd C 0 r o 0 a a LA Co E a O an us CLw OC U m H N r wa o m co a co a m o • -0 sz C N a) m a d E a E m C — Z sr m rtii ❑ ❑ hi 7 C1 0. -� w Zty a x T w 0 o o U E E a] a) •� 5 �,° ?' c M W o 0 oa N © ° cn J m 1* CO i ti 00 v IL Q W 11 f �n LO E M � o U (� o r M a m E (D E ° co 0 m r-. a ° 0 m E 0 cv ❑ -� E2 C E rna m° z 0 CID w H 0 (M Q3 114' w 0 a� rr U m m CO w J m ❑ ❑ m . C co E . U C a cu ° ca E m m C) G a 0 0 ca E v c� o o [J v It 9t co ti a s C7 Q @ v [0 C r N m N 'd Q] (t{ C r o p . V Q an us -:8 - [� OC U m H N r r Q v co a co a N a) Q D cq E 0 m w ❑ ❑ hi -� w J a x T w 0 o o U E E a] W c M W W d E E N © ° J 0 C V to ca crs cv an us (D W IL ❑ cq E 0 w ca Fu ❑ m w O o U N r W W U3 N ❑ d E E -� J m 1* CO i ti 00 N W 11 f �n LO E M � o r M o (D E o w ° m -� E2 C Q � z 0 CID w H 0 (M Q3 {D W w W W a� rr U m m N C'03 w J I - (D w w E 0 a� w a V) Li II L CL w L) (a C L H•+ b L 7 a v Q] C1 U ns E 0 c Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -53 ca 0 a o a x W c� a a a CD C U U 0 Q a a C] D N c N L W W H C6 J 0 CO a V to �„ crs cv an us Z W IL ❑ v o o a 0 w w O o U o o v a W U3 N ❑ M -� J m 1* CO i ti 00 M � LL a_ Q N o J Q � z CID w H 0 (M Q3 {D W w W W ~ U N C'03 w CL z a V) Li II L CL w L) (a C L H•+ b L 7 a v Q] C1 U ns E 0 c Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -53 ca 0 a o a x W c� a a a CD C U U 0 Q a a C] D N c N L W W H C6 J W^ LLI L v 0 LU M Q ro � X r.rl Z w w uj r W v F- 17 I, W i V7 CL M F 0 � as W 0 H(n w �r m C C E E E a o 0 ❑ CD ❑ en 0o CD ❑ N N H Wq Z c a 0 C) f" o a � � o O U o a a a css E Loco o a cj� ~ ❑ E a) CO M 1- cd n o C j E cb , 0 .r c u E J ❑ C W F-- �.. W ❑ 2 C � C 0 . ca 0 � ca It is a) [L CL ❑ CL ❑ m QMMti 00 m ❑ d E 'v 0- � •� CV a s 0 0 CO a 0 Ci C N o o CV Z A a J d V �v L o fl o Ci C} 0 o Cs 0 0 O C3 0 0 a O d C C6 N a N [1Z CV a ¢ C) W co cV w O C C U o C-4 ti0 O Q Z .,-Om a r- E CO a m 0 C M m 0 co c C) © m N co Ca p� ❑ H [V N W^ LLI L v 0 LU M Q ro � X r.rl Z w w uj r W v F- 17 I, W i V7 CL M F 0 � as W 0 H(n w �r m C C E E C co C ❑ CD ❑ en 0o CD ❑ N N H Wq Z W a- ❑ E Loco o a cj� E a) CO M 1- cd n o W j ti a a LO LO a� N N �t a Nt � OD rn � M !.T rn It ° QMMti 00 V) N CV '� a o o a CO a J o c a c[f C C N L to D LA uj C) W co cV w a) 0 U RS r T NT C-4 ti0 O Q Z 10-01 °• a co Ca p� ❑ H [V N yr a f— ca a O O � m 0- N c = x W v. co E CID W a] ❑ ❑ � C w (D = CID U C a) co 0 o C M C E o m m 0 m ti ti o v c co co a c o co Q7 a C'i M tt to d' to a s L6 r u7 r a � s CR N C11 co w C o 0 a �� p E a C*7 a d LO LLf W ih r ❑ x 'm U o 0 QD W E @ a a W cc m W CO C M L [Q E LO LO a o C M 'gr co o O o [Q ca a a a x W a E a a a C L1 O D U o n o 0 N U w D C N L C J fI] W W O o W W F- it CO cc 0) W W E o d . x L W W 0 v-0 CL M U C L C a v Q ti 04 C) 0 04 00 x a C6 CL M U cu E m C Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -54 CO C p Oa a0 en 0o N N H Wq Z W a- ❑ a a o a 0 7 W G Qy U as n o W j D 'D LO LO 0 03 co °d Nt � OD rn � M !.T ° QMMti 00 V) N CV d --:i a J N m E L to D LA uj C) W w a m W a Z H 0 v-0 CL M U C L C a v Q ti 04 C) 0 04 00 x a C6 CL M U cu E m C Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -54 APPENDIX D CAPACITY CALCULATIONS CASTLE HAYNE ROAD AND I 440 WESTBOUND RAMPS Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -55 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 2:1-140 WB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak .-A _0- - N* Ir 4 %% 4\ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR W131L wBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' t r ' t r tt r tt Volume (vph) 29 21 64 116 296 74 169 366 8 90 601 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 0 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 4.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.466 0.605 0.351 0.506 Satd. Flow (perm) 868 1863 1583 1127 1863 1583 654 3539 1583 943 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 71 82 9 25 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 607 537 1114 451 Travel Time (s) 11.8 10.5 16.9 6.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 23 71 129 329 82 188 407 9 100 668 28 Shared Lane Traffic 0 10} Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 23 71 129 329 82 188 407 9 100 668 28 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 12.4 14.0 21.0 14.0 12.4 21.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 31.0 18.0 66.0 16.0 31.0 83.0 18.0 16.0 68.0 68.0 Total Split (%) 29.1% 29.1% 18.8% 10.9% 40.0% 9.7% 18.8% 50.3% 10.9% 9.7% 41.2% 41.2% Maximum Green (s) 41.8 41.8 25.2 12.6 59.8 10.6 25.2 76.8 12.6 10.6 61.8 61.8 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -56 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 2:1-140 WB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.82 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.9 intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:1-140 WB. Ramps & Castle Hayne Road F "%*g o, I - o 2 10o3 I o4 It .5 .. 0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -57 -'0* --op -%* foo 4 --- "%w.- 1\ t /P. \0. -4/ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 16.4 16.4 29.2 36.5 35.7 49.2 119.6 108.2 130.8 116.1 105.9 105.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.72 0.66 0.79 0.70 0.64 0.64 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.12 0.21 0.40 0.82 0.15 0.34 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.29 0.03 Control Delay 79.6 66.6 11.1 56.2 77.4 7.2 8.7 12.2 8.0 7.6 14.6 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 79.6 66.6 11.1 56.2 77.4 7.2 8.7 12.2 8.0 7.6 14.6 5.7 LOS E E B E E A A B A A B A Approach Delay 38.7 61.7 11.0 13.4 Approach LOS D E B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 23 0 118 342 0 65 94 1 28 157 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 53 43 170 428 39 116 145 11 57 245 18 Internal Link Dist (ft) 527 457 1034 371 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 200 Base Capacity(vph) 230 495 485 322 698 559 665 2320 1259 745 2271 1025 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.40 0.47 0.15 0.28 0.18 0.01 0.13 0.29 0.03 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.82 Intersection Signal Delay: 26.9 intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:1-140 WB. Ramps & Castle Hayne Road F "%*g o, I - o 2 10o3 I o4 It .5 .. 0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -57 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 2:1-140 WB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road PM Peak - --bp - S%* Ir +-- 4 %w- 1\ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR _ Lane Configurations I + r t r ' tt r ' tt r Volume (vph) 37 89 282 73 8 42 13 536 19 115 492 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 440 225 0 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.854 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.752 0.381 0.427 0.402 Satd. Flow (perm) 1441 1863 1583 710 1863 1583 795 3539 1583 749 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 253 47 21 6 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 607 537 1114 451 Travel Time (s) 11.8 10.5 16.9 6.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 4.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 4.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 99 313 81 9 47 14 596 21 128 547 6 Shared Lane Traffic °lo} Lane Group Flow (vph) 41 99 313 81 9 47 14 596 21 128 547 6 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two Way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 12.4 14.0 21.0 14.0 12.4 21.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 31.0 18.0 66.0 16.0 31.0 83.0 18.0 16.0 68.0 68.0 Total Split ( %) 29.1% 29.1% 18.8% 10.9% 40.0% 9.7% 18.8% 50.3% 10.9% 9.7% 41.2% 41.2% Maximum Green (s) 41.8 41.8 25.2 12.6 59.8 10.6 25.2 76.8 12.6 10.6 61.8 61.8 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -58 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 2:1-140 WB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 14.3 14.3 27.5 30.5 29.7 43.4 123.4 114.0 130.2 124.4 114.1 114.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.75 0.69 0.79 0.75 0.69 0.69 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.61 0.66 0.39 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.24 0.02 0.21 0.22 0.01 Control Delay 77.0 88.1 20.3 61.1 51.9 10.2 2.3 5.8 0.8 6.1 10.1 5.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 77.0 88.1 20.3 61.1 51.9 10.2 2.3 5.8 0.8 6.1 10.1 5.6 LOS E F C E D B A A A A B A Approach Delay 40.3 43.0 5.6 9.3 Approach LOS D D A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 42 105 57 76 8 0 1 133 1 30 105 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 167 163 121 25 32 3 206 0 61 158 6 Internal Link Dist (ft) 527 457 1034 371 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 200 Base Capacity(vph) 372 495 621 226 698 480 774 2445 1280 657 2447 1097 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.20 0.50 0.36 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.24 0.02 0.19 0.22 0.01 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.9 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:1-140 WB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road F I ` m7 F � ' m2 1 0o3 I m4 It 0,.. 00 1 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -59 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 2:1-140 WB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road AM Peak .'00A -s* fe *44%, .4\ /00 \OP Lane Group EBL EBT EBR wBL wBT wBR NBL NBT NBR _ SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' t r V i t r tt r V i tt Volume (vph) 34 24 74 135 343 86 196 427 11 104 698 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 0 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 '1583 Flt Permitted 0.377 0.622 0.292 0.468 Satd. Flow (perm) 702 1863 1583 1159 1863 1583 544 3539 1583 872 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 82 96 12 25 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 607 537 1114 451 Travel Time (s) 11.8 10.5 16.9 6.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 27 82 150 381 96 218 474 12 116 776 32 Shared Lane Traffic °Ia} Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 27 82 150 381 96 218 474 12 116 776 32 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 12.4 14.0 21.0 14.0 12.4 21.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 49.0 49.0 32.0 16.0 65.0 15.4 32.0 85.0 16.0 15.0 68.0 68.0 Total Split ( %) 29.7% 29.7% 19.4% 9.7% 39.4% 9.1% 19.4% 51.5% 9.7% 9.1% 41.2% 41.2% Maximum Green (s) 42.8 42.8 26.2 10.6 58.8 9.6 26.2 78.8 10.6 9.6 61.8 61.8 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -60 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 2: 1 -14O WB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Intersection Summar Area Type: other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 75 (45 %), Referenced to phase 2: N BTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 6.84 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:1 -140 WB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road -OA - M" mo t' O WE . . $ r� � '" /• /',r/ '/ fF r: � . / rrF � JJJ f /i��Ff • F / /• � !' / ++ f • F .. / Y ,: +/. �1�� F��� -- .� +.rrF FFF Fr r �F� +�� •Ji 11. rrr r i F Fr + /.• isJ .l� Fri+ �z�fi��. ���� I f0 'M` -4/ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 19.4 19.4 33.7 41.1 40.3 54.3 115.6 103.1 127.4 110.4 99.7 99.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.25 0.24 0.33 0.70 0.62 0.77 0.67 0.60 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.12 0.21 0.41 0.84 0.16 0.46 0.21 0.01 0.18 0.36 0.03 Control Delay 83.5 63.3 9.4 52.8 75.0 6.0 12.4 12.7 1.5 9.4 18.5 7.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 83.5 63.3 9.4 52.8 75.0 6.0 12.4 12.7 1.5 9.4 18.5 7.8 LOS F E A D E A B B A A B A Approach Delay 38.5 59.1 12.4 17.0 Approach LOS D E B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 26 0 134 395 0 71 87 0 36 213 3 Queue Length 95th (ft) 80 57 44 187 483 38 88 122 2 72 325 23 Internal Link Dist (ft) 527 457 1034 371 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 200 Base Capacity(vph) 191 506 529 364 686 603 594 2211 1225 657 2139 967 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.05 0.16 0.41 0.56 0.16 0.37 0.21 0.01 0.18 0.36 0.03 Intersection Summar Area Type: other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 75 (45 %), Referenced to phase 2: N BTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 6.84 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:1 -140 WB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -61 !JJ F!rf /J F/F F.// / '. %.« ,,���� r+F�»»/ .x ryry //r ! / + %ff ' F. J. F.i.�. ./ ��l ":J.: ��_«�v! - � � � J�+ ��:� +.� ,/�J ++ f - - / .�.� �.:- / -J:;'i � � � �,+ ••� • +J LW ' .L6 iFF % /� � / � +%� i;: %,✓,[:L:.%v..���� lY � � �J:'. !� �l /!� F. 1:Y F ��•�FF+ / 4 �� .1 �+ •;�� /� /; �� �,r✓ / / /fi:% / / /,f /r�sb,�� .!// f/ fff. G:Y�' /1 +'flffff/. /ll +�: +' %1 +' /f + ,%'•' /1 /✓,r {.r +J J �• i.i /�: J ; /✓�/ - /�, /-_�!� -! � /�f '•i':�� JV J1 SG , l�l ff f / N.�J! - fi.� .� /• . 1 � •J+ /% ir 1 ffi! /i1+� O WE . . $ r� R r1 iF. -��1 ` /,•_,� /r•:Yd / J f..F:sk'-. .f - ,- , -, 1� /!! +JJ +.. .. • �/+ J F��1 � MIN !. �.:�»> r F f: PQ. .% �- �J - /�/ « :.:1� F+F... +F .. .., / r . ��i` /•; Yl�r� f n� � fFr :: /� + '- �.�'i..���. �� /� � /r r r • / /• /',r/ '/ fF r: � . / rrF � JJJ f /i��Ff • F / /• � !' / ++ f • F .. / Y ,: +/. �1�� F��� -- .� +.rrF FFF Fr r �F� +�� •Ji 11. rrr r i F Fr + /.• isJ .l� Fri+ �z�fi��. ���� Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -61 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 2:1-140 WB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak --p. %v 'r -4/ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r '� t r �j tt r �j tt r Volume (vph) 43 103 327 89 9 49 15 623 23 133 573 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 0 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 .1583 Flt Permitted 0.751 0.349 0.379 0.356 Satd. Flow (perm) 1399 1863 1583 650 1863 1583 706 3539 1583 663 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 199 54 26 7 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 607 537 1114 451 Travel Time (s) 11.8 10.5 16.9 6.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 114 363 99 10 54 17 692 26 148 637 7 Shared Lane Traffic ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 114 363 99 10 54 17 692 26 148 637 7 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 12.4 14.0 21.0 14.0 12.4 21.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 48.0 48.0 31.0 18.0 66.0 16.0 31.0 83.0 18.0 16.0 68.0 68.0 Total Split ( %) 29.1% 29.1% 18.8% 10.9% 40.0% 9.7% 18.8% 50.3 % 10.9% 9.7% 41.2% 41.2% Maximum Green (s) 41.8 41.8 25.2 12.6 59.8 10.6 25.2 76.8 12.6 10.6 61.8 61.8 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 Lead /Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/1 6/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page I Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -62 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 2:1-140 W Ramps & Castle Ha yne Road PM Peak Intersection Summa Area Type: other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:1-140 WB Ram Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/1 6/2010 Havne Road Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -63 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 -A --I. -%* 'r kw. 4\ t / \0. *#J Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 15.6 15.6 29.6 33.0 32.2 46.5 121.1 110.9 128.4 121.6 110.8 110.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.73 0.67 0.78 0.74 0.67 0.67 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.65 0.81 0.45 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.29 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.01 Control Delay 76.2 88.1 43.2 60.6 49.3 8.8 2.5 5.3 0.2 7.4 12.1 6.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 76.2 88.1 43.2 60.6 49.3 8.8 2.5 5.3 0.2 7.4 12.1 6.3 LOS E F D E D A A A A A B A Approach Delay 55.9 42.8 5.1 11.1 Approach LOS E D A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 121 182 92 9 0 1 23 0 38 134 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 93 186 296 140 26 32 4 105 0 76 210 7 Internal Link Dist (ft) 527 457 1034 371 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 200 Base Capacity (vph) 371 495 593 234 698 508 709 2379 1257 584 2377 1065 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.23 0.61 0.42 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.25 0.27 0.01 Intersection Summa Area Type: other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 22.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:1-140 WB Ram Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/1 6/2010 Havne Road Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -63 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 2:1-140 WB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak ..e N ' 4 4\ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r t r " tt r tt Volume (vph) 34 24 74 148 343 86 196 458 26 104 711 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 0 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.854 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prat) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.211 0.740 0.287 0.448 Satd. Flow (perm) 393 1863 1583 1378 1863 1583 535 3539 1583 835 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 82 96 29 25 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 607 537 1114 451 Travel Time (s) 11.8 10.5 16.9 6.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 27 82 164 381 96 218 509 29 116 790 32 Shared Lane Traffic Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 27 82 164 381 96 218 509 29 116 790 32 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 12.4 14.0 21.0 14.0 12.4 21.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 47.0 47.0 32.0 18.0 65.0 15.0 32.0 85.0 18.0 15.0 68.0 68.0 Total Split ( %) 28.5% 28.5% 19.4% 10.9% 39.4% 9.1% 19.4% 51.5% 10.9% 9.1% 41.2% 41.2% Maximum Green (s) 40.8 40.8 26.2 12.6 58.8 9.6 26.2 78.8 12.6 9.6 61.8 61.8 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 4.9 Ali -Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 Lead /Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 34.0 4.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -64 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 2:1-140 WB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 20.4 20.4 31.6 41.0 40.2 54.2 115.7 103.2 123.7 110.5 99.9 99.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.25 0.24 0.33 0.70 0.63 0.75 0.67 0.61 0.61 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.12 0.22 0.42 0.84 0.16 0.46 0.23 0.02 0.19 0.37 0.03 Control Delay 144.0 60.5 6.9 54.9 75.4 6.0 12.6 12.6 1.2 9.5 18.6 7.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 144.0 60.5 6.9 54.9 75.4 6.0 12.6 12.6 1.2 9.5 18.6 7.8 LOS F E A D E A B B A A B A Approach Delay 52.2 59.8 12.2 17.1 Approach LOS D E B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 27 0 149 397 0 66 96 0 36 216 3 Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 54 34 203 483 38 92 139 7 72 332 23 Internal Link Dist (ft) 527 457 1034 371 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 200 Base Capacity (vph) 102 483 510 389 686 601 590 2214 1196 635 2142 968 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.06 0.16 0.42 0.56 0.16 0.37 0.23 0.02 0.18 0.37 0.03 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 77 (47 %), Referenced to phase 2: N BTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.84 Intersection Signal Delay: 28.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 2:1 -140 W13 Ramps & Castle Hare Road Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synch ro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -65 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 2:1-140 WB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r '� t r �j tt r V i tt Volume (vph) 43 103 327 126 9 49 15 648 35 133 610 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 0 200 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.751 0.479 0.345 0.358 Satd. Flow (perm) 1399 1863 1583 892 1863 1583 643 3539 1583 667 3539 1583 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 168 54 39 6 Link Speed (mph) 35 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 607 537 1114 451 Travel Time (s) 11.8 10.5 16.9 6.8 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 114 363 140 10 54 17 720 39 148 678 7 Shared Lane Traffic Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 114 363 140 10 54 17 720 39 148 678 7 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Turn Type Perm pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt pm +ov pm +pt Perm Protected Phases 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Detector Phase 4 4 5 3 8 1 5 2 3 1 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 12.4 14.0 21.0 14.0 12.4 21.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 34.0 34.0 48.0 22.0 56.0 21.0 48.0 88.0 22.0 21.0 61.0 61.0 Total Split ( %) 20.6% 20.6% 29.1% 13.3% 33.9% 12.7% 29.1% 53.3% 13.3% 12.7% 37.0% 37.0% Maximum Green (s) 27.8 27.8 42.2 16.6 49.8 15.6 42.2 81.8 16.6 15.6 54.8 54.8 Yellow Time (s) 4.1 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.8 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.2 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 Lead /Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 911612010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -66 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 2:1-140 WB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Recall Mode None None None None None None None C -Min None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 15.5 15.5 29.9 31.9 31.1 45.4 124.5 112.0 125.0 118.6 107.7 107.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.75 0.68 0.76 0.72 0.65 0.65 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.65 0.85 0.59 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.30 0.03 0.27 0.29 0.01 Control Delay 76.4 88.5 45.5 72.8 50.4 9.0 5.5 9.0 0.5 7.4 14.2 9.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 76.4 88.5 45.5 72.8 50.4 9.0 5.5 9.0 0.5 7.4 14.2 9.0 LOS E F D E D A A A A A B A Approach Delay 57.7 54.8 8.5 13.0 Approach LOS E D A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 121 188 136 9 0 3 98 0 35 149 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 93 186 247 191 26 32 m12 127 5 74 261 9 Internal Link Dist (ft) 527 457 1034 371 Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 175 250 300 400 225 200 Base Capacity(vph) 253 336 684 306 585 544 793 2403 1269 619 2310 1035 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.34 0.53 0.46 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.30 0.03 0.24 0.29 0.01 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 88 (53 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBTL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85 Intersection Signal Delay: 25.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. - ... . ..... 0% . -A ■ AN h a ea-, r% A Imo► 61 t 1 1"% 1 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -67 APPENDIX E CAPACITY CALCULATIONS CASTLE HAYNE ROAD AND I -140 EASTBOUND RAMPS Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -68 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations y tt r '� tt Volume (vph) 23 120 423 70 84 697 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length. (ft) 0 0 175 400 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.887 0.850 Flt Protected 0.992 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1639 0 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.992 0.466 Satd. Flow (perm) 1639 0 3539 1583 868 3539 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 133 78 Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 552 920 1114 Travel Time (s) 10.8 13.9 16.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 26 133 470 78 93 774 Shared Lane Traffic ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 159 0 470 78 93 774 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Turn Type pm +ov pm +pt Protected Phases 8 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 8 2 8 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 21.0 14.0 14.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 55.0 0.0 83.0 55.0 27.0 110.0 Total Split ( %) 33.3% 0.0% 50.3% 33.3% 16.4% 66.7% Maximum Green (s) 49.7 77.1 49.7 21.6 104.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.3 1.0 2.3 2.4 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.3 2.0 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.9 Lead /Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchs 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -69 Rose Hill Landing /i `!! ! FF.�r��• +� Fl ++ !f/ // i' / / / r�� F f.�'. • � rr /�'' ':.� -` %�" F ��.::• • / �/ J,.+ + . F. J. + %%/ F + /J,. ..�J� y'✓r /f �'� •::J � r!. fJ. /..:l: i. /��.. r.� ��..F .�':+ rr�:.r.! /�� � -: /r: /� // J � /�FF•.�: %J %f /J %JJ��ff... �: % /. %� "�.J /��J.'J �� ++ +. ��iil� /J! /� /!!f!f / %// r +.; Fy �� l5• .. �/• ..:.'�J ":::'J:S'::' ::' '.Y/ J 99l/'- "c'�' /- '�S_.`- F.'Ff� / '`�' _.� �/+ y ..,.,.• »J . �..% l /.'':c!Y %':I rS. �� F5� •.'/ //. � � f i� %�% � F . �J' r + � ' /� :� :::. �F .,. /� /. .J -" -: ��:::. �.�: �.. �i �F.� �� � :'JJ F �.��� Fr. F•: / � � /.. F.l / �/ . / / � %'�� � . // . �� +! •F % .��. /:'./ F+ ;i :J� J / � � r / �' �- . �'J �� � . fir... l:'/: -:�' /'/ / r f �- �. � ,( �' ff`% / /� J /.�.:1 -- f off./ �i +// // / / % /���f�fff��� / / Frl/. �sl��/%/iu./f���.���/�.�//i +/r / /•r / / /ri: % %ii i / //1�il, � //n.r..���!/i %i:' %��•.F rrn /. /� �.J... r /..� �>�J� r� `J Ji + � • FF +rJ f i +��.F!� F . • •�/ . F� • +J� �J .J! /:� +� r`�:• fi +� +!� �/ ...fh..' ���✓!�� �� ffi � �J � ��� n� ��� r/r Existing (2010) 3:1-140 EB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Recall Mode None C -Min None None Min Act Effct Green (s) 12,1 133.1 149.1 146.2 145.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.81 0.90 9.89 0.88 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.16 0.05 0.11 0.25 Control Delay 29.4 3.9 0.2 1.4 1.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.4 3.9 0.2 1.4 1.5 LOS C A A A A Approach Delay 29.4 3.4 1.5 Approach LOS C A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 47 0 6 34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 104 82 4 18 66 Internal Link Dist (ft) 472 840 1 034 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 400 Base Capacity (vph) 605 2856 1583 898 3125 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.16 0.05 0.10 0.25 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65 Intersection Signal Delay: 5.0 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 0 .,nlitq .qnd PhasPS- 3. 1 -141 EB Ramns & Castle Havne Read ''�f '" .::0' r: .Fr ' fi /•�� //� FF`'r,•! .iF/ % /;� i"r% f /// i �� ♦. `•�. ir% ��a /: J� � /: �! J /may / +!�::::F r/ J r. /rr. r/�r.. � 'r.f `i / Y S! Y +C i'!• �. r..�:: � %': r � � J J• /Fig F r �� '� J � /i `!! ! FF.�r��• +� Fl ++ !f/ // i' / / / r�� F f.�'. • � rr /�'' ':.� -` %�" F ��.::• • / �/ J,.+ + . F. J. + %%/ F + /J,. ..�J� y'✓r /f �'� •::J � r!. fJ. /..:l: i. /��.. r.� ��..F .�':+ rr�:.r.! /�� � -: /r: /� // J � /�FF•.�: %J %f /J %JJ��ff... �: % /. %� "�.J /��J.'J �� ++ +. ��iil� /J! /� /!!f!f / %// r +.; Fy �� l5• .. �/• ..:.'�J ":::'J:S'::' ::' '.Y/ J 99l/'- "c'�' /- '�S_.`- F.'Ff� / '`�' _.� �/+ y ..,.,.• »J . �..% l /.'':c!Y %':I rS. �� F5� •.'/ //. � � f i� %�% � F . �J' r + � ' /� :� :::. �F .,. /� /. .J -" -: ��:::. �.�: �.. �i �F.� �� � :'JJ F �.��� Fr. F•: / � � /.. F.l / �/ . / / � %'�� � . // . �� +! •F % .��. /:'./ F+ ;i :J� J / � � r / �' �- . �'J �� � . fir... l:'/: -:�' /'/ / r f �- �. � ,( �' ff`% / /� J /.�.:1 -- f off./ �i +// // / / % /���f�fff��� / / Frl/. �sl��/%/iu./f���.���/�.�//i +/r / /•r / / /ri: % %ii i / //1�il, � //n.r..���!/i %i:' %��•.F rrn /. /� �.J... r /..� �>�J� r� `J Ji + � • FF +rJ f i +��.F!� F . • •�/ . F� • +J� �J .J! /:� +� r`�:• fi +� +!� �/ ...fh..' ���✓!�� �� ffi � �J � ��� n� ��� r/r Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. Synchro 7 - Report 9116/2010 Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -70 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2 010) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations y tt r tt Volume (vph) 30 93 462 94 307 540 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 175 400 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.898 0.850 Flt Protected 0.988 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1653 0 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.988 0.433 Satd. Flow (perm) 1653 0 3539 1583 807 3539 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 99 104 Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 552 920 1114 Travel Time (s) 10.8 13.9 16.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 103 513 104 341 600 Shared Lane Traffic ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 136 0 513 104 341 600 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Turn Type pm +ov pm +pt Protected Phases 8 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 8 2 8 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 21.0 14.0 14.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 55.0 0.0 83.0 55.0 27.0 110.0 Total Split ( %) 33.3% 0.0% 50.3% 33.3% 16.4% 66.7% Maximum Green (s) 49.7 77.1 49.7 21.6 104.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.3 1.0 2.3 2.4 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.3 2.0 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.9 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Time To R educe (s) 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 911612010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -71 Rose Hill Landing .�x /M F�'F�F �. 3% r"i ���' >, i'• �• 'YJ F? /i; >Y?]''. '•'.)YJ•'.Y i'$� F� • r ; GS YN ` "ii i O Ste'! . ;,•.1/ n /�/ :.G%i'wi;,,: ra■ 4■ r rr rrr.(�r i[M:•F^'l!/ F •: J l•• /' /- "_- ..:..:.:: Fr+ J + ��r F irJ J11.:1'�: A'l! "• %���1!!! F!!J! F F •: Frr M' / yJ. ... " " "." ..... " ....... .. / • . .q.+ / .. r. / . ... r rr. 3"J: "^'9Y'i .. ' - -. -:: + . +. .�/ +.r • ". .. �'� �! F J . ^. !. l . .!!.. + ... +. + .; ;; . ;; r ; +. /' 3 rJ FF J l.. � � -�" .. " " " "�. /... .:r.:. ;; • .. + ..l.. " "� nSt:r.CaY.l6:.4.1c..3�rGitJ n / F.+..+.. r.. i.. �....... /� /�fi- /.- �,...sT�.J //. .. � �iJ� .r�i.�,.., n., �LF���..F.�r...�`!�....�aJSi:.. ..![ -.to ...r�.'F Existing (2010) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Recall Mode None C -Min None None Min Act Effct Green (s) 12.5 117.7 134.1 145.8 145.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.71 0.81 0.88 0.88 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.20 0.08 0.40 0.19 Control Delay 35.7 9.6 1.0 3.8 1.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.7 9.6 1.0 3.8 1.4 LOS D A A A A Approach Delay 35.7 8.1 2.3 Approach LOS D A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 87 0 29 27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 164 16 57 48 Internal Link Dist (ft) 472 840 1034 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 400 Base Capacity (vph) 586 2525 1564 874 3117 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.20 0.07 0.39 0.19 Intersection Summa Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2: N BT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated- Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.63 Intersection Signal Delay: 7.1 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Sniits and Phases: 3: 1 -140 EB Ramns & Castle Havne Road r q .�x /M F�'F�F �. 3% r"i ���' >, i'• �• 'YJ F? /i; >Y?]''. '•'.)YJ•'.Y i'$� F� • r ; GS YN ` "ii i O Ste'! . ;,•.1/ n /�/ :.G%i'wi;,,: ra■ 4■ r rr rrr.(�r i[M:•F^'l!/ F •: J l•• /' /- "_- ..:..:.:: Fr+ J + ��r F irJ J11.:1'�: A'l! "• %���1!!! F!!J! F F •: Frr M' / yJ. ... " " "." ..... " ....... .. / • . .q.+ / .. r. / . ... r rr. 3"J: "^'9Y'i .. ' - -. -:: + . +. .�/ +.r • ". .. �'� �! F J . ^. !. l . .!!.. + ... +. + .; ;; . ;; r ; +. /' 3 rJ FF J l.. � � -�" .. " " " "�. /... .:r.:. ;; • .. + ..l.. " "� nSt:r.CaY.l6:.4.1c..3�rGitJ n / F.+..+.. r.. i.. �....... /� /�fi- /.- �,...sT�.J //. .. � �iJ� .r�i.�,.., n., �LF���..F.�r...�`!�....�aJSi:.. ..![ -.to ...r�.'F :I•vrr lF.x «!. ": "�[[�: ?k ";x53c ,?c"f tn _ � "• %•�" << " ". " " "' ":r Jac. ,.._[" " "3t,"r.. F" +. rf 1. 5 .. _![: "[: ":::'''':ice" >: "[[: " "�:......:::::: -" .... "" �71.�..fl �c.��.T. f.:.. Y-......... G.. G.-....-...... � .s- .....✓J,.�.....•aw .'- w.lH�CddA" �: Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9116/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -72 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations y tt r �j tt Volume (vph) 28 139 495 85 97 810 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 175 400 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.888 0.850 Flt Protected 0.992 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1641 0 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.992 0.439 Satd. Flow (perm) 1641 0 3539 1583 818 3539 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 154 94 Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 552 920 1114 Travel Time (s) 10.8 13.9 16.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 31 154 550 94 108 900 Shared Lane Traffic ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 185 0 550 94 108 900 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Turn Type pm +ov pm +pt Protected Phases 8 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 8 2 8 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 21.0 14.0 14.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 53.0 0.0 88.0 53.0 24.0 112.0 Total Split ( %) 32.1% 0.0% 53.3% 32.1% 14.5% 67.9% Maximum Green (s) 47.7 82.1 47.7 18.6 106.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.3 1.0 2.3 2.4 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.3 2.0 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.9 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Time To Redu (s) 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 Ramey }hemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -73 Rose Hill Landing e; rr r f /• .• , / . ........ rrr ; err rr �f�rr/r / >> /'' � JJJ "'F" °'i' / «, /•',' /// ff // +J/ fir rY,• '% +. / -' %! •.! % J Ji+ /F /': J� � f /�F�% F�� J Fr Fes- F F� /F�J /�/ •.+� J ' /� !k _/ F! '• F•,F F<�1 „�� / ! /l /,' / / / �•� /J ! � �� //J/ �� Vii. '� />✓J�lf /� !Y / /.f //. f F•!JJ• +J JJ r •!• /' �!J/+J Fnn Jr• / /! f :'!/ NO/, '!'i �`l�y� �� .. r . r, 1 !� /1l � ��� �' •! M vJM// " -'Jl .l !! �/ • l' r , -- r r ✓ �`/ rr r J �iiJ ✓f ✓' ���� � � / � - -' FF J -- /r!/ J�! �:•f /r., .,, //+ ��// /��//�Jri� r� /�/.�/�ffff/ . /���� / / / / /� /�...�J, , rr // o�%/ / /��� / /.r. /.i Background (2015) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Recall Mode None C -Min None None Min Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 132.8 149.3 145.7 145.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.80 0.90 0.88 0.88 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.19 0.07 0.14 0.29 Control Delay 29.5 4.2 0.2 0.8 0.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.5 4.2 0.2 0.8 0.7 LOS C A A A A Approach Delay 29.5 3.6 0.7 Approach LOS C A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 57 0 2 9 Queue Length 95th (ft) 115 98 4 10 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 472 840 1034 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 400 Base Capacity (vph) 602 2848 1441 899 3114 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.19 0.07 0.12 0.29 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 140 (85 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69 Intersection Signal Delay: 4.6 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 I;nfitq and PhasPS- 3. 1 -140 EB Ramns & Castle Havne Road 4 q e; rr r f /• .• , / . ........ rrr ; err rr �f�rr/r / >> /'' � JJJ "'F" °'i' / «, /•',' /// ff // +J/ fir rY,• '% +. / -' %! •.! % J Ji+ /F /': J� � f /�F�% F�� J Fr Fes- F F� /F�J /�/ •.+� J ' /� !k _/ F! '• F•,F F<�1 „�� / ! /l /,' / / / �•� /J ! � �� //J/ �� Vii. '� />✓J�lf /� !Y / /.f //. f F•!JJ• +J JJ r •!• /' �!J/+J Fnn Jr• / /! f :'!/ NO/, '!'i �`l�y� �� .. r . r, 1 !� /1l � ��� �' •! M vJM// " -'Jl .l !! �/ • l' r , -- r r ✓ �`/ rr r J �iiJ ✓f ✓' ���� � � / � - -' FF J -- /r!/ J�! �:•f /r., .,, //+ ��// /��//�Jri� r� /�/.�/�ffff/ . /���� / / / / /� /�...�J, , rr // o�%/ / /��� / /.r. /.i J". l ! % -- -, 1 - , �--f,�/ /�J� + +1.• Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synch ro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -74 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations y tt r �j tt Volume (vph) 37 108 539 111 356 633 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 175 400 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.899 0.850 Flt Protected 0.987 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1653 0 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.987 0.381 Satd. Flow (perm) 1653 0 3539 1583 710 3539 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 93 123 Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 552 920 1114 Travel Time (s) 10.8 13.9 16.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 120 599 123 396 703 Shared Lane Traffic ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 161 0 599 123 396 703 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Turn Type pm +ov pm +pt Protected Phases 8 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 8 2 8 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 21.0 14.0 14.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 55.0 0.0 83.0 55.0 27.0 110.0 Total Split ( %) 33.3% 0.0% 50.3% 33.3% 16.4% 66.7% Maximum Green (s) 49.7 77.1 49.7 21.6 104.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.3 1.0 2.3 2.4 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.3 2.0 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.9 Lead /Lag Lag Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -75 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 3:1-140 EB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Intersection Summar Area Type: other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68 Intersection Signal Delay: 9.7 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -76 Splits and Phases: 3:1-140 EB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road Ir 4 %... t /Pp \01. Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Recall Mode None C -Min None None Min Act Effct Green (s) 15.1 107.7 126.7 143.2 142.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.65 0.77 0.87 0.86 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.26 0.10 0.48 0.23 Control Delay 45.0 14.0 1.2 6.0 1.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 45.0 14.0 1.2 6.0 1.7 LOS D B A A A Approach Delay 45.0 11.8 3.2 Approach LOS D B A Queue Length 50th (ft) 71 137 0 40 36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 149 223 20 88 61 Internal Link Dist (ft) 472 840 1034 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 400 Base Capacity (vph) 582 2310 1527 825 3061 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.26 0.08 0.48 0.23 Intersection Summar Area Type: other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 0 (0 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68 Intersection Signal Delay: 9.7 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -76 Splits and Phases: 3:1-140 EB Ramps & Castle Hayne Road Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations y tt r I tt Volume (vph) 35 139 541 116 97 836 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 175 400 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.892 0.850 Flt Protected 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1645 0 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.990 0.413 Satd. Flow (perm) 1645 0 3539 1583 769 3539 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 124 129 Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 552 920 1114 Travel Time (s) 10.8 13.9 16.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 154 601 129 108 929 Shared Lane Traffic ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 193 0 601 129 108 929 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Turn Type pm +ov pm +pt Protected Phases 8 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 8 2 8 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 21.0 14.0 14.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 54.0 0.0 87.0 54.0 24.0 111.0 Total Split ( %) 32.7% 0.0% 52.7% 32.7% 14.5% 67.3% Maximum Green (s) 48.7 81.1 48.7 18.6 105.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.3 1.0 2.3 2.4 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.3 2.0 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.9 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro l - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -77 Rose Hill Landing +.+�!•1l �' r !r,y' 1 � ! .r.». :" / " -:! 1!i, ii,,: irr� . , f,. k� ;J% .0 .:, ✓/_`.'ii.`iiiiiiii,-..�,,,,,,, f .. rlcv fi •�;'..... lL�.rlr, rrlrr' .0 :: "F= .`.r - "� ■ ri ■ �JJ f� F �./ %•i %! .! ." �ll " ". ".: ":. "_ ": ": " ": ":>;'- - :�.:' , ::.'!�r<<`f `r.: +"Ji J/ ;;:Gf`,;rf4 �%: ff.Giii/ ••:: lJ,iJ ',! /,•,:f/ l/ .�L%i:l �'• ' "�+%/ i' l /.[..................'J /�.... -: -- - fF` r , /„•• +'''! /. �lii�'f��l.E r� ■ Combined (2015) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak k1w t Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Recall Mode None C -Min None None Min Act Effct Green (s) 15.5 129.9 149.3 142.8 142.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.79 0.90 0.87 0.86 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.22 0.09 0.15 0.30 Control Delay 41.4 5.1 0.2 0.9 0.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 41.4 5.1 0.2 0.9 0.9 LOS D A A A A Approach Delay 41.4 4.2 0.9 Approach LOS D A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 75 0 2 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 157 122 5 6 23 Internal Link Dist (ft) 472 840 1034 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 400 Base Capacity (vph) 591 2785 1445 844 3051 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.22 0.09 0.13 0.30 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 148 (90 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.72 Intersection Signal Delay: 6.1 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3 ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Snlits and Phases- 3 1-140 EB Ramns & Castle Havne Road Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -78 +.+�!•1l �' r !r,y' 1 � ! .r.». :" / " -:! 1!i, ii,,: irr� . , f,. k� ;J% .0 .:, ✓/_`.'ii.`iiiiiiii,-..�,,,,,,, f .. rlcv fi •�;'..... lL�.rlr, rrlrr' .0 :: "F= .`.r - "� ■ ri ■ �JJ f� F �./ %•i %! .! ." �ll " ". ".: ":. "_ ": ": " ": ":>;'- - :�.:' , ::.'!�r<<`f `r.: +"Ji J/ ;;:Gf`,;rf4 �%: ff.Giii/ ••:: lJ,iJ ',! /,•,:f/ l/ .�L%i:l �'• ' "�+%/ i' l /.[..................'J /�.... -: -- - fF` r , /„•• +'''! /. �lii�'f��l.E r� ■ _�.= .1•: � .ir!^Y+ ! . Jr!r:!!! F r ..'FF'!'FJ/ «•>rj+ ,/ F !4Y" F /': .S "`- 'f "•il/ ` /.•: " " " ". «f« / . •%% "SS '9l ::.nry /.•'YrY6'f" / /:" ./l ./ /:f •,'I"f `�. f��: �. FF�•i ��.' /i.'. ".l. ' /Fi /f•. ./ " " " " " "F ". • „r .., ,:•: ••::•: ,,,,,.. r:. ...:.:... " " "J •:J.. %.: .: "� ". ... " " " " " "" < " ". % J ` . .: :•; +• " -: "1 / F,. _ �/. � "%: /.! !.; !!!./ �- l " " "'.;: •f %, �" !• I ��� :''i %:': % " " ". J F -f- � . ��. J /Ji , f '� J .J /' �.!<ff"'' /�� �uY i''r' %� F F+l,' J, it F r J F . f f f ,f. ff // .. / " -�/l .F�.J,,. . /.. .F� � r..F •, !•J+ . / '; '• /,,, rrFF, +�!•rJ �, !•J'•.. •� /.. J� f •,J F•, ! rii F • : +.J J!!. l.:fi llJ� l�1•i,C//J /l.:'lln �;.LU. l/ Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -78 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Ir Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations y tt r �j tt Volume (vph) 56 108 576 136 356 708 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 175 400 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.911 0.850 Flt Protected 0.983 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1668 0 3539 1583 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.390 Satd. Flow (perm) 1668 0 3539 1583 726 3539 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 54 151 Link Speed (mph) 35 45 45 Link Distance (ft) 552 920 1114 Travel Time (s) 10.8 13.9 16.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 62 120 640 151 396 787 Shared Lane Traffic ( %) Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 0 640 151 396 787 Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No Lane Alignment Left Right Left Right Left Left Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 Two way Left Turn Lane Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 9 15 Turn Type pm +ov pm +pt Protected Phases 8 2 8 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Detector Phase 8 2 8 1 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 14.0 7.0 7.0 14.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.0 21.0 14.0 14.0 21.0 Total Split (s) 40.0 0.0 65.0 40.0 60.0 125.0 Total Split ( %) 24.2% 0.0% 39.4% 24.2% 36.4% 75.8% Maximum Green (s) 34.7 59.1 34.7 54.6 119.1 Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 3.0 3.0 4.9 All -Red Time (s) 2.3 1.0 2.3 2.4 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3.3 2.0 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.9 Lead /Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 Time Before Reduce (s) 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 Time To Reduce (s) 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -79 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 148 (90 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.72 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road 02 of lvol 06 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 MR0 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -80 Ir *%-., t /0 10. Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Recall Mode None C -Min None None Min Act Effct Green (s) 20.4 122.3 146.7 137.9 137.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.74 0.89 0.84 0.83 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.24 0.11 0.58 0.27 Control Delay 63.5 7.9 0.4 9.9 1.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 63.5 7.9 0.4 9.9 1.9 LOS E A A A A Approach Delay 63.5 6.5 4.6 Approach LOS E A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 136 97 0 59 55 Queue Length 95th (ft) 215 186 11 142 58 Internal Link Dist (ft) 472 840 1034 Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 400 Base Capacity (vph) 413 2624 1424 1084 2947 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.24 0.11 0.37 0.27 Intersection Summar Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 165 Actuated Cycle Length: 165 Offset: 148 (90 %), Referenced to phase 2:NBT, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated - Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.72 Intersection Signal Delay: 10.3 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 3:1-140 EB Ramps &Castle Hayne Road 02 of lvol 06 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 MR0 Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -80 APPENDIX F CAPACITY CALCULATIONS CASTLE HAYNE ROAD AND CHAIR ROAD Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -81 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 4: Chair Road &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Mo vement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 21 8 tt 0 Volume (veh /h) 4 19 7 489 716 4 Sign Control Stop 0 0 Free Free Grade 0% 0 0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 21 8 543 796 4 Pedestrians 0.16 0.31 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 Lane Width (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 14.4 10.8 9.3 0.0 0.0 Percent Blockage 0.0 Lane LOS B B A Right turn flare (veh) Approach Delay (s) 11.4 Median type 0.1 TWLTL None Median storage veh) B 2 Upstream signal (ft) Intersection Summary 920 pX, platoon unblocked 0.98 0.98 0.98 Average Delay vC, conflicting volume 1085 400 800 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 798 29.9% ICU Level of Service A vC2, stage 2 conf vol 287 15 vCu, unblocked vol 1042 342 751 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 97 99 cM capacity (veh /h) 389 640 836 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 4 21 8 272 272 530 270 Volume Left 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 21 0 0 0 0 4 cSH 389 640 836 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 14.4 10.8 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B A Approach Delay (s) 11.4 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -82 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 4: Chair Road &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Movemen EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 16 16 tt 0 Volume (veh /h) 1 14 14 555 565 5 Sign Control Stop 0 0 Free Free Grade 0% 0 0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 16 16 617 628 6 Pedestrians 0.18 0.25 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Lane Width (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 13.1 10.3 8.8 0.0 0.0 Percent Blockage 0.0 Lane LOS B B A Right turn flare (veh) Approach Delay (s) 10.5 Median type 0.2 TWLTL None Median storage veh) B 2 Upstream signal (ft) Intersection Summary 920 pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99 Average Delay vC, conflicting volume 970 317 633 VC I, stage 1 conf vol 631 25.8% ICU Level of Service vC2, stage 2 conf vol 339 15 vCu, unblocked vol 955 297 616 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 98 98 cM capacity (veh /h) 445 694 953 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 1 16 16 308 308 419 215 Volume Left 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 16 0 0 0 0 6 cSH 445 694 953 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 13.1 10.3 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B A Approach Delay (s) 10.5 0.2 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9116/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -83 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 4: Chair Road &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak _ -N 4 % t 1 Movement EBL E BR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 6 24 9 tt 0 Volume (veh /h) 5 22 8 576 833 5 Sign Control Stop 0 0 Free Free Grade 0% 0 0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 24 9 640 926 6 Pedestrians 0.19 0.36 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 Lane Width (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 15.8 11.2 9.8 0.0 0.0 Percent Blockage 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Right turn flare (veh) Approach Delay (s) 12.1 Median type 0.1 TWLTL None Median storage veh) 6 2 Upstream signal (ft) Intersection Summary 920 pX, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97 Average Delay vC, conflicting volume 1266 466 931 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 928 33.2 % ICU Level of Service vC2, stage 2 conf vol 338 15 vCu, unblocked vol 1204 375 857 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 96 99 cM capacity (veh /h) 338 601 752 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 6 24 9 320 320 617 314 Volume Left 6 0 9 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 24 0 0 0 0 6 cSH 338 601 752 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.36 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.8 11.2 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 12.1 0.1 0.0 Approach LOS 6 Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey temp & Associates, Inc. 9/1 6/2910 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -84 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 4: Chair Road &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 r �j tt 0 Volume (veh /h) 1 16 16 648 664 6 Sign Control Stop 0 0 Free Free Grade 0% 0 0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 18 18 720 738 7 Pedestrians 0.21 0.29 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 Lane Width (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 14.1 10.5 9.2 0.0 0.0 Percent Blockage 0.0 Lane LOS B B A Right turn flare (veh) Approach Delay (s) 10.7 Median type 0.2 TWLTL None Median storage veh) B 2 Upstream signal (ft) Intersection Summary 920 pX, platoon unblocked 0.98 0.98 0.98 Average Delay vC, conflicting volume 1137 372 744 VC I, stage 1 conf vol 741 28.5% ICU Level of Service vC2, stage 2 conf vol 396 15 vCu, unblocked vol 1094 311 692 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 97 98 cM capacity (veh /h) 397 669 878 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 1 18 18 360 360 492 253 Volume Left 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 18 0 0 0 0 7 cSH 397 669 878 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 14.1 10.5 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B A Approach Delay (s) 10.7 0.2 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9116/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -85 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 4: Chair Road &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 60 161 67 tt 0 Volume (veh /h) 54 145 60 604 845 26 Sign Control Stop 0 0 Free Free Grade 0% 0 0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60 161 67 671 939 29 Pedestrians 0.20 0.37 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 Lane Width (ft) 7 0 0 0 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 19.3 13.1 10.4 0.0 0.0 Percent Blockage 0.0 Lane LOS C B B Right turn flare (veh) Approach Delay (s) 14.8 Median type 0.9 TWLTL None Median storage veh) B 2 Upstream signal (ft) Intersection Summary 920 pX, platoon unblocked 0.95 0.95 0.95 Average Delay vC, conflicting volume 1422 484 968 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 953 40.9% ICU Level of Service vC2, stage 2 conf vol 469 15 vCu, unblocked vol 1347 365 871 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 81 73 91 cM capacity (veh /h) 312 604 735 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 60 161 67 336 336 626 342 Volume Left 60 0 67 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 161 0 0 0 0 29 cSH 312 604 735 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.27 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.37 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 27 7 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 19.3 13.1 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B B Approach Delay (s) 14.8 0.9 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. Synchro 7 - Report 9/16/2010 Page I Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -86 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 4: Chair Road &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 127 183 tt 0 Volume (veh /h) 40 114 165 670 698 66 Sign Control Stop 0 0 Free Free Grade 0 % 0 0 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 44 127 183 744 776 73 Pedestrians 0.22 0.30 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 Lane Width (ft) 21 0 0 0 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 20.9 11.8 10.7 0.0 0.0 Percent Blockage 0.0 Lane LOS C B B Right turn flare (veh) Approach Delay (s) 14.2 Median type 2.1 TWLTL None Median storage veh) B 2 Upstream signal (ft) Intersection Summary 920 pX, platoon unblocked 0.96 0.96 0.96 Average Delay vC, conflicting volume 1551 424 849 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 812 43.9% ICU Level of Service vC2, stage 2 conf vol 739 15 vCu, unblocked vol 1487 310 754 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 84 81 78 cM capacity (veh /h) 270 656 816 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 44 127 183 372 372 517 332 Volume Left 44 0 183 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 127 0 0 0 0 73 cSH 270 656 816 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 18 21 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 20.9 11.8 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B B Approach Delay (s) 14.2 2.1 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/1612010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -87 APPENDIX G CAPACITY CALCULATIONS CASTLE HAYNE ROAD AND ROCKHILL U- Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -88 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 5: Rockhill Road &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak --A - N* 4\ t Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 33 91 32 t 817 Volume (veh /h) 30 82 29 466 717 18 Sign Control Stop 91 0 Free Free Grade 0% 382 811 0 % 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 91 32 518 797 20 Pedestrians 16.0 17.4 9.6 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (ft) C C A Walking Speed (ft/s) 17.0 0.6 0.0 Percent Blockage C Right turn flare (veh) Median type 1.6 TWLTL None Median storage veh) 50.6% 2 Analysis Period (min) Upstream signal (ft) 15 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1389 807 817 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 807 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 582 vCu, unblocked vol 1389 807 817 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 91 76 96 cM capacity (veh /h) 360 382 811 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 33 91 32 518 817 Volume Left 33 0 32 0 0 Volume Right 0 91 0 0 20 cSH 360 382 811 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.24 0.04 0.30 0.48 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 23 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.0 17.4 9.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C C A Approach Delay (s) 17.0 0.6 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9116/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -89 Rose Hill Landing Existing (2010) 5: Rockhill Road &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak Movement EBL EB NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 20 42 88 t "fir Volume (veh /h) 18 38 79 551 555 24 Sign Control Stop 42 0 Free Free Grade 0% 482 941 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 42 88 612 617 27 Pedestrians 16.3 13.2 9.2 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (ft) C B A Walking Speed (ft/s) 14.2 1.2 0.0 Percent Blockage B Right turn flare (veh) Median type 1.2 TWLTL None Median storage veh) 48.4% 2 Level of Service A Upstream signal (ft) 15 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1418 630 643 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 630 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 788 vCu, unblocked vol 1418 630 643 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 94 91 91 cM capacity (veh /h) 339 482 941 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 20 42 88 612 643 Volume Left 20 0 88 0 0 Volume Right 0 42 0 0 27 cSH 339 482 941 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.36 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 7 8 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.3 13.2 9.2 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B A Approach Delay (s) 14.2 1.2 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9116/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page I Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -90 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 5: Rockhill Road &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SET SBR Lane Configurations 49 134 I t T* Volume (veh /h) 44 121 43 540 831 24 Sign Control Stop 134 0 Free Free Grade 0% 321 723 0% 0 % Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 49 134 48 600 923 27 Pedestrians 19.1 24.1 10.3 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (ft) C C B Walking Speed (ft/s) 22.7 0.8 0.0 Percent Blockage C Right turn flare (veh) Median type 2.6 TWLTL None Median storage veh) 59.3% 2 ICU Level of Service B Upstream signal (ft) 15 pX, platoon unblocked VC, conflicting volume 1632 937 950 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 937 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 696 vCu, unblocked vol 1632 937 950 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 84 58 93 cM capacity (veh /h) 304 321.. 723 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 49 134 48 600 950 Volume Left 49 0 48 0 0 Volume Right 0 134 0 0 27 cSH 304 321 723 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.42 0.07 0.35 0.56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 50 5 0 0 Control Delay (s) 19.1 24.1 10.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C C B Approach Delay (s) 22.7 0.8 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -91 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 5: Rockhill Road &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak -OA -%* 1\ t 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 29 68 133 + 756 Volume (vehlh) 26 61 120 639 643 37 Sign Control Stop 68 0 Free Free Grade 0% 420 855 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 29 68 133 710 714 41 Pedestrians 20.4 15.2 10.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (ft) C C A Walking Speed (ft/s) 16.8 1.6 0.0 Percent Blockage C Right turn flare (veh) Median type 1.7 TWLTL None Median storage veh) 56.1% 2 Analysis Period (min) Upstream signal (ft) 15 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1712 735 756 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 735 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 977 vCu, unblocked vol 1712 735 756 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 84 84 cM capacity (veh /h) 263 420 855 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 29 68 133 710 756 Volume Left 29 0 133 0 0 Volume Right 0 68 0 0 41 cSH 263 420 855 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.42 0.44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 14 14 0 0 Control Delay (s) 20.4 15.2 10.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C C A Approach Delay (s) 16.8 1.6 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. Synchro 7 - Report 9/1612914 Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -92 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 5: Rockhill Road &Castle Hayne Road AM Peak -#A W%v 4\ t *0 Movement E BL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 80 r 99 + + r Volume (veh /h) 72 228 89 592 954 36 Sign Control Stop 253 0 Free Free 40 Grade 0% 272 635 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 80 253 99 658 1060 40 Pedestrians 26.9 78.6 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (ft) D F B Walking Speed (ft/s) 66.2 1.5 0.0 Percent Blockage F Right turn flare (veh) Median type 10.6 TWLTL None Median storage veh) 71.0% 2 ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) Upstream signal (ft) 15 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1916 1060 1100 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1060 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 856 vCu, unblocked vol 1916 1060 1100 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 67 7 84 cM capacity (veh /h) 243 272 635 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 80 253 99 658 1060 40 Volume Left 80 0 99 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 253 0 0 0 40 cSH 243 272 635 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.33 0.93 0.16 0.39 0.62 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 216 14 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 26.9 78.6 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D F B Approach Delay (s) 66.2 1.5 0.0 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 10.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9116/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -93 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 5: Rockhill Road &Castle Hayne Road PM Peak -OA -%* 4\ t Movement EB EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 53 163 279 t t r Volume (veh /h) 48 147 251 788 741 71 Sign Control Stop 163 0 Free Free 79 Grade 0% 373 753 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 53 163 279 876 823 79 Pedestrians 51.2 21.9 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane Width (ft) F C B Walking Speed fts) 29.1 3.4 0.0 Percent Blockage D Right turn flare (veh) Median type 4.3 TWLTL None Median storage veh) 66.2% 2 Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) Upstream signal (ft) 15 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2257 823 902 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 823 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1433 vCu, unblocked vol 2257 823 902 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 59 56 63 cM capacity (veh /h) 129 373 753 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 53 163 279 876 823 79 Volume Left 53 0 279 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 163 0 0 0 79 cSH 129 373 753 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.41 0.44 0.37 0.52 0.48 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 44 54 43 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 51.2 21.9 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C B Approach Delay (s) 29.1 3.4 0.0 Approach LOS D Intersection Summa Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9116/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -94 APPENDIX H CAPACITY CALCULATIONS ROCKHILL ROAD AND SITE DRIVE Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -95 Rose Hill Landing 6: Rockhill Road &Site Driveway 20 13 19 0 Volume Left 0 Background (2015) AM Peak 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 19 0 cSH 1614 1596 1058 1700 Volume to Capacity Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR. NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane LOS 41r A A 41� Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4� 8.5 0.0 +4 Volume (veh /h) 0 18 0 6 6 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 Sign Control Free 15.7% ICU Level of Service A Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 20 0 7 7 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 7 20 40 40 20 59 40 7 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 7 20 40 40 20 59 40 7 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 98 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh /h) 1614 1596 961 849 1058 918 849 1076 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 20 13 19 0 Volume Left 0 7 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 19 0 cSH 1614 1596 1058 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 3.6 8.5 0.0 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.6 8.5 0.0 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/1 612010 Synch ro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -96 Rose Hill Landing Background (2015) 6: Rockhill Road &Site Driveway PM Peak Movement EBL EB EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 12 41 12 0 Volume Left 0 20 0 0 Volume Right Volume (veh /h) 0 11 0 18 19 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 Sign Control 0.01 Free Queue Length 95th (ft) Free 1 Stop 0 Control Delay (s) Stop 3.6 Grade 0.0 0% 0% A 0% Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0% 8.4 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 12 0 20 21 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 Pedestrians 15 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 21 12 73 73 12 86 73 21 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 21 12 73 73 12 86 73 21 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 100 99 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh /h) 1595 1607 909 807 1068 882 807 1056 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 41 12 0 Volume Left 0 20 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 12 0 cSH 1595 1607 1068 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 3.6 8.4 0.0 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.6 8.4 0.0 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -97 Rose Hill Landing Combined (2015) 6: Rockhill Road &Site Driveway AM Peak Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 20 i 19 c Volume Left + 7 0 + Volume Right Volume (veh /h) 0 18 0 6 6 57 0 0 17 135 0 0 Sign Control 0.02 Free Queue Length 95th (ft) Free 0 Stop 15 Control Delay (s) Stop 0.7 Grade 10.0 0% 0% A 0% Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0% 8.5 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 20 0 7 7 63 0 0 19 150 0 0 Pedestrians 15 Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 70 20 72 103 20 91 72 38 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 70 20 72 103 20 91 72 38 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 98 83 100 100 cM capacity (veh /h) 1531 1596 917 783 1058 875 815 1034 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 20 77 19 150 Volume Left 0 7 0 150 Volume Right 0 63 19 0 cSH 1531 1596 1058 875 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 15 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 8.5 10.0 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 8.5 10.0 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -98 Rose Hill Landing 6: Rockhill Road &Site Driveway 12 223 12 120 Volume Left 0 20 Combined (2015) PM Peak 120 Volume Right 0 182 12 0 cSH 1368 1607 1068 769 Volume to Capacity 0.00 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations car A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 *4 10.5 Approach LOS *4 Volume (veh /h) 0 11 0 18 19 164 0 0 11 108 0 0 Sign Control Free ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) Free 15 Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 12 0 20 21 182 0 0 12 120 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 203 12 164 256 12 177 164 112 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 203 12 164 256 12 177 164 112 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 100 99 84 100 100 cM capacity (veh /h) 1368 1607 793 640 1068 769 719 941 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 223 12 120 Volume Left 0 20 0 120 Volume Right 0 182 12 0 cSH 1368 1607 1068 769 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1 14 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 8.4 10.5 Lane LOS A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.7 8.4 10.5 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. 9/16/2010 Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -99 APPENDIX I NC LOS ANALYSIS CASTLE HAYNE ROAD CHAIR ROAD ROCKHILL ROAD Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -100 Facility Name: Project Name: Castle Hayne Road Rose Hill Landing Organization: Region Type: Coastal B Facility Type: Two Lane Highway 8,60 Classification: Suburban D Terrain Type: Level Street Class: Z1 Lane Width(ft) : 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 6 No Passing Zones: 1 00.00% Access Points/Mile: 40 Grade Length(m i) : 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: 0.90 K Factor: 0.10 D Factor: 0.55 Truck/Bus Percent: 5.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % BFFS (mph) : 60 LOS Max AADT A 1,900 B 3,900 C 8,60 D 16,200 D 28,800 Facility Name: Chair Road Project Name: Rose Hill Landing Organization: k sc - Region Type. Coastal Facility Type: Two Lane Highway Classification: Rural Terrain Type: Level Street Class: 11 Lane Width(ft): 10 Lat. Clearance(ft): 2 No Passing Zones: 1 00.00 Access Points /Mile: 40 Grade L ength(m i) : 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 PHF: 0.94 - K. Factor: 0.15 D Factor: 0.60 i 3 i i f � S 1 3 Printed At: 9:5 0 :11 AM On: 7/3 0/2010 Truck/Bus Percent: 2.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % BFFS( mph): 50 LOS Max AADT A 1,200 B 2,800 C 5,800 D 10,800 D 19,200 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -102 j 3 F Ity Facil' Name: 4.90 Rock Hill Road r= Project Name: . Rose Hill Landing Organization: =_ Region Type: Coastal Facility Type: Two Lane Highway Classification: Rural Y Terrain Type: Level Street Class: 11 Lane width(ft) : Lat. Clearance(ft): No Passing Zones: Access Points /Mile: Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: 9 2 100.000/0 40 0.00 0.00 % PHF: 4.90 K Factor: 0.15 D Factor: 0.60 On: 7/3 0/2010 Truck/Bus Percent: 2.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % BFFS(mph): 50 LOS Max AADT A 1,200 B 2,800 C 5,800 D 10,840 D 19,200 Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 13 -6 -103 This page intentionally left blank. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 REGULAR ITEM: 14 DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Bruce T. Shell, County Manager CONTACT(S): Chris Coudriet, Assistant County Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Pender County Purchase of Property Along US 421 within the New Hanover County Boundary BRIEF SUMMARY: The Pender County Board of Commissioners has negotiated with BASF company officials to purchase approximately 420 acres along US 421 to expand the Pender Commerce Park. Of the total acres being negotiated, approximately 64 lie within the New Hanover County boundary. (See map.) NCGS 153A -15 requires that Pender County must have consent from the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners to acquire the 64 +/- acres within New Hanover County. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Consent to Pender County purchasing approximately 64 acres within New Hanover County for the expansion of the Pender County Commerce Park. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Pender County Map COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval of the Pender County Commission request with a 24 -month right to purchase from Pender County at its cost of purchase from BASF. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0 with the recommended 24 -month right to purchase. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 14 -0 Rick, Benton, Count Mana September 21, 2010 Mr. Jason R. Thompson, Chairman, Ilew Hanover Count Board of Commissioners 230 Governmental Center Drive, Suite 175 Wilmin North Carolina 28403 County Mana office Post Offloe Box 5 805 South Walker Street Bur NC 28425 As, y ou ma know,, the Board of Com 4 - rs of Pender Count has been ne Win with B ASF missione ti I compan officials to ac additional industrial, propert adjoinin the Pender Commerce Park on US 421 at the Pender Coun"ew Hanover Count line. Pender Count is interested in ac approximatel 420 acres total, of which ap 0 , proximatel 64 acres lies in, New 14"over Count 1h 2006 Pender Count ac 344 acres on US 421 from BASF for the purpose of industn;'al development and water/sewer treatment facilit development, and this ac q uisition brin the total acrea fbr future industrial development (in public ownership to approximatel 764 acres. 40 Board of Commissioners Meetin 10704 17'21 U I U 14-1-1 Mr. Thompson, let me thank y ou and the Board members advance for y our consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to let me know if we can provide an additional information. I= ran Jimm T. Tate,, Ch airman "ender Count Board of Commissioners Pender Count Board of; Commissioners Mr. Rick Benton Mr. Tre Thurman Mr. Bruce Rell 43-oardiofCommissioners Meetin 10/04/2010 14-1-2 zz 9 CL N Zo U_ 1 � .� o -� 1b 8V33 3dVO iStl-1N Y ry Z Q W � [if O0 W ?ww z� WD IZ U Y Q a Z Lu w 0 U O Y z Q a o o U Y z z z 'o z o J m O a1 N 0 a a a1 N 0 a o z W 7 w U a W 0 z w w w Z ° z U N O U O O C co O O O O o zz Z a a L 0 � M Q M t0 N t0 O d J LO N Q LO lf) co � W I a N V W I W J I Q a Q L m a cn C N C 3 N a w c 1 _ °� J I U C I o ° J J U o I W C m J J > 0 O O v v a O I .0 O a I O > ai c O c Ln O o 2 N N > Ln Q N c O C U 3 C O U � CL a a z LU I U N / / r w ir s 6 CQJ z 7 0 EL 0 W Z W a cv X PH 0 Z N °O i� O N O lz O 8 as & m uzm HI sop, P4 PH cn P4 P , P4 C) � � PH P4 ��� NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 2010 ADDITIONAL ITEMS ITEM: 15 DEPARTMENT: Governing Body PRESENTER(S): Vice - Chairman Barfield CONTACT(S): Vice - Chairman Barfield SUBJECT: Consideration of a Proclamation Supporting the Cape Fear Regional Health Summit: Addressing Children's Obesity and Health Issues BRIEF SUMMARY: The Cape Fear Health Policy Council, Smart Start of NHC and the University of North Carolina Wilmington, working with many other community partners, are hosting the Cape Fear Region Health Summit: Addressing Children's Obesity and Health Issues. The focus of this initiative is to bring attention to the problem of childhood obesity and health issues through community collaboration. RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the proclamation. ATTACHMENTS: Child Obesity COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS' ACTIONS: Approved 5 -0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 15 -0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING THE CAPE FEAR REGION HEALTH SUMMIT: ADDRESSING CHILDREN'S OBESITY AND HEALTH WHEREAS, the healthy development of our children today directly contributes to our community's future economic, social, and intellectual growth; and WHEREAS, physical exercise and healthy eating habits established during children's developmental years are directly correlated to fewer weight and obesity issues in adults; and WHEREAS, being overweight or obese is very likely to hinder a child's physiological, social, emotional, and academic success; and WHEREAS, the United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that: Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. In a population -based sample of 5- to 17- year -olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Children and adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological problems such as stigmatization and poor self- esteem. Obese youth are more likely than youth of normal weight to become overweight or obese adults, and therefore more at risk for associated adult health problems, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis; and WHEREAS, over 30% of children in New Hanover County, approximately half of whom are five years old and younger, are clinically overweight or obese. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that it supports the efforts of the Cape Fear Health Policy Council and Smart Start of New Hanover County and University of North Carolina Wilmington along with many other community partners to conduct the Cape Fear Region Health Summit: Addressing Children's Obesity and Health Issues in order to bring to the forefront of our community's attention the ways and means of addressing these issues through collaboration. ADOPTED this the 4 day of October, 2010. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Jason R. Thompson, Chairman Attest: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 10/04/2010 15 -1 -1