11-14-1995CITY Of R10HRELD
PuimmG commission
R6EfIDA
Study Session
November 14, 1995
7:00 p.m.
RORR (CEU
ITEM #1 Lyndale Avenue Strategic Development Plan
ITEM #1 Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Plan
1-494 West Corridor -- Revised Plan
LHN -- Revised Plan
A ddb ®UTIMM(Blmt
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL
MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 14, 1995
CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Russ Susag; and Don Priebe.
CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS NOT
PRESENT: Michael Sandahl, Susan Rosenberg.
HRA MEMBERS
PRESENT: Chairperson Thomas Harms; Joan Helmberger and
Russ Susag.
HRA MEMBERS
NOT PRESENT: Michael Sandahl, Vern Luettinger.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: David
Gepner, Kristal Stokes, Pam Dmytrenko, Tim Erlander,
Mitchell Hadley, Kevin Hansen, Paul Wasko and Dawn
Postudensek.
STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager; Julie Urban, Zoning
Administrator; Thomas Ferber, City Clerk; and Tom
Foley, Transportation Engineer.
The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan at
7:00 p.m.
Item #1 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR LYNDALE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA FROM WEST 77TH TO 74TH STREETS AND
RESULTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. C.L. NO. 306. HRA LETTER
NO. 68
Fred Hoisington, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., outlined the following alternative
concept plans for the Lyndale Avenue Commercial area:
Street, sidewalk and parking improvements within existing zoning district
Redevelopment within existing zoning district
Redevelopment within existing zoning district/parking on Lyndale
Redevelopment/expand district/parking on Lyndale
Special Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 14, 1995
Redevelopmentlexpand district/parking internalized
Expand existing buildings within the existing zoning district
Facade improvement only
Do nothing
Mr. Hoisington then reviewed the geographic breakdown of the tables of small
groups from corridor meeting #1. He presented the tabulation of results of the ranking of
the importance of the criteria used in evaluating the alternatives. Mr. Hoisington
presented the tabulation by table number of the indication of support for the concept
alternatives.
Mr. Hoisington discussed the following conclusions from Corridor Meeting #1:
1. Criteria felt to be most important in evaluating alternatives:
Appearance
Parking
Residential Compatibility
Residential Impact
2. Quantitatively, the supportable alternatives are:
Alternative 1
Alternative 2B
3. Qualitatively, the case can be made that there is also support for Alternatives 3,
4, and 5.
4. There is a willingness to look at alternatives which relocate businesses.
5. There is a strong sense that something physical needs to change but there is
also concern for impacts on people (residents and business people)
6. There is relatively little support for doing nothing.
Mr. Hoisington stated the results should be evaluated both quantitatively and
qualitatively taking into consideration geographic factors.
Mr. Hoisington discussed a summary of the pros and cons of each of the concept
alternatives in relation to the criteria.
Planning Commission members discussed their observations from both the
individual meetings and the corridor meeting.
Mr. Hoisington discussed and answered questions regarding issues related to the
economic feasibility of the various concepts. He indicated the greater the level of
development, the more economically feasible the alternative becomes while less requires
more subsidy and creates less in tax base. Mr. Hoisington stated that further market and
economic research is underway to assist in developing a strategy for the area. He asked
for direction regarding which concept should be examined more closely, given a higher
level of detail, and presented as a possible alternative for further discussion and reaction
by residents and businesses. He indicated that it would be preferable to look at the
highest level that appears acceptable, such as a 3 concept, so as not to preclude that
level from consideration.
r' "— `a
Special Council Meeting Minutes 3- November 14, 199
After discussion, it was the general consensus that Mr. Hoisington proceed to
develop the greater level of detail and issues related to a "3° concept to present as a
potential alternative. The concept will be used as a framework for discussion to get
feedback, determine impacts and options.
Mr. Hoisington indicated there is the opportunity to "mix and match" some of the
concepts for different geographic areas.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:10 p.m.
Date Approved:
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
Thomas E. Harms
James D. Prosser
Executive Director
Chair
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL
MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 9, 1995
CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Martin Kirsch, Mayor; Russ Susag; Don Priebe; and
Susan Rosenberg.
CITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS NOT
PRESENT: Michael Sandahl.
HRA MEMBERS
PRESENT: Chairperson Thomas Harms; Joan Helmberger and
Russ Susag.
HRA MEMBERS
NOT PRESENT: Michael Sandahl, Vern Luettinger.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: David
Gepner, Kristal Stokes, Pam Dmytrenko, Tim Erlander,
Mitchell Hadley, and Kevin Hansen.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS NOT
PRESENT: Paul Wasko and Dawn Postudensek.
STAFF PRESENT: James Prosser, City Manager; Julie Urban, Zoning
Administrator.
The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan at
7:10 p.m. The meeting was hosted by the Planning Commission for businesses and
residents of the Lyndale Avenue Corridor area to review alternatives for the corridor and
receive input regarding the alternatives. The Planning Commission also invited City
Council and HRA members to attend and there was a quorum of both present.
Item #1 LYNDALE AVENUE CORRIDOR MEETING
Planning Commission Chairperson Linnihan explained the purpose and agenda for
the meeting.
Special HRA Meeting Minutes -2- November 9. 1995
Fred Hoisington, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., reviewed the conclusions of the
previous public information meetings and individual meeting response. He explained the
guiding principals that were developed from these meetings. Mr. Hoisington asked the
audience to participate in groups to work on the opening exercise to discuss why it is
important to reinvest in commercial areas.
Michael Schroeder, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., presented the following
concept alternatives:
Street, sidewalk and parking improvements within existing zoning district
Redevelopment within existing zoning district
Redevelopment within existing zoning district/parking on Lyndale
Redevelopment/expand district/parking on Lyndale
Redevelopment/expand district/parking internalized
Expand existing buildings within the existing zoning district
Facade improvement only
Do nothing
Mr. Hoisington presented the following criteria which had been developed to
evaluate the various alternatives:
Appearance
Pedestrian accessibility
Parking
Residential compatibility
Traffic /accessibility
Economic feasibility
Who will pay?
Loss of business
Convenience services
Public input
Tax impact
Business improvement
Mr. Hoisington stated the first ten criteria were generated by participants of the
public information meetings with last two added by the consultant for discussion and
consideration by the corridor meeting participants. He asked the group if they wanted to
add any more. The suggestion was made that the impact on individual homeowners and
their property values be added as a criteria. Mr. Hoisington asked people to prioritize the
criteria, choosing the four most important criteria for evaluating the plans. People placed
importance on the following criteria: appearance, residential compatibility, parking,
traffic /accessibility, impact on homeowners, tax impact, economic feasibility, who will pay ?,
loss of business, and public input.
Special HRA Meeting Minutes 3- November 9. 199
Mr. Hoisington presented information on the market study, building values, and
economic wisdom. He gave some preliminary pros and cons for each alternative using
the criteria. Mr. Hoisington asked the groups to discuss the alternatives and to pick which
ones they could support.
An open forum discussion followed regarding the Lyndale Avenue Strategic Plan
alternatives, process, uncertainty, financing and timing.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 10:00 p.m.
Date Approved:
Thomas P. Ferber
City Clerk
Thomas E. Harms Chair
James D. Prosser
Executive Director
Memorandum
DATE: October 27, 1995
TO: Richfield Planning Commission
FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan
I am providing comments on reuse proposals as part of the Comprehensive Plan and I have added
another smaller area for the Planning Commission's consideration. The site is next to Fairwood
Park on the corner of 67th Street and Lakeview Avenue.
Wilson Park
Advantages
Reduces through traffic on
Bloomington Avenue, a
residential street
Reduces noise and
vibration of buses on
Bloomington Avenue
Eliminates the need to
upgrade Bloomington
Avenue to carry bus
traffic.
Enhances residential
neighborhood- quiet and
reduced conflict with
vehicles
Moderately improves
pedestrian and bicyclist
safety to and from the
school.
Has little or no impact on
access for emergency
vehicles.
Disadvantages
May shift 1,000 ADT to
redistribute to other
residential streets.
Requires MCTO Buses to
reroute to either Cedar
Avenue or 12th Avenue.
May reduce bus ridership
with rerouting.
Shifts noise and vehicular
traffic to other streets,
most likely 12th Avenue
and Cedar Avenue.
Requires the acquisition of
single - family homes to
compensate for 1:1 loss of
parkland
Requires the construction
of a loop street north of
74th Street between 15th
Avenue-and Bloomington
Avenue.
10/27/95
Page 2
Rerouting Cedar
Avenue
Fairwood Park
TFF:ttf
Consistent with plans for
widening Cedar Avenue
and expansion of the Twin
Cities International
Airport.
Consistent with plans for
77th Street and future
ramp connections to TH
77.
Creates safe path for
pedestrian/bike trail along
west side of TH 77.
Expands parkland slightly
Eliminates through traffic
on Lakeview Avenue and
Oakland Terrace
Access to single - family
homes is retained.
Cost to make improvement
is modest.
Suggested by resident.
Substantial negative
impact of 5,000 ADT of
traffic on 8 blocks of
single- family housing on
west side of 18th Avenue
Substantial cost to
abandon underground
utilities.
Substantial cost to
reconstruct 18th Avenue as
a commercial street.
Substantial cost to acquire
right of way.
Need to verify right of way
needs for new airport in
the vicinity of 66th Street.
Diverts very limited
through traffic to
neighboring streets.
Minor impact on
emergency vehicle access.
Requires acquisition of 1
or 2 single - family homes
rj*VON AVE.
rt
cm 0
4104rI&O `7 [i00i114
0RMUMV119404!
3
lu
Memorandum
DATE: October 30, 1995
TO: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator
FROM: Thomas Foley, Transportation EngineeO
SUBJECT: Transportation Policies in the Comprehensive Plan
I am providing a set of guiding principles the City has been using in evaluating its
transportation issues. These principles should be considered in formulating
transportation policies as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Guiding Principles for Transportation
Develop and support a hierarchy of streets and roads that provide different levels of
mobility and access.
Protect residential neighborhoods by concentrating traffic on arterial streets.
Promote safe and efficient travel.
Provide for a variety of transportation modes including transit, pedestrian and bike
facilities.
Promote travel demand management strategies.
Encourage land use development that is supportive of transit.
Explore shared parking as a way of limiting the amount of parking needed for
development.
Work with neighboring cities and the region to assure consistent transportation
policies.
Background
Lack of Space: As a fully developed community, Richfield needs to anticipate problems
and respond creatively. An urban design that is based on 1940's and 50's standards
has imposed certain limitations on redevelopment opportunities. Namely, people now
10/30/95
Page 2
have a much higher rate of auto ownership and significantly increased trip making
patterns. These trends have led to increased demand to allocate additional land to
transportation and parking space for a community that does not have the additional
space to give.
Given the absence of undeveloped land, most transportation improvements in Richfield
require the acquisition of land that is devoted to other land uses. Therefore, any
proposed transportation improvement becomes very controversial.
Grid System: Richfield's traffic network is based on a grid system that offers both
advantages and disadvantages. The biggest advantage is ease of access through the
community with the grid pattern offering many alternate routes. This advantage has an
accompanying disadvantage; that is most residential streets experience a certain
degree of through traffic. The basic grid of blocks of 660' by 330' used in Richfield
devote 25.6% of the grid to transportation, a fairly high amount of land reserved for this
purpose.
The grid system has been superimposed on fairly level terrain in Richfield. The level
terrain coupled with the predictability of straight streets encourages motorists to travel
at speeds that many residents believe are too high for residential neighborhoods.
The City has established a functional classification of streets that offer different levels of
mobility and land access. This hierarchy of roads is designed to concentrate high
volume traffic on a limited number of arterial streets (good examples are Portland
Avenue and 77th Street.) By concentrating heavy traffic on a few streets, we can
protect the residential streets from commercial traffic. The design of 77th Street and the
downgrading of 76th Street east of 1 -35W are good examples of this effort.
There are methods, known as traffic calming, that can be applied to reduce through
traffic and speeding in residential areas.
Safe and Efficient Travel: A transportation system must provide safe and efficient
travel. Design and improvements in transportation always attempt to ensure improved
safety. Busy intersections, bridges over freeways and freeway interchanges are
examples of potential sites for safety improvements.
Efficient travel means people prefer direct routes, as opposed to circuitous ones for
their travel.
We have listed on a table and shown on a map locations experiencing safety and
capacity problems that may require corrective action in the next twenty years.
Aging Streets A citywide paved residential street program was initiated in 1972. The
residential streets are quickly reaching the end of their economic life. The City began in
10/30/95
Page 3
1995 to increase its investment in maintaining them over the next ten to twenty years.
Quantify this?
Pedestrian /Bikeway Facilities:
Bikes can compete with the automobile for trips up to 4 -5 miles in length.
Bicyclists consist of three different user groups: children who are just learning to ride;
the occasional adult recreational biker; and, the experienced adult rider who travels on
bike frequently and for long distances. The design of bikeways must reflect the different
demands of each user group.
Richfield has developed in a typical suburban manner of devoting few facilities for
pedestrians or bicyclists. The few bikeways available are in parks. A 1989 Master Park
Plan outlined a network of recreational bike trails that have not been implemented. The
bikeway plan needs to be updated to reflect current conditions and to guide the City in
commenting on major transportation improvements.
City policy for sidewalks is to limit sidewalks to only those along both sides of arterials
and one side of collector streets. The City has, however, committed to maintain all
sidewalks at City expense.
The biggest obstacle is major freeway crossings where little regard for bikers and
pedestrians was made when bridges were built. These crossings are very dangerous
for non - motorized traffic and experience a concentration of accidents involving bikers
and pedestrians. Verify! Another serious obstacle to bikeways is the lack of adequate
right of way to include bikeways and bike trails as part of Richfield's existing street
layout. Low volume residential streets offer the potential for low cost solutions for many
bikeway routes, although in the past they haven't been used successfully in Richfield.
The need for routes connecting different parts of the city and the city to neighboring
communities is also lacking. Routes under consideration include 76th Street and
conversion of the Soo Line tracks to a pedestrian /bike trail connecting to Minneapolis's
Chain of Lakes and Bloomington's Mall of America and Minnesota River Wildlife
Refuge.
Bicyclists also need support facilities such as public or private storage racks, lockers
and changing rooms as part of building and site design, and transit stops.
Transit: Richfield has initiated a high speed bus demonstration project. The purpose is
to show that high quality transit can compete with the single- occupant automobile for
commuter trips.
Regional transit has improved service to suburban areas through the creation of
regional transit hubs. A new hub located just north of 62 Crosstown on Lyndale Avenue
and could improve circulator transit service in Richfield and enhance suburb to suburb
10/30/95
Page 4
travel. Another transit hub proposed at 79th /80th Streets near 1 -35W could also be
beneficial.
Also, there is need for a local circulator bus route between Southdale and the Mall of
America to improve east -west transit service for Richfield residents. Travel demand
management strategies such as preference for high occupancy vehicles, HOV bypass
ramps, park and ride lots, shared parking and flexible work schedules are encouraged
to reduce traffic congestion.
Transit use is tied to land use development. The City should concentrate high density
development along arterial streets. Transit service can then serve these uses in a cost
effective way.
Additional bus turnouts and bus shelters can be provided to improve transit ridership.
Coordination on Regional Transportation: Regional transportation facilities have a
significant effect on Richfield. Expansion of the International Airport and several
interstate highways will require additional land acquisition in the City of Richfield. Most
transportation routes extend beyond City borders. Any proposal to improve these
regional facilities will require coordination with Richfield, its neighboring communities
and regional agencies.
Lack of funding has postponed major improvements on 1 -35W and 1 -494. The City
should take an activist role in securing funding to make these improvements. In the
meantime, the City should advocate improvements that will correct bottlenecks in the
regional highway network until the major reconstruction projects can be built.
Traffic Calming: Residential areas are considered safe when vehicular traffic is low
and the speed of vehicles is slow. There are a number of areas in Richfield that
experience through traffic leaking through residential areas. This pressure from through
traffic is caused by nearby commercial activity centers and the porous grid system in
Richfield that offers many alternate routes for trip making.
We have listed below and shown on an attached map routes that produce conflicts in
residential areas. There are a number of traffic calming measures that could be used to
control speed on residential streets and improve the aesthetics of neighborhoods that
should be considered in the Comprehensive Plan. When considering traffic calming
methods, a word of caution is in order, "Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease."
Several traffic calming methods shown in an attachment report can be applied to
Richfield residential neighborhoods when street reconstruction occurs. Among these
the choker design and diagonal barriers appear to have good potential to discourage
through traffic.
10/30/95
Page 5
TABLE 1
LIST OF STREETS
FOR POSSIBLE TRAFFIC CALMING
Street Segment Map Issue /Comments Opportunities
No.
Upton Avenue between 66th 1 Traffic ranges from 400 to 1,200
Street and 76th Street ADT and connects 66th and 76th
Streets. Strangely, we get few citizen
complaints.
Lake Shore Drive and Humboldt 2 Similar problem to No. 1. Residents
Avenue west of 1 -35W between 66th do complain.
and 76th Street
70th Street from Xerxes Avenue to 3 Traffic ranges from 2,000 to 2,600 Explore ways to block through
Penn Avenue ADT. Traffic Avenue to Penn traffic at Xerxes and Penn Avenues.
Avenue comes from Edina. Should Traffic may divert to 70 1/2 Street.
be on 69th Street that has a traffic
signal at Penn Avenue and was
designed as a collector. Residents
have complained often over many
years.
70th Street from Penn Avenue to 4 Traffic speeds and has frequent
Lake Shore Drive accidents at intersections
Oak Grove Blvd., 73rd Street and 5 Traffic short cuts around 76th Street One -way traffic has been tried and
Emerson Avenue and Lyndale Avenue signal. failed due to resident objections.
Frequent complaints. Removal of
stop signs at Emerson/76th may
have helped.
Morgan Avenue and 77th Street 6 Commercial traffic uses Morgan Explore vacating 7700 block of
Avenue to test drive new cars. Morgan Avenue.
64th Street between Portland and 7 Traffic short cuts through
Nicollet Avenue neighborhood. 2,000 to 2,600 ADT.
Frequent requests for traffic signal at
Portland/64th.
68th Street between Lyndale and 8 Traffic short cuts through
Portland Avenues neighborhood avoiding 66th Street.
Residents complain of speeding.
Emerson Avenue, Mildred Drive, 9 Traffic short cuts through Widening of 35W can create
and 63rd Street neighborhood to avoid traffic signals additional park land to block
on 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. through traffic, yet permit
emergency vehicles to pass.
65th Street east of Penn Avenue 10 Traffic short cuts through
neighborhood to avoid traffic signals
on 66th Street and Penn Avenue.
Chicago Avenue between 66th 11 Traffic is attracted to a small
Street and 76th Street commercial area. Frequent accidents
and complaints about speeding.
Neighborhood in northwest corner 12 Traffic from Crosstown travels
of City, Xerxes to Penn Avenues through neighborhood to avoid 66th
Street.
Neighborhood between 66th Street 13 Traffic from Crosstown travels
and Penn Avenues through neighborhood to avoid 66th
Street and Penn Avenue signal.
10/30/95
Page 6
TABLE 2
LIST OF STREETS
FOR POSSIBLE TRAFFIC SAFETY OR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS
Street Segment Map Issue /Comments Opportunities
No.
66th Street between 35W and 14 Traffic exceeds 34,000 ADT at
Newton Avenue freeway. Left turning vehicles cause
serious congestion.
Portland Avenue and 66th Street 15 Accidents at twice County average.
Traffic volumes are high on both
streets.
76th Street from Xerxes Avenue to 16 Traffic ranges from 10,000 to
1 -35W 17,000 ADT. Traffic noise and
vibration are problems. Access is
difficult from side streets and
driveways. Residents have
complained often over many years.
Four -way stop signs at Sheridan and
Vincent Avenues conflict with
designation as arterial street.
nd Speed Tables
nd speed tables are
the paved surface of
nd across the
ally 'y have a
in i nches. A
t be long enough for
id rear wheels of a
of the table at once,
table has to be 8 to
meters) long. Speed
nfortably crossed at
r hour. Speed
sally less than 3 feet
r).
n Great Britain on
t were 12 feet (4
the direction of
hes (.1 meter) high
y not only reduce the
they also reduce
TRRL 1976, 1977).
gineers do not
speed bumps. In
e U.S., speed
m removed from
s where they are
nacceptable hazard,
ive also been
rfere with winter
operations. Speed
ss likely to cause
3r Changes in
ce
Lions of rough
le strips) or
ps across the road
bration in the car,
e driver to become
or slow down.
awn the effects of a
urface on speed to
upper end of
Js in residential
studies have also
i strips have
ced accidents when
ce of stop signs
0). Changes in road
etimes objected to
t this problem
sed by not altering
within a
lane. The noise
mble strips has
s from nearby
ie cases.
ter
ertc. a barrier
ly across an
EXAM PL-Es Of
T,q k i c CAI-MMJ6
unauiations
V, a
O
o•o •
Rumble Strips
Diagonal Diverters
0
Cul -de -Sac Closures
intersection to cc
intersection into
streets, each mak
Its primary purp
travel through a
circuitous, while
such travel. Use(
diverters will aff
specific streets it
application is m,
reducing traffic
part of a planne(
neighborhood th
through traffic.
Smith et al. (19
a system of devic
with diverters ca,
between 20 to 70
on the system of
Diverters are effe
traffic volumes, i
reduced only in t
vicinity of the di,
200 -300 feet. Stuc
Washington, and
Berkeley, Califor
significant reduc
of accidents in th
Usually, howeve
in each case was
Smith et al. 1980
In order to ha\
safely and effecti
incorporate the f
Visibility. De
painted curb;
directional si
and elevated
Delineation.
striping and,
pavement but
identifying th
Emergency v
design of the
allow for pas
vehicles whi?
automobile F
Pedestrian, b.
access. Sidev%
diverter shou
Dead -end Stre(
In some com;
volumes in old,
have become s(
streets have be(
ends or cul -de -si
through traffic .
complete barrit
intersection or
leaves the bloc:
CHOKERS - EXAMPLE Off' CHAPTER Z S
7XA'7C G4L.Hit/G
A choker is a narrowing of the street, either at
an intersection or at midblock, to constrain
the width of the traveled way. Chokers may
consist of curb bulbs or median islands.
Effects
Volumes. Little or no effect if the same num-
ber of travel lanes are retained for both the
before and after situation. Significant reduc-
tions may occur if narrowing limits use of
section to one direction at a time or reduces
capacity of an already congested street.
Speed. Little or no effect.
Traffic Noise, Air Quality and Energy Con-
sumption. Little or no effect.
Traffic Safety. Possibility of improved
pedestrian safety due to improved visibility
of crossing point and to shorter street crossing
time. Possibility of improved vehicular
safety at intersections due to physical parking
limitations.
Community Reaction Generally positive.
Residents feel safer crossing the street at the
choker and feel the choker provides some
protection" for vehicles parked on- street.
Cost
Cost per installation for typical street with
concrete curb and gutter is approximately
5,000.00. Cost can vary significantly
depending upon the need for adjustments to
drainage facilities, the type ' of
sidewalk/ boulevard material used, and the
amount and type of landscaping/ pedestrian
amenities provided.
Additional Considerations
The chokers can provide landscaping oppor-
tunities and definition of neighborhood entry
which help enhance the aesthetics of the
neighborhood.
Reference
D. T. Smith, Jr., and D. Appleyard, "Improving the Residential
Street Environment," Report No. FHWA/RD- 61/031, Federal High.
way Administration, Washington, D.C., May 1961.
H
G
Residentlal St —
Neighborhood Traffic Control January 1994 18 -1
w
d
Z
r
r
SLLWZ
HSIONtl1S
PV 22
L_JL __JL. J I G sn +^ a zFF9On
3Atl atl037 -_
II —__'
i \-_. _ __._- __
I___ - -I__- :I -_ -
3Av aV03]
4101
l' - "\ —_IL_J I.-- - - "
II- - --
111 —I: '. '
4161
41111
l
r 1(-
L - -_ID ,f 41LI
V191' .Limo OL==Ml 1.__--1_.:_._.1 L..JL —lam II 4191
D0C11=I1UC-1[L'U ° :JCJ_ I+
N017N IWOD79 '-- — -- -- I N019NIWOQtB
U1= lf - -'CJ
II 41 b1
I 41 tl
j
I 1 I'I 1
I11,11
I111_'
I I I_ `Uj l l
Ir
II /
I1^ VI fl
L 4121 L_ II I OI II
rJI1U
I'
U
1
I_I_L_]L L IIJ V u 4121
7
41 II ',OO LJLJLJ 0I.JI 1- Ili ; 41 11
W II _. o loo oL ul o
S 101113 I
1
IJ I_I LJL L II L CI I 1011l3
1 11-7
W }W} `J/
07tlJIN] 1
J
1
I 07tl71N7
9n9Wn107 IIJ it 9nBWI1l07
UU ILIL— ILL. -JL.J I I %tl tld
f I IMI OBI If-JI 1L L_
d
ONtllxtlD I —
f l '
ONtllxtl0
nom! '3Atl ONVIIHOd I
11J I` —' III '
3Atl ONVUMOd
V _
UI Elic ]II _J1L_
1I
II
1 446xIQ ===
j1j
11=__J}L
j__
NOI NPI;
E DOf Nll7
v 0 ®
I
FEE] L L
SN3A315 L1u L I
1 I 1
SN3A31S
I,i ®
I_'__'_- II J[_ 41`
I J L L L f IIIL LJ L/ .
I
3Atl 13110]fN 1.[ _
f '
3AV 131103IN
II_
r —_ I—_ -.I _ C Imo_
H1tlOMLN3M 41UOM1N3M
I D JIB— — -L -JL -JIUf =111vyAanesllleII }1 - I AanasllldULED -7:1=1 J_. 1 1Ntlstl31d
I_
ON1.1 I C-_- ._..
11
IIf..)
I. _I I- _ I_._
i
I ONtla9
L1318YII ___, L
1 131atltlN
O13138tlD EllIII I/ I IL @C -- - c'
I II Ol31daV911111 '
3ntl 31tlONAI ( I a `J `_
E—_
f ` -'I
1 '
3Atl 31la NAI
V
H]Itloltl I j yS ! I
IU_ '
L__ l__ E L I
H]IaOltl
1
1NVAa6 Ili,1 -
L I - `\``
C
oy U_
7[-
JjI
II
Ial 11NtlAa9
XVA10] 1'1
O Y
1Nadnoff 1NO
J
P
oiac„
NOS tl3VUW3 \ ;
A ' -- .. L NOS tl3W
1 I
1NOW383 11 ` -— 3 - - -- x,
3
5}
i 1NOW3tl!
Oatltll7 I
gy
I - —
i - OatlalO
LDIOO WnN Ij w `
3A _-_ —
1a1o61YnH
9NIAtl1 II 1
3. 3w '
C ,
I{
7NIAal
1 S3Wtlr I — _
r•-- -'- \. s3WUr
IENtl701 -- - ....... _.. Ntl7ol
NM 9tlOW - - _ -- — _... NV DUOVI
NO1M3N - -_I r,l. _ IL__.... _ JL -__11 .._. ..IL_.; S L _... 1 NO1M3N
JL. - -IL.. I[_ -- tl3Allo I _ — - _ —. -_ —_ ._ _._.._ - __ tl3A110II
NN3d
N33n0
N3d3ntl
N33n0 ! ( ]]
113SSOM . -- L.
o-
L[.__. :JL JL. L. II.. - _JI..I V I113550tl
OEJC -C Jc l : -- Ntl0183N5 IL II.
I. .__ _ I - 1 NV D1tl3NS
SUWOHL [. _
I
I •I ILll l_ L -(l( _ I II. II. . -__I ._ Stl WO Nl
NOldn NDldn
1N3]NIA I JI.
LN30NIA
Nan9HSvm I — If IIIf -
r
1lI
J
1 I JL- i3.
y1 NanBHStlM
3Atl S3 %a3 %i1 .. 1UL_ =JL _.Il. _)I __l. i.. II. _... .IL= `- '3Atl 93%a3x
0
au
w
AMIF-IWTI
v "
in
Ipw I
tIP7
4
Sit
b 2.
l