Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaster Plan Update Village of Larchmont Town of Mamaroneck Phase 1 9/1/1986 MASTER PLAN UPDATE VILLAGE TOWN OF OF LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Phase 1 SHUSTER ASSOCIATES RD 1, Box 259 Stone Ridge, New York 12484 •', ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., �• Traffic Engineering • Parking Studies . I i Joint Planning Group VILLAGE TOWN OF OF LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Mark Alcott Sanford E. Bell John Borden Mary R.S. Carlson Syrette Dym Grant Daniel Greenbaum Bernadette Kingham Chistine Helwig James Levi F. Peter O'Hara Lawrence Lowy Elaine Price Alan Parter Carol Scharff Doris Patt Smith E. Robert Wassman Lisa Rey Arthur Wexlar Lewell Rosenthal Joseph Shein, Chairman Joan F. Williams Paul H. Kean, Thomas R. Amlicke, Village Board Liaison Town Board Liaison September 1986 CONTENTS Page No. Executive Summary i I. Scope and Purpose 1 II. Inventory and Analysis 1 A. Land Use 3 B. Traffic 4 C. Parking 6 D. Design 13 II1. Planning Analysis and Policy Development 15 Planning Unit #1 16 Planning Unit #2 18 Planning Unit #3 21 Planning Unit #4 22 Planning Unit #5 25 Planning Unit #6 29 IV. Action Program 33 A. Land Use 33 B. Traffic 39 C. Parking 40 D. Design 40 APPENDICES TABLES EXHIBIT A: Informal Survey Form EXHIBIT B: Traffic Capacity Analysis ILLUSTRATIONS Map No. Following Page 1 . Study Area 1 2. Existing Zoning 3 3. Land Use Issues 3 4. Traffic Volumes 4 5. Parking Inventory 6 6. Existing Parking Regulations 6 7A. Parking Occupancy - Weekday 8 7B Parking Occupancy - Saturday 8 8. Planning Units 15 9. Proposed Zoning 33 10A. Proposed Parking Regulations - Weekday 40 10B. Proposed Parking Regulations - Saturday 40 TABLES (all tables are at the end of report) 1 . Traffic Volumes 2A. Private Parking Facilities, Maximum Occupancy by Lot, Wednesday 11/20/86. 2B. Private Parking Facilities, Maximum Occupancy by Lot, Saturday 1/4/86. 3. Private Parking Facilities, Overall0ccupancy by Hour. 4A. Municipal On-Street and Off-Street Parking Occupancy, Wednesday 11/20/85. 4B. Municipal On-Street and Off-Street Parking Occupancy, Saturday 1/4/86. 5. Parking Charges 6. Remaining Development Potential , Planning Unit No. 5. 7. Existing Parking Supply vs. Zoning Requirement, Planning Unit No. 5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. SCOPE AND PURPOSE The Master Plans for the Village of Larchmont and Town of Mamaroneck were first prepared in 1966. The Town undertook an update in 1976. Some 20 years after preparation of the original plans, both communities determined that a comprehensive update was necessary to provide guidance for future planning and zoning decisions. A Joint Planning Group, which includes members of various boards amd commissions involved in planning, zoning, parking and other related municipal functions, was appointed to oversee the Master Plan Update. The planning consulting firm of Shuster Associates, supported by traffic and parking consultants Allan Davis Associates, was retained to assist the Joint Planning Group in its task. This report represents the first phase of the update. The Joint Planning Group determined that the business areas of the Town and Village war- ranted highest priority for study. It was decided that, since budgetary constraints would not permit all such areas to be addressed at once, the Study Area shown on Map No. 1 should be dealt with first and is the subject of this report. The second phase of the program will consider the entire length of the Post Road in both Town and Village. The basic purpose of the plan is to establish policies and guidelines for land use, traffic control ,' parking and design in the Study Area, based on evaluation of existing conditions, projected trends, and community objectives. Implementatation of the policies is proposed in the form of specific actions--physical , legislative or administrative. II. INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS The Study Area is diverse and complex in terms of land use, transpor- tation facilities and function. It includes all of the business areas on either side of the rail line, including related parking facilities and adjacent residential areas in both the Village and Town. For pur- poses of detailed analysis and planning, the area was divided into six planning units. A. Land Use Most of the Study Area is fairly densely developed and reflects pre-world War II development patterns centered around the rail- road station--multi-story apartment buildings (some with ground floor shops ) surrounding a core of retail and service uses on small parcels of land. Only on the west end of Palmer Avenue and along Fifth Avenue are land uses spread out in the familiar post-war "strip development" pattern. The entire area is sur- rounded by single family development of almost uniformly high quality, on relatively small lots. This land use pattern is enforced by the existing zoning regulations and district bounda- ries which have maintained the sharp distinction between the busi- ness area core and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Items of concern, therefore, are primarily those of parking, traffic and appearance. There are, however, a few areas where present or potential conflicts between different land uses exist or where sites are under- utilized or inappropriately used. The remaining development capacity of the business area core was analyzed to assess future impacts on traffic and parking. Policies to address these land use issues are reflected in the land use proposals. B. TRAFFIC The Study Area is at the hub of several major east-west and north-south streets which carry traffic bound for the business area as well as through traffic. Traffic conditions in the Study Area were observed on frequent visits from early in the morning until late evening. Counts of traffic on nine approaches to the Study Area were made, by means of traffic counting machines. Peak period turning movement counts were made at each of the traffic signal controlled intersections in the Study Area- -Palmer Avenue with Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont Avenue and Depot Way West and Myrtle Boulevard with Chatsworth Avenue and Murray Avenue. The efficiency of operation of each intersection was analyzed and the characteristics of the signal system noted. The effect of the new signal installations was also analyzed. C. PARKING The diverse land use pattern in the Study Area generates substantial , and often competing, demands for parking spaces. This demand has been met over the years, in a variety of ways, by both private property owners and public agencies. Within the Study Area there are approxi- mately 1 ,000 parking spaces provided by private owners and over 1 ,670 municipal spaces (see Map No. 5) . There are four sources of readily identifiable demand for municipal parking. a. Village and Town residents who live within the Study Area and who do not have access to private parking. b. Commuters using the Larchmont Railroad Station. c. Owners and employees of businesses within the Study Area. d. Shoppers and visitors to businesses within the Study Area. Each of these constituencies generates different peak parking demands on weekdays and Saturdays, and those peaks occur at different times and are concentrated in different locations. The municipal systems include some 880 spaces oriented to commuters (550 in the Village and 330 in the Town) , 240 spaces in lots serving shoppers and residents ( 180 in the Village and 60 in the Town) , and 560 on-street spaces (350 in the Village and 210 in the Town) . These spaces are regulated by a complex system of meters, permits and posted regulations subject to time limitations ranging from 10 minutes to 24 hours. ii • Surveys of parking occupancy and turnover in all of the public and pri- vate spaces in the Study Area were carried out on a Wednesday and a Saturday in the Fall of 1985. The surveys show that, although many of the private facilities were fully occupied, overall occupancy never exceeded 60 percent on Wednesday nor 40 percent on Saturday. There were always over 400 empty parking spaces in private facilities on Wednesday and almost 600 on the Saturday. On Wednesday, the Myrtle Boulevard lot, Village lot 9 and Village lot 10 never reached 85% occupancy. Village commuter lots 1 ,2,3, and 7 all exceeded 95% occupancy. Eighty-five percent occupancy is the accepted criterion for full occupancy of shopper/visitor parking. Ninety-five percent is more appropriate for commuter parking. On Saturday Village lots 4,7, and 10 and the on-street parking on Chatsworth and west of Chatsworth to Glen Lake Drive in the business district all exceeded 95% occupancy. Elsewhere within the Village and Town there was a considerable number of parking spaces available. D. DESIGN Thereis no single architectural theme or character throughout the Study Area. Rather, it reflects the several periods during which development has taken place. With some exceptions, the general ambiance is pleasant particularly at the core of the area around the Palmer-Chatsworth inter- section. Therefore, the concern of. public design is primarily with details which can enhance the existing character of development and with review of new development to ensure a compatible blend with the scale, orientation and materials of existing development. Items of concern are signs (public and private) , street furniture, parking lots, entrances to the business area and site landscaping. III. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. BASIC POLICIES The following basic policies were established to guide the planning effort: 1 . Business uses should be confined within boundaries delineated on the existing zoning maps of both Town and Village. 2. The existing scale and character of the business areas should be preserved and adjacent residential neighborhoods should be pro- tected from adverse impacts caused by increased business activities, traffic operations, parking lot expansions or similar conditions. 3. Land use policies and development regulations should contribute to the appropriate use of existing underdeveloped or non-conforming properties and encourage development opportunities that may be identified. 4. Land use policies, and the development regulations to implement should reflect the specific characteristics of the varied sub-areas within the Study Area rather than treat all busines areas alike. iii 5. Policies and priorities for land use and parking must be developed jointly since they are integrally related. Each of the six planning units (see Map No. 8) was analyzed in terms of the following: existing land uses, traffic considerations, parking con- siderations, current development policies based on the existing master plan and zoning, development issues, proposed land uses policies, specific design or site planning considerations, and proposed implementation actions. Following are the major conclusions and recommendations developed from this process. B. LAND USE (See Map No. 9) Planning Unit #1 (Fifth Avenue: Town) Conclusions 1. This is one of the few locations in Town which is appropriate for various seice type uses which, although not especially attractive or compatible with other uses, provide useful sup- porting services to local residents and businesses. These include automotive uses, storage, equipment rental , etc. 2. Service uses should be given preference over retail uses in this area, since it is the only such area in the Town. Recommendations Establish a new Service Business (SB)District in the Zoning Ordinance, and amend the Zoning Map accordingly, which permits service uses by right while requiring other commercial uses to obtain a special permit. Site planning standards for landscaping and screening should protect adjacent residential areas. Planning Unit #2 (Madison Avenue/Myrtle Boulevard: Town) Conclusions 1. The business designation east of Madison Avenue is appropriate given the established uses and the few parcels remaining which have remaining development potential. 2. An excellent development opportunity exists west of Madison Avenue, in the underutilized block adjacent to the public works yard. It is suitable for high density residential , office or commercial use (or a combination of such uses) , has excellent access and visibility and there are no adjacent uses to be directly impacted by development. The primary consideration is that adequate parking and supporting facilities be provided. Land use controls to permit such a range of uses--either singly or in combination--are preferable to the current designation, which allows only business uses, or an iv exclusive residential district such as applies in adjacent areas. Assemblage of the smaller parcels in the block, to create larger, more efficient development units, is to be encouraged. Recommendations Amend the zoning regulations to permit a combination of residential , office and/or commercial uses in the B District, up to a height of 60 feet, and an F.A.R. of 1.0 on sites of at least 80,000 square feet, subject to the issuance of a special permit by the Planning Board. The special permit will require site plan review and ad- herance to design, use and functional criteria upon which the Planning Board will base its decision. Planning Unit #3 (Myrtle Blvd/Railroad Station: Town) Conclusions No changes in land use are appropriate. Recommendations None related to land use. Planning Unit #4 (Railroad Station/Woodland Ave: Village) Conclusions The existing use and function of this area is well established. The The only major change could result from development in accord with the standards of the RROC District which permit decked parking with multi-story offices above. No change in these land use policies is proposed. Recommendations None related to land use. Planning Unit #5 (Village Center) Conclusions 1 . The scale and character of the business area are well suited to a small, urbanized shopping center and encourages internal pedestrian circulation and multi-stop shopping. 2. The present requirement for off-street parking applies to ex- pansion of existing buildings as well as new structures and imposes a condition which is counter-productive. If adhered to strictly, it can preclude or serverely hamper construction which could upgrade properties or fill in dead spots. It may also lead to the creation of numerous, small inefficient parking areas which create access and maintenance probmlems. v • 3. A major portion of the responsibility for providing necessary off-street parking must be assumed by the Village to preserve the character of the business area and to provide parking in the most efficient manner. 4. Development which creates "dead spots" in the retail frontage-- such as parking lots or blank walls--detracts from the vitality of the business district. Recommendations Establish a new Retail Center (RC) zoning district to achieve land use, site planning and design objectives. This new district will exclude moderate expansions of existing structures from parking requirements, provide modified parking standards for larger ex- pansions or new structures and provide site planning and design guidelines to preserve retail frontages and architectural features. Planning Unit #6 (Western end of Palmer Avenue: Village) Conclusions 1 . Both retail and office uses are appropraite in this area. However, neither appropriate sites nor sufficient demand exists for the industrial uses presently permitted. 2. The industrial designation should be removed from the vacant strip along the railroad and allocated to expansion of retail sites on Palmer Avenue or supporting uses. Recommendations Revise the zoning regulations to remove the industrial zoning and refine the business district zoning to eliminate uses which may be incompatible. C. TRAFFIC Conclusions 1 . Field observation and analysis of the operation of each signal- ized intersection within the Study Area indicates that traffic operates at a satisfactory level of service. Further- more, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate additional traffic volumes with no loss in efficiency. 2. Street activity--parking maneuvers, loading and double parking-- creates conflicts with traffic that cause occasional delay or disruptions to normal flow. \/1 Recommendations 1 . Within the Village part of the Study Area, pedestrian crossing facilities should be made consistent by providing pushbuttons for pedestrians to walk at all signalized intersections. This will increase traffic capacity at Larchmont Avenue/Palmer Avenue and reduce delays while having no impact on pedestrian safety. 2. Within the Village, curb-side loading zones should be pro- vided on the east side of Chatsworth Avenue, north of Palmer Avenue, and on the west side of Chatsworth Avenue, south of Palmer Avenue. Once adequate loading space is available, vigorous enforcement should be used to prevent trucks and other delivery vehicles from double parking. D. PARKING Conclusions 1 . Even within the most actively used parts of the Village and Town on-street and off-street parking systems, there are more than enough spaces to satisfy total parking demand. There were always at least 200 empty municipal parking spaces during the Wednesday survey and over 700 during the Saturday survey. 2. Inconveniences to patrons result from several factors: a. Town and Village commuters may not be able to find a space within the Village commuter parking lots because they are competing with Village residents for the same spaces. b. Shoppers and vistors are unable to find space close to their destinations, either on street or in the municipal lots, because they are occupied by employees and residents. c. Employees cannot find legal long-term parking spaces because there are insufficient private spaces for each individual business and the municipal system makes no provision for them, unless they are Town/Village residents. d. Employees who are Town/Village residents may not obtain a permit because insufficient permits are available. e. Out of town commuters are unable to obtain a permit and may not be able to obtain a parking space. vii 3. Due to the intensity of development and high land costs in the business core, no suitable new sites exist to provide signifi- cant additional parking areas at a feasible cost. Decking over the large existing commuter lots is veryexpensive and would require parking rates far higher than any current charges or a substantial municipal subsidy. 4. Since the total supply of parking spaces is adequate, the most realistic and efficient solution to parking problems in the Study Area is to more effectively use existing parking spaces to meet specific, identified demands, rather than creating new spaces. Basic Objectives The recommendations set forth below are intended to achieve the following objectives: a. To provide legal long term parking spaces for employees in locations that are not in damand by shoppers or com- muters. This may result in a longer walk to work for some employees. b. To "free-up" parking spaces for shoppers during peak demand hours by requiring residents to park in alternate locations. c. To reduce competition for spaces between Town/Village commuters and residents and reduce spaces available to non-resident commuters. Recommendations (See Maps No. 10A and 10B) 1 . In the Town, provide for employee parking in the Myrtle Boulevard lot by strictly enforcing a no parking re- striction at the 12-hour meters until 8:30 a.m. 2. In the Town, reduce the number of metered parking spaces within the commuter parking lot by 27, to correspond with the number of meters in the Myrtle Boulevard lot. Increase sales of permits correspondingly. 3. In the Village, introduce long-term parking for employees on the following streets, after 8:30 a.m. a. Palmer Avenue, south side, from Parkway to Pine Brook b. Vanderburgh Avenue, north side, from Larchmont to Hall . viii c. Chatsworth Avenue, both sides, Vangerburgh to Concord. d. Larchmont Avenue, both sides, south of Center. e. Wendt Avenue, both sides, south of Vanderburgh. 4. Increase parking for shoppers on Saturday by modifiying the permit regulation in lots 4,7, 9 and 10 to allow parking in those lots from Sunday throughout Friday, excluding Saturday, and provide for holders of permits in lots 4, 7, 9, and 10 to park in lot 1 or 3 on Saturdays. 5. Strictly enforce the permit regulations and on-street parking regulations on all days Monday through Saturday. Consider use of short-term meters as an aid to enforcement. 6. In the Village, eliminate all non-Village/Town resident commuter parking permits. 7. Reserve a few convenient spaces near the railroad station for passengers departing after the commuter peak period. E. DESIGN Conclusions 1 . Achieving high quality design in the business district re- quires cooperation and coordination of public agencies and private property owners. 2. Many public signs detract from the appearance of the business area by both their design and location. 3. The design and maintenance of public street furniture--trees, planters, trash receptacles, bike racks, etc--is inconsistent. Recommendations 1 . Sign standards should be incorporated in the zoning regulations which are geared to the different characteristics of each business district. 2. Basic design standards for all public elements in the street- scape should be developed and guide future installation and maintenance. 3. Guidelines for facade design should be prepared for use by the Planning Board and Architectural Review Board. ix PART I SCOPE AND PURPOSE SCOPE AND PURPOSE This report represents the first phase of the update of the Master Plans of the Village. of Larchmont and Town of Mamaroneck. The Joint Planning Group determined that the business areas of the Town and Village warranted highest priority for study. It was decided that, since budgetary constraints would not permit all such areas to be addressed at once, the Study Area which is the subject of this re- port (see Map No. 1 ) should be dealt with first. The second phase of the program will consider the entire length of the Post Road in both the Town and Village. The basic purpose of the plan is to establish policies and guidelines for land use, traffic control , parking and design in the study area, based on evaluation of existing conditions, projected trends, and community objectives. Implementation of the policies is proposed in the form of specific actions--physical , legislative or administra- tive. The general work program included the following: A. Inventory and Analysis Field surveys were undertaken and data gathered from September 1985 to January 1986 in sufficient detail to provide a basis for detailed planning. Such data included: 1 . Land use distributions and relationships and detailed land use by structure. 2. Analysis of existing zoning regulations in relation to existing land use and potential development capacity. 3. Photographs and analysis of selected design attributes and problem areas. 4. Surveys of parking spaces by type and usage. 5. Compilation and analysis of existing parking policies and regulations. 6. Traffic signal features and design and analysis of inter- section capacity. 7. Public transit schedules, routes and stopping locations. 8. Identification of land use conflicts, traffic problems and parking deficiencies. Also, an informal questionnaire was distributed to their acquaintances by members of the Joint Planning Group (see Exhibit A). Tabulation of the returns provided a subjective impression of the business area from local residents perspective. -1- B. Business Area Policy Plan Based on the above analysis, a plan for the entire business area was developed in the course of meetings with the Joint Planning Group to review preliminary recommendations and consider alterna- tives. The Plan, in text and map form,includes the following: 1 . Land use and development policies as a basis for amendment to zoning regulations. 2. Parking policies and recommendations for short term and long • term actions. 3. Proposals for traffic circulation modifications, including both physical and regulatory actions. if necessary. 4. Design guidelines for treatment of public sidewalks and open • space and for public and business signs. • 5. An implementation plan, including recommended priorities for action. C. Action Program A program is recommended for implementation of high priority actions--those which are either urgent or can be easily accom- plished. Such actions consist of proposed zoning amendments, new parking regulations and improvements to parking facilities. The action program is in sufficient detail so that the responsi- ble local agency or board can take appropriate action without further study. -2- ��t U_itj it4.. tl G' c.--) • iiiii.:." o q O ,,.s 9 .dam • i 1„`�%%IuIt/11 • . 6..'` ---- a �r�Q0 ' - i - .l J1 /1 / p1 1 I` � C��=%mss_ ! ----- ♦ ' 4* � I ,.*.r 7 ”` �- — to--$116° ft:11* • ::::0 . • ...i.,). - " li� ♦� . -vii 1' , a i rsx 000° � II I Ii. 111 1 I I II_ Li• t t a 1111111 m�1 un/ ,:..r`� , Q Q .. aw '�• a _Ii. i .. ... � `` '' — ' ar a♦ O` _ -PJrkin9 o r Gp �_EWEY T S -- �� _ �r _r _ _ _ — __ lv�chmun!T BOUndnrV _c.7,-_-/-7...7,JeoFEL ..f.,-,-41.111.,Y. . .�:: ' �T;::: _ n � fNV / o d aCC 1 ` � � T� � ‘,L .. E fy ., .. PALNI�R . °` •is RAN Q �;.� 1// I / ". At't,�:7 �. UI 1 „ UII��IUI 111 �O1 1010,‘, 17;., '-. - 5 i;�., V' /411.1/1 1/1„' S^NotR �•�A�� 11118 Bee.. („. '> lT /1 ' '% K' ; -� �.e• .II/11'i ;�l�y 1 1 11 1 11 11 l/`�1 f �.r. 4 pav I, ' ��1 �', y r>' It,-k'? ':// / V. ��[�t ,� p - :•ir (�j Q'M .o Qn`�na h•��j �-Z ' ��fA"�En"E •�• ^c1 _/ / CoO[lpGE Sr' ;1.� _.( ¢ �� Cl- — 1 ,7 I �` A AVENUE/ .}��1�Ij _JR,cT - � rj�� �r•�` � . ' W %j,>' �: avf. :o "I 1 -n st _ -- .- ,�F � R'7 , r r� _I. -wry L N): 0 i%l• t{t• ,I` ' `,t (♦ o ''3 . r�� ..~ I• D• i:.T•-1. I!I>• y t� SwY .f:} '1 �.j �'i t,S . ''t -��-D��I+ r' fk',,,����'O.• 'a': �,, ✓" - _ ♦ �"r�t i y�.I Q� ,,FT-T#.� (1 J� r r'. kr' <5.-0 ' 4 13 V\ Gt':”,�••.:; .. `p R. A fII:1,�1/ , . l'k tl A_ - .' t /t0 - :i , 1 1 ..• j� [ri7q ' S• . -' • DIUI71r 04._ �, e)'`'i , • �,�`�fl Z 1 ��_l`_• l• I ,-��,W. `ff .2. ,• ♦-.-:,� J o∎ cnitl S 1 !- 3' AVC -, /,?,' .e , • ,� 4 ' . \ '-_ " ' 'c�•.,'�� �:.�� �' �. ._r.- NUF 3 J r..�s. Map No. MASTER Stud. Area P 1 UPDATE SHUSTER ASSOCIATES - .74.1 RD I,Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12484 1 II = 5 0 0 ' VILLAGE TOWN OF OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.. LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Traffic Engineering•Parking Studies PART II INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS II. INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS The Study Area is diverse and complex in terms of land use, transpor- tation facilities and function. It was delineated to include all of the business areas on either side of the rail line, including related parking facilities and adjacent residential areas in both the Village and the Town. For purposes of detailed analysis and planning, the area was divided into six planning units, as discussed in Section III. The general characteristics of the area, the major issues to be ad- dressed and general conclusions regarding traffic and parking are discussed in this section. A. Land Use Most of the Study Area is fairly densely developed and reflects pre-world War II development patterns centered around the rail- road station--multi-story apartment buildings (some with ground floor shops) surrounding a core of retail and service uses on small parcels of land. Only on the west end of Palmer Avenue and along Fifth Avenue are land uses spread out in the familiar post-war "strip development" pattern. The entire area is sur- rounded by single family development of almost uniformly high quality, on relatively small lots. This land use pattern is reflected very closely by the existing zoning regulations and district boundaries (see Map No. 2) which have been enforced to maintain the sharp distinction between the business area core and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. A survey of the land use of each property in the Study Area was completed and those areas where land use issues exist were identified. 1 . Underutilized Sites and Inappropriate Uses Since most of the development pattern for the study area is well established by existing zoning regulations and the quality and intensity of existing development, items of concern in these areas are primarily those of parking, traffic and appearance. In several areas, however, due to a combination of factors, land use issues of greater magnitude must be addressed. These "soft"areas are shown on Map No. 3 and discussed in greater detail in Part III. They include virtually vacant sites, such as the land south of the railroad behind the Palmer Avenue frontage; one or two family homes in business zoned areas surrounded by non-residential uses, such as on Maxwell Avenue and East Avenue; and, also, the large, surface commuter parking lots. In each case the possibility of a change and in- tensification of use exists and will be analyzed. -3- • DISTRICTS C�„ \ Town Village l3 1, D Business RR Retail Business �] • Q p ,, Ili:` LI Light Industry RROC Railroad Office Commercial C3 `y• ■ R-TA Residential Tower I Industrial 47 f i...i` 1 MF Multi-Family Residence +.,s' i NOTE: All other areas not designated are single 4. ■ ',� „•cc family residential districts. •��`.r "• ",,,,,,,:,. aka - wi`\s_- — – ___ 1.t 4 , wwje , ■•'�` • `� a —101 v0��b t 1 ` sf .! ,•' s p• Tat . ''' illi 1M ''t tik. IVO \ttigkir . ' \ ��y-+ �� ,,ALL + � j I �1• .... ' +• . , r. • !FRUWAY MtYtr " •'•00 ; . •. r DEWE ,R. a - ■ ■ /'a4.-4.vs E. _ ,, ,fit •.�■�■�•� �'+!" R/� t•' ,*4 3� t) r-h - ! ' ■ oz o� *S'.••(1 • .•.ii: 1 -�"11 ■Q ./ ��►•Jf,J :'. s■—.—.---- mot.—^— 'i4��■ .t . d,v�sue- -' f" __- ��_—_:. __ ._ fir•* ,At SG=T • '� Y.. i.• ^1 _ T 1 A. —J �: • Y■i'� il�■�■■a�■l(f■(■ •AVE/VUL'■ - T a 1 Ø ; i A/ .i■■..■■�■ V –r-- ■..r.. :� a �• ■:....�„: 7 ., .i ■ PALMER� 1a1 'E t . t • 1. '� c' :_�"'L �p Ram - ,I O 77-7'011 d 0,0- -�+ . 4� ��L: , O0,/lAi t 7r �,`''�, "� tt - �" S^�A• K �� , Pi.e Bears q .- • V 1' ': P./1%-i.k� -:) =\ y h t .�? �e /' /0013:11V� O . + �_ - 3../.,_el W•, <G►, ,. ••,. e. 4: QP^'kp�u• a i:.1 r o• i._ D. 10 a fi- ..V.- . ,- eA .. ...•• j - ®'1 . 1Z o ♦ >;1 C�1 - ¢ h� °-,p •l ., •.' a'' ay -% AJ •/iS•\- _�� r AVEI✓UE /•�a.yC 0 pirip''''"a„-- ���� l'� -/-�-ii I^- :9. ? w• Ito .'`,..,t r`. ugUpGN �:O '; j-- +if_ 1_ r r•y� I) Uf` ~•.I'�: fJ7 S,Uy�fr'l / .I \I ✓AN�f - \/Ttt.. A ,'" V, t p •‘ •I �•• •>s-�`i���::11 (7 bpi. ,,- (j `c) 4,; , ,,,,,,E _l'. Y.4, ,.t 7 3V'• y t c�•. A"`1. t7 r4.:1 . Map No. MASTER n PExisting ZoniUPDATE g SHUSTER ASSOCIATES VILLAGE TOWN OF RD I.Box 259 Slone Ridge,New York 12484 1 II = 5 0 0 OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Trallic Engineering•Parking Studies t1 `) .rr. -` 3 '-, ��, v� ,•"15J O C-, OQ -fl 1 d lr iiiii.:4 _ • •• /�`'• "'` „nom= % . ,-� . --/-L44:1.O.,.i.;?.:./.7:...:..4.`leii l °"1\1 lg. . 00011110111111111— *I• _ /,''' a� • ` i< ' Qlaa �� `;1 4 ----V ,....mii,ora t \co 0/44 f .. WI j.g-4. :::. • g , . :«::e ,.,,..„...00 rt 1111111117.06 \ .''..15' -1*---.--. i. .4,, '../ ab• ,.---"Cl ..-- '''',0":111ti ■ .... ----i 0.0!!!!:.. .. .tietitie.., i /160._____4.____ 71. .. •• .. j„,,204.4Y .. ...namougui Gov 1. ---- al 3 v�.xmg or — _•a•y{.r•T *•r t ►i isa .w DEyEY • 71/0.4-4../.5 n .., ...,,, 14 . wewts-wilim..." .1 •:•*.f....;eltkita.rip:•:•:;.:•t* 'er: •• s• �aas±ssa_s. ' ". /'1lriJDL � avtNU lJv� ; k/L�•, - ---' -_ _—=_:.-1:-.-----7.:-.-7- -.--.- - _�.. -. -r. • :YT.S^. .�w.±Y.Y.: •J:�.-_ ;j� r.�D 1 r h pay 6 • '.vir�- _. � a ol:'•• :"MPhil � •,n,:;r::tl' '"r,... `w?f' ;: ,.'"i ,�< �t• ;.�-mac y�' , ��• — • �� /•. •h, i ••.•1.'■ • 'AVE/VU • _ a s A ■ri�•� •9Nl"•}/1!" PALM4 rl ),, a -- _ • Q 0".""a=1.--_...."."7!y n•r. - fRAN �' .:.�'yaNO,ea ti .-• ,1 �� 7� t PI.e lfQN4 `' Al.,., �' ❑ .F;=,r„ .. �' d- L, Pp`SPQ a , .,• ,• .ofA \`^ 1-::(>1.� ® �E - +� "`+J> '9+1 '•r1 V• / /AO p��,■ p ,;t d;i d/4► .o Qn •1 ,5 '1 .1 D ��j AyfN r'a i �` ph fNUE coo - •,i.. i :'1 , _••G¢ ti) C7_'�— J . v ;?.- e� -1� L. `. - A✓•����C O �• r�� +t I''C;. 1 __D orn l hn; I— -\� 2 PT. SEA ';`•\'1::',- `-,g1�PGN O_ >' �'• �'� -.. • ;;.:,72: r'_ ' L 1�D• ;RBI) - - 8 .4 L. - ■ •s-,-,, .i r �_. t..- o ,t0 • •' ,=,'D �t yVA"NOf _,�,,i ._ .1, `,.- t:, �'Ro, ''` _ •..• :7 1 1 c :-:-4:41;? Q7 Ll• -f' r. �•r'`V� t, "K• r. r tir 1 h .,.,.N.,--;\ .lf,a n C, A,. Q Y •.���`or/C.O�\ w ' % ---- _.1 1 . .4- >•t �J, ,n 5,11: • tti/0 D ig -:r...."ea t" , i„1,-,-11,,,, ;2. ..v.---- - �. t .,. c a-• �. �, t ct•.1`V l. , _ f - , - r•�_/ 7 I !_fr .` •LT ,1� ..f.'\'1 r u AVENUE _11. C�� t, 4-... '• -‘ ._.‘� ,.;:soft Areas Map No. MASTER PLAN L and Use UPDATE Issues SHUSTER ASSOCIATES VILLAGE TOWN RD I.Box 259 Stone Ridge.New York 12484 1 It = 500 I OF OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Trallic Enginee.ing•Parking Studies The general issues to be addressed in each of these areas include the following: a. What are the appropriate uses of these areas? b. Does existing zoning foster such use? c. Are therespecific site planning and design objectives for these areas? d. Are development standards under existing zoning ap- propriate--particularly those relating to development intensity and parking? 2. Areas with Additional Development Capacity In addition to the areas described above, some developed areas have additional capacity under existing zoning. The impact of such additional development must be evaluated and a decision made as to how it can be accommodated or whether the zoning regulations should be amended to restrict develop- ment to present levels. B. TRAFFIC The Study Area is at the hub of several major east-west and north-south streets which carry traffic bound for the business area as well as through traffic. Traffic conditions in the Study Area were observed on frequent visits from early in the morning until late evening. Counts of traffic on nine approaches to the Study Area were made, by means of traffic counting machines, in 15-minute increments. The location of these counts is shown on Map 4, with a 24-hour, two-way, total. The counts are further summarized in Table 1 which shows the 24 hour traffic volume for each location. Peak period turning movement counts were made at the five traffic signal controlled intersections in the Study Area. These counts were made from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The intersections which were counted were those of Pdlmer Avenue with Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont Avenue and Depot Way West and of Myrtle Boulevard with Chatsworth Avenue and Murray Avenue. Four of the five traffic signals provide for both pedestrian and vehicular movements with separate signal indications. The Palmer Avenue signals provide three different options--a reserved separate time when all traffic stops and pedestrians may cross in any direction, each cycle, at Larchmont Avenue; a separate phase activated by a push button at Chatsworth Avenue; and no -4- {6 : L - (D N •- fi // 5 , 509 1- .CITY OF �e� Qa� NEW ROCHELLE a`� : 1, 5 , 056 �, 5 , 122 ¢ S' "' 12 , 981 M 000.0e • r 6 ,236 :� c Pie - 6 : •. P 4..:.:.:;.;'�'•• : rn F1ftS� 2,629 .`. -T :r. . . • 8 , 069 : m + 6 , 710 , �� - n ' )`9 : 7c 11 , 58C : a : Aston P°St a, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0 Traffic Count Location 1 ,234 24 Hour Two-wav volume ,,,,, Study Area i Map No. MASTER Traffic Volumes 4 PLAN UPDATE SHUSTER ASSOCIATES RD I.Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12484 VILLAGE TOWN OF OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES. INC.. LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Traffic Engineering•Parking Studies push button or pedestrian phase at Depot Way West. The Myrtle Boulevard signals, in the Town, which were under construction during most of the study period, provide for pedestrians to push a button when they wish to cross a street and then receive a signal to cross parallel to the through traffic movement. 1 . Levels of Service* An analysis of the levels of service at each of the five intersections was made based on the turning movements counted for the morning peak period, the afternoon peak period and the Saturday peak period. All of the intersections presently op- erate at a satisfactory level of service during all of the peaks. The highest levels of traffic volume occurs at the Palmer Avenue - Chatsworth Avenue intersection on Saturday. 2. "TOPICS" Changes During the course of the study the traffic signals at the intersection of Palmer Avenue with Chatsworth Avenue and at the intersections of Myrtle Boulevard with Chatsworth Avenue and Murray Avenue were reconstructed, as a result of traffic studies carried out in conjunction with the Traf- fic Operations Program to Improve Capacity and Safety (TOPICS). This was a federally funded program in the 1970' s whose ob- jective was to identify and implement low cost, highly effec- tive projects to improve capacity and safety. The signals at Palmer Avenue were modified to provide sepa- rate left-turning phases and separate left-turning lanes on all approaches. This arrangement was subsequently modified to provide for advanced left-turning phases and separate left- turning lanes on the eastbound and southbound approaches only. An exclusive pedestrian phase remains a part of the operation, but activation by push button is now required from 9:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. With the sophisticated equipment now installed, any legal combination of timing and phasing may be programmed. The reconstruction of the signals on Myrtle Boulevard was primarily designed to increase the distance between the two signal installations to avoid queues forming back from one signal across the preceding intersection and causing a traf- fic failure. New equipment was installed at both locations so that changing phasing and timing can now be accomplished very readily. There are no proposals to upgrade the traffic signals at the intersections of Palmer Avenue With Larchmont Avenue or Depot Way West. *See Exhibit B ror a detailed analysis of capacity and levels of service for each of the five intersections studied. -5- 3. General Conclusion • It is our principal conclusion that traffic operates and will continue to operate under all foreseeable develop- ment scenarios, at a satisfactory level of service with- in the Study Area. Parking and unparking maneuvers and on-street loading, particularly double parking for loading, creates "friction" which causes occasional disruptions in normal traffic flow. C. PARKING The diverse use pattern in the Study Area generates a substantial demand for parking spaces. This demand has been met over the years, in a variety of ways, by both private property owners and public agencies. Within the Study Area there are approximately 1 ,000 parking spaces provided by private owners and over 1 ,670 municipal spaces (see Map No. 5). The private lots are generally small . There are only 5 facilities with parking in excess of 50 spaces--the new office building on Woodland Avenue (104) , the People's Bank (80) , the Ryne Corporation (88) , Shopwell (133) and the apartment lot near Memorial Park (94) . Of the 35. private parking providers, 12 provide fewer than 10 spaces and 10 provide between 10 and 20 spaces. The surveyed parts of the municipal systems included 557 on- street spaces, of which 205 were in the Town and 352 were in the Village. Village lots 4, 7, 9, and 10 provide 177 spaces available to permit holders and shoppers. The Town has an 84- space lot on Myrtle Boulevard which contains permit spaces and 12-hour and 2-hour meter spaces. The two municipalities provide 879 commuter spaces. There are 27 twelve hour meters in the Myrtle Boulevard lot, 270 spaces in the Town commuter lot, 30 on-street in the Town, and 552 in Village lots 1 ,2,and 3. 1 . Parking Regulations (see Map No. 6) The Town regulates its parking through the issue of permits, through meters, and through posted regulations concerning duration of parking and prohibition of parking. It issues three types of permits--24-hour, daytime and nighttime. It has 12-hour and 2-hour meters and posted regulations range from 3 hours to 20 minutes. The Village also uses permits, meters and posted regulations. The Village has day permits, night permits but no 24-hour permits. It has 12-hour and 4-hour meters available in the commuter lots and its posted regulations are generally 2 hours, with some 1-hour, 30-minute, 15-minute and 10-minute spaces. -6- KEY Le ` Municipal Parking Lot. A Private Parking Lot. au•. ra �• Cr ` Number of On-Street Parking Spaces. NOTE: See Tables 2A and 4A for identifica- tion and capacity of parking lots. 'I •fa 'ts. will.0 ,: V:::::_e_____________,.00,0" ---./ C .'0°'-')-1- 2....-.1' ✓r 'ar'a•`0• 7...a0011.. YHIH' 5, 6 •as • `,'• 11.11,.. 2Y „It \A • GG„ :� \:�•l r t 1111:,•. 1 K try 9.: ..• i � A VII\I I 10...r.k:?ii Oh!::: 2 0 s'------■__---- 1 _ __. 1101\ ‘-'------",:-------- _._.........,„.........,... ..._ ::.:„ip, tpli..&....„ f _'14 © rte. 25 �9 9.4•',I�•�1� �,� $` ' �' . IB ..a• i ;In; 20 . ..„..,...,...... : , 6 .. 96 .silia''' .19 <3 /. • i tlit VA \ 5 /. s • I •.. ! .. A8 dry... g It Map No. MASTER Parking Itor 5 nven UPDATE SHUSTER ASSOCIATES VILLAGE TOWN OF OF RD 1,Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12484 1 t1 - 500 ' ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.' LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Traffic Engineering•Parking Studies KEY .N. 1111111111111 Short Term Parking "' Long Term Parking it •r•a`� aN•ra• y--;;______in. s ;00 fit• ^••ir 000000:::00 0t1I0 N. �. 1.1 ..." .....Y• ■ 111 0011' S 00 IS .. J ~ l 1, r. ►�►►►�pN ►►►►�►,►►��'~ ' rr eor ..•. IIIIIIUI�� rrrr 1....... .............— tttr •. � � rri.rtrrrr rrr r ,��11 {ri rr„` fi►� ir•.111111►=>e t • r _ 'Id�r latutn► • IItalv►+v IIh�1 ;. ►►�tlttt • tiV'a's �I� % fi 1111 F, ► �� uuluuuuu Sluuwwm �.:nuunuuuuuunnunn11u11 11111 IIUIU►1 �,,, +�►►►►,►, i ►►►►�`:,` ••a.a• _ A .ziti►pj11111 nn18 ununuryuuuifnn►n I/In►Z ���a G ? '`�►� o , li • sitindf",_ 7,, ol• • ..." Pilks.V.1.. r,f. SI OS° GO (IIFF�I ,O • A Map No. MASTER Existing Regulations 6 PLAN UPDATE E SHUSTER ASSOCIATES .)::: . RD I,Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12989 1 t. = 5 00 I VILLAGE TOWN OF OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Traffic Engineering•Parking Studies Some of the parking resources in both municipalities are reserved for Village or Town resident permit holders. Others are made available on a first come first-served basis. Some spaces are restricted to short-term parking (two hours or less) , others allow long-term parking. Neither Town nor Village permits on-street, overnight parking. Both provide for off-street overnight parking with a permit available to residents of the municipality. 2. Parking Surveys (See Maps 7A and 7B) Surveys of parking occupancy in all of the public and private spaces in the Study Area were carried out on Wednesday, November 20, 1985 and Saturday, January 4, 1986 from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 P.m. . During the Wednesday survey, the license plates of vehicles within the municipal parking spaces were also noted so that the rate of turnover could be identified. The occupancy of the private parking spaces is summarized in Tables 2A and 2B for Wednesday and Saturday respectively. Although there are 35 parking providers the tables show 37. parking locations because the People's Bank was subdivided into three separate areas. The difference between the Wednesday and Saturday surveys is quite clear in the number of locations having an occupancy, at some point during the day, of 85 percent or greater. On Wednesday there were 17 such locations. On Saturday there were 5. Table 3, shows the overall status of the private parking facilities on Wednesday and Saturday respectively, showing the total number of vehicles parked at each hour during the survey period (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.). These tables show that although many of the facilities were fully occupied the overall occupancy never exceeded 60 percent on the Wednesday nor 40 percent on the Saturday. There were always over 400 empty parking spaces in private facilities on the Wednesday and almost 600 on the Saturday. It should be noted that not all of the private parking facili- ties are restricted to occupants of the associated buildings. The private parking facilities include parking for customers as well. Since the survey was completed, arrangements have been made for two of the larger private parking facilities in the Vil- lage to be made available to the public on Saturdays, during the peak retail shopping period. These lots are located in the southeast quadrant of the Palmer Avenue - Chatsworth Avenue intersection -7- • Those parts of the municipal parking systems which were surveyed are illustrated on Map No. 5. Included were all of the Town and Village off-street lots within the Study Area and those streets where a heavy parking demand was ob- served during the initial reconnaissance. The total number of spaces which were surveyed amounts to 1 ,670. Many more streets within the Village part of the Study Area allow parking but are not heavily used. Among those are: 1 . Soundview Drive from Center Avenue to Cliff Way; 2. Center Avenue; 3. Vanderburgh Avenue east of Chatsworth; 4. Wendt Avenue south of Vanderburgh; and 5. Chatsworth Avenue south of Vanderburgh. Table 4 lists the maximum number of occupied parking spaces in each of the Village and Town lots and in groupings of Town and Village streets within the Study Area for the Wed- nesday survey, and the Saturday survey. It can be seen that, on Wednesday, there was always a certain number of on-street parking spaces available in both Town and Village during the survey period. The Myrtle Boulevard lot, Village lot 9 and Village lot 10 never reached 85 percent or greater occupancy. Village lots 1 , 2, 3 and 7 all exceeded 95 percent occupancy. Eight-five percent occupancy is the appropriate criterion for full occupancy of shopper/visitor parking. Ninety-five percent is more appropriate for commuter parking. On Saturday Village lots 4,7, and 10 and the on-street parking on Chatsworth and west of Chatsworth to Glen Lake Drive in the business district all exceeded 95 percent occupancy and parking on Palmer Avenue further west exceeded 90 percent occupancy. Elsewhere within the Village and in the Town there was a considerable number of parking spaces available, ranging from 5 spaces in Village lot 9 (out of 24 spaces) to 278 in the Town commuter parking. Village lots 1 and 2 had 160 empty spaces and Village lot 3 had 154 empty spacess This analysis tends to show that, even within the most actively used parts of the Village and Town on-street and off-street parking systems, there are more than enough spaces to satisfy total parking demand. There were always at least 200 empty municipal parking spaces during the Wednesday survey and over 700 during the Saturday survey. -8- • KEY -- Less Than 85% Occupancy ........a — Greater Than 85% Occupancy __________i. rt..° ts. 000 og..°:::' • Y ..... ......111.• � �•ff I,:t ,,...... Y .... ^ /•,,,la 0 . M :-...••=4: Li •el 1 tNr<uw�t CO a I r Ii II --- ------ -- -- ------ .....__ - ......... •„.i. loglie _. _ 11 1 •"...• z 1 /••' 's •• a•... 3 t Map No. MASTER PLAN Parkin g Occupancy - weekdays 7A UPDATE E SHUSTER ASSOCIATES • .7 RD I.Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 1248 11 • = 500 1 VILLAGE . TOWN ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., OF OF MAMARONECK Traffic Engineering•Perking Studies • KEY -- Less Than 85% Occupancy •M• ,•,•,a,.. Greater Than 85% Occupancy .,,•• N,•. g...1 •1.01. C1 Y 4Pm,.. 11 ...... . '.•... on 11 i..„.........-.-f..'..6.4 .1i1- " ir, -i t 1- ..•• 1, •••.a •r.''' ; 11 v...,,_ Y .>„..,..-- rio- ‘ ....... ,.• ...... (3. II i I ‘---• oar. ..••• �: ' �•�:�•111::)11•11.1 \100....0 70 0 0 .4:...:40)_ . • c' 17?) ' ••c..........'..A 1 -•• l Q /•�f .nar t I Map No. MASTER Par kin g Occupancy - Saturday 7B PLAN UPDATE E SHUSTER ASSOCIATES VILLAGE TOWN RD I.Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12484 1 fI = 500 I OF OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Traffic Engineering•Perking Studios 3. Parking Demand There are four sources of readily identifiable demand for municipal parking. a. Village and Town residents who live within the Study Area and who do not have access to private parking. b. Commuters using the Larchmont Railroad Station. c. Owners and employees of businesses within the Study Area. d. Shoppers and visitors to businesses within the Study Area. Each of these constituencies has different peak parking demands on a weekday and on a Saturday and those peaks occur at dif- ferent times and are concentrated in different locations. Local Residents The most difficult demand to evaluate is that of the local resident. This category includes those who park their cars 24 hours a day within the municipal system as well as those who commute to work by car and leave a space available for daytime use. Some indication of the local resident daytime parking demand can be obtained by reviewing the survey information for the Town and Village parking lots. In the Myrtle Avenue lot there were 59 vehicles parked at 6:00 a.m. , 51 vehicles parked at 9:00 p.m. and 18 vehicles parked in place for the entire 15 hours of the survey period. This would indicate a high daytime resident usage. In the Town commuter parking lot, 18 vehicles were present at 6:00 a.m. and 62 at 9:00 p.m. ; no vehicles remained for the entire survey period. This would indicate a low level of overnight resident parking and that those residents moved their cars during the daytime.* In the Village lot #1 there were 122 vehicles present at 6:00 a.m. , 117 at 9:00 p.m. and 35 vehicles remained un- moved throughout the survey period. This indicates a signifi- cant demand for both nighttime and daytime resident parking. Village parking lot #2 had 38 vehicles present at 6:00 a.m. , 35 at 9:00 p.m. and 2 remained for the entire 15 hours. This would indicate a significant overnight demand with the vehicles being removed during the day. Village parking lot #3 had 29 vehicles parked at 6:00 a.m. , 46 at 9:00 p.m. and 9 vehicles remained all day, a pattern similar to that of parking * Should a change of ownership of existing residential structures (rental to condominium) result in changes in parking availa- bility, a small increase in demand can be accommodated by the muncipal system. Such changes, and their effect on car ownership patterns should be closely monitored. -9- lot #2. Village parking lots 4, 7, and 10 had a total of 89 spaces occupied at 6:00 a.m. , 51 at 9:00 p.m. and. 12 vehicles remained throughout the 15-hour survey period. Again a heavy overnight parking demand is indicated with most of the vehi- cles being removed during the daytime. On Saturday, lots 4, 7, 9 and 10 had 118 vehicles present at 6:00 a.m. and 112 at 9:00 p.m. The survey methodology does not allow us to say how many were removed during the day. The probability is that relatively few were removed at any one time. The Village has about 500 valid nightly permits in circula- tion at any one time. Commuter Commuter parking is provided in the Town by means of 12-hour meters in the Myrtle Boulevard lot, Station Drive, Vine Street and in the Town commuter parking lot. Altogether the Town provides 330 commuter parking spaces of which approximately 150 are reserved for permit holders and the balance are available on a first-served basis. Ap- proximately 30 of those spaces, all within the permit area, were available throughout the weekday survey period. The Village provides commuter parking in Village lots 1 , 2, and 3. Taken together they accommodate approximately 550 vehicles. In lot #1 , 189 of the spaces are controlled • by permits. The remainder are controlled by parking meters, at the majority of which a Village parking sticker must also be displayed. Those spaces which are located on rail- road owned property are available on a first-come first-served basis. As discussed above, residents within the Study Area have access to commuter parking spaces and reduce the number of spaces truly available to commuters in search of a parking space. The 879 commuter parking spaces provided by Town and Village have an occupancy rate of 95 percent or greater and can be said to be full to capacity on a weekday. This forces persons arriving after commuter hours to make an extensive search on both sides of the track for the few remaining spaces. Employees Accommodation for owners and employees of the businesses within the Village part of the Study Area is limited to the number of permit spaces in lots 1 , 4, 9 and 10, which are only available to residents of the Village or Town. Fifteen permits in parking lot 1 are available to merchants who are not residents. No provision is made within the -10- municipal system for employees whc are not residents of the Village or of the Town. Within the Town, employees of businesses may compete for 12- hour parking meters in the Myrtle Boulevard lot with commuters who arrive much earlier, or may use 3-hour parking spaces located on Myrtle Boulevard. Alternatively, if they are residents of the Village or the Town they may compete for daytime permits which are available for 11 spaces in the Myrtle Boulevard lot which are presently held by residents who also hold the corresponding 11 nighttime permits. Nevertheless, both in the Town and in the Village, all employees find a parking space either within the many private lots which are available, totaling approximately 1 ,000 spaces, or in the municipal systems by using and reusing spaces which are signed for 2-hour or 3-hour parking, or less. Shoppers and Visitors The fourth constituency, shoppers and visitors to busi- nesses within the Study Area, generally arrive after the commuters and local employees. Over one quarter of the on- street parking spaces in the central part of the Village busi- ness district were occupied before 9:00 a.m. Almost 60 percent were occupied by 10:00 a.m. It is reasonable to suppose that not many of these parkers were shoppers or business visitors. 4. Fees The fees charged by the Town and Village for permits are listed in Table 5. It can be seen that parking costs average $10.00 - $30.00 per month so that availability of a permit is a greater control on parking demand than its cost. There are waiting lists for permits in all of the Village lots except lot #1 . 5. Conclusions a. The total number of parking spaces in the Study Area is sufficient to accommodate all of the parking demands. However, b. Inconveniences to patrons manifest themselves in several ways: ( 1 ) Out of town commuters are unable to obtain a permit and may not be able to obtain a parking space. (2) Town and Village residents may not be able to find a space within the Village commuter parking lots because demand exceeds supply. -11- (3) Shoppers and visitors are unable to find spaces on-street or in short-term municipal lots close to their destina- • tions because they are occupied by employees. (4) Employees cannot find legal long-term parking spaces because there are insufficient private spaces for each individual business and the municipal system makes no provision for them, unless they are Town/Village residents. (5) Employees who are Town/Village residents may not obtain a permit because insufficient per- mits are available. c. Much of the inconvenience to Town and Village residents may be eliminated by reallocating the parking spaces • within the present parking system, by changing the regu- lations to achieve an overall parking plan and, if necessary, by reducing the.number of commuter spaces available to non-resident commuters. d. Although no increase in the number of parking spaces is necessary to satisfy present parking demand, one component of that demand--out of town commuters--is deliberately restricted due to lack of appropriate facilities. The construction of parking facilities to satisfy that element of demand would require: ( 1 ) Parking rates of $1 ,500 per year to support the cost of land acquisition, construction and operation, or large subsidies instead. • (2) Coordination of parking rates among the railroad stations along the line. . 6. Evaluation of Prior Parking Proposals a. A Village committee recently completed a study of possible legislation to require developers to pay a fee in lieu of required parking spaces. Fees would be used to provide additional municipal off-street parking. Such an approach presupposes the need for additional spaces, the availability of suitable sites and a willingness to proceed with acquisi- tion and construction by the Village. The analysis developed during the course of this study indicates that parking problems can be solved by more efficient use of existing spaces. Furthermore, virtually no sites were identified which are suitable for providing additional parking, at a reasonable cost, without adverse impact on adjacent uses. b. From time to time initiatives have been made to increase parking supply by decking the Town or Village commuter parking lots. These suggestions also presuppose a need for additional spaces and/or that potential users (com- muters) would be willing to pay rates sufficient to avoid heavy municipal subsidies or, at least, keep subsidies at -12- a manageable level. Commuters have alternative sourcesof supply at neighboring railroad stations so that rates would have to be both raised and coordinated among several stations for this to occur. There is adequate evidence from the parking surveys to state that there is sufficient existing space for all Town/Village residents who commute, if it is allocated correctly. D. DESIGN There is no single architectural theme or character throughout the Study Area. Rather, it reflects the several periods during which development has taken place. With some exceptions, the general ambiance is pleasant, particularly at the core of the area around the Palmer - Chatsworth intersection. Therefore, the concern of public design is primarily with details which can enhance the existing character of development and with re- view of new development to ensure a compatible blend with the scale, orientation and materials of existing development. • Past public efforts to enhance the visual environment are ap- parent throughout the business area. However, some additional actions should be considered. These include the following: 1 . Signs a. Business Signs: The size, design and location of business signs contribute greatly to the appearance of a business district. There has been an obvious effort to control inappropriate signs, particularly hanging and freestanding ones. It may, however be worthwhile to consider permitting small scale hang- ing signs in the core of the business area where pedes- train traffic is heavy. See photos 1 and 2. b. Public Signs: The profusion of signs for traffic, parking and directional purposes can be both unsightly and ineffective. A program to improve design, location and coordination of such signs can enhance the business district appearance. See photos 3 and 4. 2. Street Furniture/Sidewalk Paving There has been an effort to provide the visual and functional amenities which enhance an urban business area. Continued attention is required, however, particularly in those areas with heavy pedestrian activity. See photos 5 and 6. -13- r x .b. . � 1 -i .1tt 4 x'•-• y \ ' / - " ., + \�•,j...... . ... ii'......... „4,c,- .. : , L 7,• t J . ..'. -''. - LA- i I,:.. 1 fe ,1 25 I 'e. y -• , 111S1"111t,...4.40• . re ' ft/tLiiiii 4 1 1 I •P I:4 I i _21_, Ma Photo 1 : The pedestrian has no indication - of up coming stores. `' 1 Photo 2: An awning is used to accomplish the objectives of a small sign. Photo 3: The signs detract from attractive landscaping. '‘Ilr '` 44.- _iir �` te - ,' I i ' ' _ , j , sr ---� 1 _fi � j x,,: ... : a-:v � '�I- .'. 1 ,,IN STATION I ....;t,. 1r q '�"4 ,t' 4: '[s aN0 �► �....A— -. ..te r ., - 1 ,> _ s r 'RECYCLING- f �* '•.1•` L s a _ , 7 •- _ ' „;,;,, + .�CJI - 4� `�` 1 �ma � • 3 ' '-:' '-.....•-._'-'-'41fi. ',7.1.••>:% Akt!..*-.. - .i •.• :'"1:4-1','•••:' ...."- '4":4-42,1.1 .. • ._,. r s �J : y L [w _ .. __ _.„ . .. _ __. _ _ . ...,..,..--....- -..- ,.. ,.,. _,.... _. , . .'.‘,.....7-,:";,.....:::943',.p.4.71t.z.,.#;."7. - .,44N4.,_,.:44,1- :.16t\' _A Al!v.r."'"",,,, ,.Z1 trw: -7-t..A.- .., , , . . 4 i 4`s . si _ y ■■11 y 1\, 5 r• r s.. . IL • _i d' ' '\ _ ' ' RESTRICTED ;� - .r_' PARKING .1 r.'• BY PERMIT ONLY MON. THRU FRI. `-•% f 7AM TO 7 P t. r ' ' _' 3•, �� EXCEPT AT RED •D 1,t,--17------ ' �` 4- PARKING•METERS' ci:‘'''' --.- - • 7:::14-1; tra;-!).":!1.t13-11(r1;11114;&:: -6V.41 ;Q <; ..'- NIGHT t t ,_ s � � :Y; . :r PARKING ,. , �: � :r..t�=i• 2AM-6AM'.:..,.. .�..,;r r,. 1 , , 5 r• G��,,:.-'.R,.x ..,,:.' BY PERMIT?,��;�`f;,"�.:��,_:.;. '� L — ,a-'''14.4 TOR METER_` ''•� ^"-;"• Ilg �, 4!: ,_14,0~ �`w a`.a ;. .�^' of J`'- 1 '., ..4 ' '—.r mil.`, .'f : r t ,,�, , V. �;, �v,' Photo 4: Coordinated design and messages .. i• -, would be clearer and more ' . t z•-__,.- wy attractive. p++ ,;tr -i',-1 T ues _(; ! -i :IC , 4 .p..,� ; 14x I ;,.__--11 fw.t `k •r� "' .., +� s •�1: . „4I Photo 5: Maintenance aProper choice of materials is importan- 6 Photo 6: A useful piece of equipment can __ `\ become a nuisance at the wronc location. .. a ,•t .9 e . . i ; .' .• `r^ , • 'l ...0,-.,,t;;,,, j 4 1q r.. T� r 'i {a t k' ai t.... ,,,,1•^? tt 1. n . •t - •..g..iti;i-,----. " iY '. \j . 7 ikiiiiri ....._. __ „..........,..... . _ __ . _ _ _ _ Photo 7: Shrubs screen the parking lot, but - F ' signage can be improved. rf ',% dr��; Photo 8: This walkway is functional but not 3 ., ,, I. ',,,�. much more • E-0.1-',i `r =~` '� - ' � Photo 9: A service area which handles• -t parking and traffic as well . • 41 it (. ' I Ilr • J .t ,,, - - ,111 iq . .....,:. . . i ,_ ' iill \ -4. 1. {; !yO 6.:.*. _... . ,_:.,„;., ...1.,ii. ti n 1 ' i 1'v+ is .. i. ri �.�... •i it L --,:,,ter:b Jig t•`S i� - _ • i's` t � _. y z 10 % »iS-I aF J, �iw1 . ., . . _r.,';')(4,, , fc.,.4•,... 4.7 -f•-.„,. , 1\ "`" ...6., ... ., ' - 1.•::■:.•:,,1.-Ff„,_,-.4.t.i.,.1.''14:41.11*-..,14;e:, , T S pi �Y � . • "' . 6S it , y:" ,e..'' 1,.i.; '. P a'74,Y:77!1,11+7,01,4" �:r4:1:4 .',.,x , ,. � e,�:? ; .i. Ph.,--..o 10: This dense tree obscures a sign "'i .« �'' ....•` � �,'r'~' s'6'' Photo 11 : An attractive facade is bloc ker_ " , � 0 .=L' P `,_ -Z..H,.= Photo 12: This less dense tree with s-'.. _--- R• r —t=�. , s°. '. leaves is better suited to - - -,, . .... - ,'f ': business district. -42_12 Photo 13: Trees would certainly help here 1 1 ' r � 3 f -, Awl_, . _. ;:....... .T,r :i.t...„,./..4„. . ...._--.- .......,.. ,.4,....,..„ . . -..-. ,,,,,,,,... _.„,,, . ..,, _ _ }r p ...,,,,,,...,... _,,...„........, .... ..,..-.... ..f.,,,_.4....ri . ) • , a as ti r. a 3. Parking Areas and Walkways Most people arrive at the business area by car. The parking area and the route they walk to their destination does much to form their impression of the business district. There- fore, parking lot design, landscaping signageand access must be attractive. See photos 7, 8, and 9. 4. Entrances The quality of the many entrances to the business district varies. Many are attractive--some are not. A program of common entrance and directional signs could be useful and provide a common design theme. 5. Landscaping The tree planting on Palmer and Chatsworth Avenues is attractive and provides welcome shade. In some cases, it is almost too much of a good thing--blocking out signs and building facades. Thinning of existing trees and selection of less dense species for new plantings should be considered. In other areas tree planting would • help to improve the visual environment considerably. See photos 10, 11 , 12 and 13. -14- PART III PLANNING ANALYSIS AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT III. PLANNING AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT This section summarizes the analysis of existing conditions and formulates development policy and specific actions to implement policy. The specific land use policies are based on several basic principles derived from past planning efforts, discussions with Town and Village officials and Joint Planning Group members, and consultant observations, as follows: 1. Business use and development should be confined within the present boundaries delineated by the existing Zoning Map and the sharp distinction between business and residential zones maintained. 2. The general scale and character of the business areas should be preserved and adjacent residential neighborhoods must be protected from any adverse impacts of business uses. 3. Land use policies and development regulations should contribute to the appropriate use of existing underdeveloped or non- conforming properties. 4. Land use policies, and the development regulations to implement them, should reflect the specific characteristics of the varied sub-areas within the study area. 5. Policies for land use must be coordinated with the general con- clusions concerning traffic and parking which are set forth in Part II. PLANNING UNITS For the purpose of analysis and detailed planning, the study area has been divided into six planning units which each have common characteristics and/or defined physical boundaries (see Map No. 8). Set forth below is a discussion of each planning unit in terms of the following: 1. Existing land uses. 2. Traffic considerations. 3. Parking considerations. 4. Current development policies based on the existing master plan and zoning. 5. Development issues. 6. Proposed land use policies. 7. Specific design or site planning considerations. 8. Proposed implementation actions. -15- • 'mot s 0 ao 000 $-.4 i ` S' Q C / -- s„ 1.G' 4ibi i h j • �) r 1 J;∎ 4 . ,,, ti j,,,Iti; I lliVio• -•)°'''' •.I ;� w p ' nn m �r t�� �' 1,____ p a a � p-,.,` ��� . O . -��DEWEY _�_I_ � • Lorchman/�BOtii7do� Tr• `! __T. =-I —T —G ' _ I' OH ,rTT\ L N; o y.O[ANO 17 1 I <_� '�'�c°.I4 \6 •Sr ,mss . 7_,y$ WI 1,-,I _._-- 1,i?�/T „ / "0" ,Aj, 10 0 Eiggilocc •Dia ITO . IP . t-..--:,.. . .0.,,..:." _ . ....., ..„............_, , - et- J PALMER ���� o „[ ® r5 fRANKC V 1"").'- ttiltt► t Ilt I°,,eaus1 .-. 1 I� `� - � _ .. tt,l' t1 tit ��t �T� 11,11 ,���) ��1� �11 �1 ► - ,�4 S 1. 1 1 tt,�t1t�tt t !�1 p.4. K--1 �I ` ill 1 irccv. (,,, V` 1 P N ,��A%r.\rn,art r.� �1+� ✓` '7 ,� _,•-1 ; .- ►n►�I(�f�UlItL`®� n t u u tt P., OrM /� � / . •1:::1:t�L� �, �fNUE ` ", 1 t -/ `�Wee",�166�IJJ 4� 1 ;1 `' '�i r•. A : r AVENUE/ CODL/oCE ';:P `� -"Y'p�.. C)•v r I ;./ e 1 w yf. „�I -' 1] ,— • - - :\ -// ,, 1i1 r'3}l`l f5'7 I [ , :Vt ' r `n+.. -\� . �. oR r-,�i, ,1,`*_ • _ "y_/r L��i`" '^ � 1 L aD `sj� t /�.7_ 3 �� �`!Iq�'�. , �.,\ —1 1 vF 1� ^�/�6 cCi Qr—r�•: - U' 4<+' �Yfs. - llr�' �'�.`` �,, ,\..+ r:q__A N,If 1:04t . ''� {.\�� JN`t�tt0. 1 i✓ t I ^-� /--„'-k " Il �3.1 itYL: 1:,'N...1-IIiwLf' • �,.th. —e-, . '•.� -ilv,,Lr \ r,\t<' ` \••. �•\\1 .`' - - '•' ':> ' . '• `i: ` : -ear :U • Map No. MASTER Units 8 PLAN Plannin UPDATE g SHUSTER ASSOCIATES TOWN RD I.Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12484 1 II = 500 , VILLAGE OF OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Trallic Engineering•Perking Studies PLANNING UNIT #1 1 . Existing Land Use This area encompasses both sides of Fifth Avenue between Madison Avenue and the New Rochelle line plus the west side of Valley Place. It is an area of varied, sometimes conflicting, land uses and by far the poorest building and site maintenance conditions in the entire study area. The biggest single property in this area is the Thruway Authority headquarters. There are also several automotive uses, a nursery, some service/light industrial uses and some residences on and near Lester Place. The area has distinct boundaries in the Town consisting of the Thruway on the south, ' Madison Avenue on the east, and topographic change to the north; it is, however, a continuation of a similar area in New Rochelle to the east. Based on the relatively poor condition and low intensity of many of the uses in this area, it has more "soft" areas--those with the greatest potential for change--than any other portion of the Study Area. 2. Traffic Considerations The principal thoroughfare .serving Planning Unit #1 is Fifth Avenue which carries just over 6,000 vehicles per day. This is well below the capacity of a two-lane street and moderate develop- ment or redevelopment of this area at intensities similar to those which presently exist can readily be accommodated. The principal traffic concern should be the proper location and spacing of driveways and the provision of adequate sight distance. 3. Parking Considerations The field observations which led to the definition of the parking study area showed that there was little demand for on-street parking, the only municipal parking available in the Planning Unit #1 area. It was therefore not included within the parking study. Care should be taken that, when any changes in the use or density of this area occur, adequate off-street parking is provided through the zoning process. The present parking requirement is quite high and should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis against the actual uses permitted within the area. It should be possible to reduce the present uniform parking requirement and encourage development necessary to upgrade the area while not creating a demand for parking beyond that which can be provided, on-site, by each private use. -16- 4. Current Development Policies This entire area is zoned B (Business) , although it contains few of the principal uses permitted in that district. Neither the 1966 Master Plan nor the 1976 Update address this area in detail , although both designate it for continued business use. The bulk and area regulations for business uses in the Zoning Ordinance seem to encourage business development with urban characteristics, since no minumum lot area, width, or front, side or rear yards are required and a floor area ratio (F.A.R. ) of .5 is permitted, However, the parking requirement for re- tail or service uses (one space for each 100 square feet of floor area) is quite high and will result in very low density, spread out development if followed. 5. Development Issues The basic issue considered in this area is whether it should continue to be designated for business use, under the same type of regulations as apply to the other business areas in the Town and Village, or should it be rezoned to more closely reflect its present use as a service area. Relationship of this area to the residential area to the north and the new apartments approved for the Garfield site across Madison Avenue must also be considered 6. Proposed Land Use Policy For two reasons, it is proposed that this area be designated as a business/service area as opposed to a general business area: a. It is one of the few locations in Town which is appropriate for various service type uses which, although not especially attractive or compatible with other uses, provide useful supporting services to local residents and businesses. Service uses include automotive uses, storage, equipment rental , etc. b. It is desirable to encourage retail businesses and offices to locate in the existing business areas to strengthen these centers rather then encourage dispersion. 7. Site Planning Considerations a. Access from Fifth Avenue must be carefully reviewed to insure that traffic flow is not impeded. b. The small residential enclave at Lester Place must be pro- tected from the adverse impact of business development on Fifth Avenue by careful review of site plans for new business uses. -17- 8. Proposed Implementation Actions The primary action required to establish this area as a service district is the creation of a new zoning district which permits such uses by right while limiting the conditions under which other uses may be allowed. Site planning standards for land- scaping, curb cuts and screening, especially for business uses adjacent to residential areas, and modification of parking re- quirements are also proposed. Proposed amendments to the Town Zoning Ordinance are set forth in Section IV. PLANNING UNIT #2 1. Existing Land Use Included in this area are a mixture of retail , office, industrial , service and residential uses bounded by the Thruway on two sides and intensive apartment development on the other two. The unit is bisected by the right angle streets of Madison Avenue and Myrtle .Boulevard. Also included are 78 public off-street parking spaces, 107 on-street parking spaces and a substantial number of private parking spaces. The largest site in this area is two acres of Town and Village owned land, formerly housing the incinerator and water pumping plant, now used for the Town public works yard and recyling center. The remainder of this block contains a mixture of "soft" parcels--including several small residences, a vacant supermarket and a vacant industrial building--occupying an additional 2.5 acres. The most substantial uses in this area are located on the north side of Myrtle Boulevard--an office building and several 4 - 6 story residential structures with first floor commercial uses. A vacant automotive use is also located on this frontage next to a one story commercial building. 2. Traffic Considerations The principal thoroughfare serving Planning Unit #2 is the combination of Myrtle Boulevard and Madison Avenue. Madison Avenue is intersected by the Thruway ramps which carry fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day, a relatively low flow for a high- way access, probably due to the location of the toll station in close proximity. The intersection of Myrtle Boulevard and North Chatsworth Avenue is one of the more highly utilized intersections within the overall Study Area. Recommendations for improvements to this intersection, which operates in conjunction with the inter- section of Murray Avenue and Myrtle Boulevard just to the east, -18- were made in the federally funded TOPICS study. Those improve- ments are presently under construction and provide for a further . separation of the two intersections to provide increased storage space for vehicles waiting to make maneuvers between North Chatsworth Avenue and Murray Avenue. A small increase in the capacity of the intersection will result from the project. The level of service (see Exhibit B) of the North Chatsworth Avenue/Myrtle Boulevard intersection was estimated for morning and evening peak hours and for the Saturday midday peak hour, based on traffic counts made in November 1985. The intersection was found to operate at satisfactory level of service during all three peak hours, using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual Planning Application Worksheet. The level of service would remain the same with a 25 to 30 percent increase in traffic. Thus a signifi- cant amount of new development within the study area can be accom- modated without causing noticeable traffic congestion at this location. The current proposal to construct a new apartment complex between Jefferson Street and Garfield Street, to the north of Planning Unit #2 was also reviewed. The impact of this project, although in close proximity to the intersection, will not adversely impact the level of service. 3. Parking Considerations The parking study area was extended north of this Planning Unit to include all on-street parking generated by development located within the Planning Unit area. The parking survey found that there was active parking on-street and in the Town lot fronting Myrtle Boulevard on both weekdays and Saturday but that, with the exception of parking on the southerly Thruway ramp extension located just north of Jefferson Street, at least 15 percent of the available curb and off-street parking spaces was always unoccupied. The level of demand for municipal parking both on-street and in the Town lot indicates that present land uses within this Plan- ning Unit area do not provide adequate parking to satisfy their own needs. It is important that future development within this Planning Unit does provide adequate parking to satisfy its own needs so as not further exacerbate the pressures on the munici- pal spaces. 4. Current Development Policies Most of this area is zoned for business use under the only business designation in the Town's Zoning Ordinance. The Town/Village re- cycling center property at the end of Maxwell avenue is zoned LI , Light Industry, the only area so designated in the entire Town. The 1966 Master Plan did not propose any change in the use of this area; however, the 1976 Update suggested possible industrial use of the block between Maxwell Avenue and Byron Place, adjacent to the recycling center. -19- 5. Development Issues The primary land use issue in this planning unit is the under- utilization of the block bounded by Madison Avenue, Maxwell Avenue and the Thruway. This block is highly visible, has good access by car and train and would be appropriate for a variety of uses. However, its efficient use is precluded by the number and small size of the separately owned parcels within it. The use of the Town/Village land could also have a significant bearing on development here if it were to become available. However, the lack of alternate sites for these functions indi- cates that it will likely remain in public ownership and use. 6. Proposed Land Use Policy The business designation east of Madison Avenue is appropriate given the established uses and the few parcels remaining which are available for development. West of Madison Avenue, the underutilized block bounded by the Thruway is suitable for high density' residential , office or commercial use or a combination of such uses. It has ex- cellent access and visibility and there are no adjacent uses to be directly impacted. The primary consideration is that adequate parking and supporting facilities be provided. It is proposed that land use controls permit such a range of uses- -either singly or in combination--rather than the current designation, which allows only business use, or an exclusive residential district such as applies in adjacent areas. Assemblage of the smaller parcels in the block, to create larger, more efficient development units, is to be encouraged. 7. Site Planning Considerations Under the present pattern of small parcels--none of which exceeds 3/4 of an acre--the standards of theB District adequately control development. The provision of parking space and the two story height restriction substantially limit the scale of new construc- tion. If, however, parcels are assembled, the site west of Madi- son Avenue could accommodate development of greater height and density, without adverse impact, if sufficient parking were pro- vided and access properly designed. Depending on ownership patterns and the future status of the Town owned land, the abandonment of Byron Place and/or Maxwell Avenue may be possible to increase site area and site planning flexibility. -20- 8. Proposed Implementation Actions To implement the flexible land use policy suggested in paragraph 6 above, an amendment to the zoning regulations is proposed. Regulations are set forth in Section IV to permit a combination of residential, office and/or commercial uses in the B District, up to a height of 60 feet and an F.A.R.* of 1.0 (similar to development intensity permitted in the adjacent R-TA District) , on sites of a least 80,000 square feet, subject to the issuance of a special permit by the Planning Board. The special permit procedure requires site plan review and includes design, use and functional criteria upon which the Planning Board must base its decision. PLANNING UNIT #3 1 . Existing Land Use This is the smallest and most uniform of the six planning units. The largest single use is the attractive, well-maintained Station Park. Most of the remaining area is devoted to the Town's com- muter parking lot: One building housing an automotive-use and cleaners is the only other use in the area. The entire area serves as an effective buffer between the intensive development adjacent to the railroad and Chatsworth Avenue and the neighbor- hood of single family homes to the north and east. 2. Traffic Considerations The prinicpal thoroughfare serving Planning Unit #3 is Myrtle Boulevard. Traffic on Myrtle Boulevard is relatively light, fewer than 500 vehicles per hour during peak hours. Present development patterns are practically curb cut free and potential development is so restricted as to impose little con- cern. from either a traffic safety or traffic capacity viewpoint. 3. Parking Considerations The two predominant uses within Planning Unit #3 are the Town park and commuter parking. The parking is meter or permit controlled with permits available only to Town and Village residents. Approximately fifty percent of the spaces are con- trolled by 12-hour meters available on a first-come first served basis. The principal parking issue is whether to increase the supply of commuter parking spaces. The parking surveys and analysis dicussed in Section II.C. demonstrated that parking needs can be met by reallocation of existing spaces without enlarging the existing lot. *F.A.R. = floor area ratio: the ratio between the square foot- age of all useable floor area on the site and the total land area of the site itself. -21- 4. Current Development Policies Both the existing Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance reflect the existing use of this area and do not suggest any modifications. Since virtually the entire area is Town-owned, the Town has ultimate control over its use. 5. Development Issues The only issue of consequence in this area is the use and operation of the Town's commuter parking lot--the largest single public parking facility in the entire Study Area. Decisions of this nature must be addressed as part of the over-all policies for commuter, shopper and resident parking. While this site could, theoretically, be put to other use, it would require that the need for 300 commuter parking spaces be satisfied elsewhere or found to be unnecessary--both unlikely. 6. Proposed Land Use Policy The existing use and function of this area should be maintained. Policies related to the operation of the parking area will be de- veloped as part of the overall parking plan. 7. Site Planning Considerations The only site planning factors which warrant consideration would be related to further development of the commuter parking lot. If for example, a second level were recommended, care to protect the adjacent park and residences would be required. This is not the case, however. 8. Proposed Implementation Actions The only implementation actions proposed deal with reallocation and/or regulation of the spaces in the existing parking lot to better accommodate demand (see Part IV. C. ). PLANNING UNIT #4 1 . Existing Land Use This area, on the eastern end of Larchmont's business core, has a distinct character of its own. It does not contain any retail or other business uses but it does include two substantial garden apartment complexed, several office buildings (including a large, recently completed structure on Depot Way West), several small residences at the end of Woodland Avenue and a large commuter parking area of nearly 300 spaces between Woodland Avenue and the railroad. The area has relatively stable boundaries con- sisting of the retail core on the west, the railroad on the north, more apartments to the east (in Town) and Vanderbugh Park and a stable residential neighborhood to the south. -22- At the eastern end of Woodland Avenue, five small residences and a private parking lot are somewhat inconsistent with the intensive use of the rest of the area adjacent to the railroad station. The rail- road parking area is used to capacity but, as a large surface lot adjacent to a highly built up business district, has the potential for more intensive develop- ment for both parking and/or other types of use under existing zoning. 2. Traffic Considerations Depot Way West and Depot Way East accommodate the inbound and outbound traffic flows from the Village's municipal parking lots #1 and #2, which primarily serve commuter and local resident parking. Planning Unit #4 is almost fully developed, but could accommodate the small amount of additional traffic generated by possible new development. 3. Parking Considerations Planning Unit #4 contains one of the major commuter parking resources of the Larchmont Railroad Station. Village parking lots 1 and 2 contain 310 permit controlled and unrestricted metered spaces. It is the one lot in the Village where the sale of permits is unrestricted (450 - 460 permits are issued each year, without distinction between resident use or commuter use). The principal parking issue relating to Planning Unit #4 is whether an expansion of municipal parking should be under- taken to accommodate an increase in commuter or local resi- dent parking demand. Such action has been determined to be unnecessary and of dubious feasibility, as discussed in Section II.C. 4. Current Development Both the 1966 Master Plan and current zoning 'regulations desig- nate this area for a combination of multi-family residential and business/office use. The recent designation of the area at the intersection of Depot Way West and Palmer Avenue as LC eliminated the only inconsistency between the two. Most of the area between Woodland Avenue and the railroad is designated Railroad Office Commercial (RROC) , the only such location in the Village, apparently to facilitate more intensive use of the surface parking areas. It is the only location in the Village where four story structures are permitted, although none have been developed. -23- 5. Development Issues The major development issue in this area relates to the future use of and policies for the commuter parking lots as well as the feasibility of adding additional parking space (if warranted by demand) or other business or office uses. The resolution of these issues requires agreement as to parking policies and pri- ority and depends on the physical and financial feasibility of decking or similar construction techniques, whether by public or private entities. 6. Proposed Land Use Policy The existing use and function of this area is well established. The only major change could result from development in accord with the standards of the RROC District which could lead to decked parking with multi-story offices above. No change in these land use policies is proposed at this time. The area at the end of Woodland Avenue is more appropriate for either expansion of parking or for development of offices than for multi-family residential use as presently designated. However, until such time as demand is evident, there is no need to change current policy or regulations. • 7. Site Planning Considerations The potential intensification of the area at the end of Woodland Avenue will require careful site planning due to its small size, single access and proximity to both the railroad and ad- jacent apartments. Assemblage of these small parcels would make proper site development much more feasible in such event. Decking of parking lots 1 and 2 would allow direct access from Woodland Avenue to the second level , a very efficient design. Development of other uses over ground level or structured parking involves many structural , functional and esthetic de- cisions which must be the subject of very careful review. In particular, the number of and access to public parking spaces should in no way be reduced. 8. Proposed Implementation Actions The only implementation actions proposed deal with reallocation and regulation of spaces in the existing parking lots to better accommodate demand (see Part IV. C). -24- PLANNING UNIT #5 1 . Existing Land Use This unit comprises the core of the Larchmont business dis- trict and is by far the most urban of the six units. It contains a diverse mixture of residential , retail and office uses at a scale that permits pedestrian circulation between uses. The area also includes six public parking lots with over 400 spaces plus extensive on-street parking. Unlike the other planning units, due to its urban scale, very few uses provide their own off-street parking. The unit is bounded on the north by the railroad. The southern boundary, although distinct, is defined more by land use than physical features. The western boundary has been drawn at the point beyond which individual uses provide on-site parking. 2. Traffic Considerations Planning Unit #5 is served by Palmer Avenue running east/west and Chatsworth Avenue running north/south as its principal thoroughfares. Palmer Avenue and Chatsworth Avenue are both through streets and traffic patterns are dominated by the Chatsworth Avenue bridge over the railroad and the Thruway. This bridge is the only crossing within the Study Area so that there is a concentration of turning movements at the Palmer Avenue/Chatsworth Avenue Intersection. Both Palmer Avenue and Chatsworth Avenue also serve as short- term parking resources through parallel parking on both sides of the street. Both also accommodate relatively frequent bus service with bus stops and bus turning movements adversely impacting traffic patterns. Finally, Planning Unit #5, as a densely developed retail area with continuous store fronts, is a high pedestrian activity area. Provision for safe pedestrian crossings, friction from curb parking maneuvers and commercial deliveries and the concentra- tion of turning movements at the Palmer Avenue/Chatsworth Avenue intersection lead to a confusion of traffic movements. The intersections of Palmer Avenue with Larchmont Avenue and Chatsworth Avenue are controlled by traffic signals. All three streets have sufficient width to provide for two lanes on all approaches with the exception of the eastbound approach of Palmer Avenue to the Larchmont Avenue intersection. This permits the assignment of lanes reserved for left-turning maneuevers wherever needed. -25- The traffic signal at the intersection of Palmer Avenue and Chatsworth Avenue has recently been upgraded under the TOPICS program. The new installation is capable of being operated at the maximum efficiency permitted by the physical configu- ration of the intersection. Analysis shows that the inter- sections of Palmer Avenue with Larchmont Avenue and Chatsworth Avenue both operate "under capacity" at present. The new operation allows for exclusive pedestrian use of the Palmer/Chatsworth intersection only after push button actuation.* This is much more efficient than the pre-TOPICS operation when a pedestrian period occurred every cycle. 3. Parking Considerations Planning Unit #5 includes 419 off-street parking spaces in Village lots 3,4,7,9 and 10. Parking lots 3 and 7 serve primarily commuter parking. In lot 3 (the platform) there are parking meters, most of which require a permit prior to use, and afew which are available on a first-come first-served basis. Lot 3 contains approximately 240 spaces and lot 7 contains 37 spaces. Approximately half of lot 7 is controlled by permit and the remainder is restricted to 2-hour parking. . Lots 4,9 and 10 serve primarily the retail and business activity of the Village with a total of 140 spaces of which 89 are permit controlled; 51 are restricted to 2-hour parking. On-street parking provides the 'principal parking resource in Planning Unit #5 for shopper/visitor parking. There is a total of 272 on-street spaces in the survey area, all of which are restricted to 2-hour parking or less. The parking survey showed that there was high occupancy of the parking spaces located on Palmer Avenue, Larchmont Avenue and Franklin Avenue and in all of the municipalparking lots with the exception of lots 9 and 10 on the weekday and high occupancy of all of the parking facilities on Saturday with the exception of parking lots 3 and 9. The parking survey also showed that a high number of the vehicles which parked at on-street spaces remained for longer than 2 hours on a weekday. One hundred and eighty-six vehicles remained parked for 3 or more hours. Almost the only consensus result of the informal interview survey carried out in conjunction with this study was that parking was inconvenient in the Village center. The high levels of occupancy on weekdays and Saturdays in those blocks surveyed from Vander- burgh Avenue to the railroad tracks and from Larchmont Avenue to Depot Way East shows that late arriving parkers must either *Although the signal can be operated in this manner at all times, it currently does so only in the off-peak hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. -26- circulate until a space is vacated or choose parking spaces more than one block away from Palmer Avenue. Observation indicates that there is parking available on those streets slightly more remote from Palmer Avenue, many of which are posted for 2-hour parking. The daytime parking demand in this Planning Unit includes a component of local resident parking demand which overlays the business parking demand. Resident parking demand is greatest overnight but does not diminish to zero during the day. Many residents leave their vehicles parked within the municipal system and use the train for commuting. Judging from the results of the parking survey this causes no significant problem during the normal weekday business day. However, on Saturdays the presence of local resident long-term parkers in lots 4 and 10 reduces the availability of short-term 'shopper parking to the west of Chatsworth Avenue and contribu- utes to the parking congestion. This is a parking issue which is dealt with in the parking section of the Action Program. 4. Current Development Policies Both The 1966 Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance suggest the same general delineation of uses in the business area. Neither distinguishes between the core area and the western end of Palmer Avenue where development is less intensive and of more recent vintage. Much of the existing development ex- ceeds the height and density permitted under current zoning policies. The 1966 Plan cautions against intensification of business uses because of the resulting increases in traffic and parking demand. The Zoning Ordinance requires on-site, off- street parking for new or enlarged buildings despite the generally small size of most lots and the high coverage of existing development. The 1966 Plan addresses parking as primarily a public concern. 5. Development Issues The issues in this planning unit primarily concern the impact of potential additional development and the need, if any, and responsibility for providing parking space to serve such development. The remaining development potential in the business zoned area lies in (a) the few parcels used for single family residential , automotive or private parking use plus (b) the unused potential of the one-story commercial buildings which could add a floor under existing zoning. Development of the former would remove some incompatible uses (the gas station on the north side of Palmer Avenue just west of Chatsworth Avenue, for instance) while both types would increase the demand for parking. Analysis of -27- the total remaining development potential* in this area reveals that a theoretical total of some 136,000 square feet remains (see Table 6). The present requirement for off-street parking applies to expan- sion of existing buildings as well as new structures and imposes a limitation which may be counter-productive. If adhered to strictly, it can preclude or severely hamper construction which could upgrade properties or fill in dead spots. It could lead also to the creation of numerous, small inefficient parking areas which create access and maintenance problems. If all of the remaining development potential were realized, an unlikely event, present zoning regulations would require provision of an ad- ditional 547 parking spaces. Comparison of the existing parking supply to that which would be required under the existing zoning regulations to serve existing uses suggests that the current parking standards are not really appropriate in this area. Existing uses alone would require almost 1 ,900 parking spaces under current zoning stan- dards. However, the parking surveys discussed previously indi- cate that the total existing amount of parking is sufficient to serve present needs, if properly allocated and monitored. This amount is some 650 spaces, or 34% of that required by current standards. On that basis, only 183 spaces would be needed to serve the entire theoretical development potential (see Table 7). Another issue of concern related to both parking requirements and market trends is the development in and around the core of multi-story professional office buildings. Such construction, particularly under present zoning standards, can have a variety of effects on the character and function of the core business area. Office uses on the ground floor create "dead spots" in the retail/personal service type frontage and discourage multi- stop pedestrian shopping trips. This affect is greater when on-site parking also occupies street frontage, as has happened at the southeast quadrant of the Palmer Avenue - Chatsworth Avenue intersection. In addition, office uses generate their greatest volume of traffic during normal peak traffic hours. 6. Land Use Policy The core business area should remain primarily a retail/per- sonal service center which encourages internal pedestrian circulation. The present intensity of development should be maintained in terms of height and floor area. Moderate expansion *Remaining development potential , as used here, is the difference between existing floor area and the maximum floor area permitted under the height and coverage provisions of the Zoning Law. Many properties already exceed the floor area permitted and, therefore, have no remaining development potential. -28- and improvements of existing properties should not be pre- vented by strict application of a parking requirement. A major portion of the responsibility for providing necessary off-street parking must be assumed by the Village to preserve the character of the business area and to provide parking in the most efficient manner. 7. Site Planning Considerations Due to the diversity of the core area, there are many small scale site planning factors for each potential development which are applicabl' to the particular site. In general , the con- tinuity of ground level frontage on Palmer and Chatsworth Avenues should be maintained while parking and service access should be directed to other side streets. The design of sidewalks, street furniture, storefronts and signs is particularly impor- tant in a business area where pedestrian traffic is high. 8. Proposed Implementation Actions Both the zoning and parking regulations in this area should be amended to more precisely reflect the specfic objectives for its use, as follows: a. To achieve the land use, site planning and design objectives discussed in paragraph 6, above, a new Retail Center (RC) zoning district is proposed. This new district, set forth in Sec- tion IV, will exclude moderate expansions of existing struc- tures from parking requirements, provide modified parking standards for larger expansions or new structures and pro- vide site planning and design guidelines. b. The allocation and regulation of public parking spaces to better serve the various components of demand is also set forth in Section IV. Planning Unit #6 1 . Existing Land Use This unit, extending from the New Rochelle line to Glen Lake Drive, contains a mixture of commercial uses on the north side of Palmer Avenue plus vacant land east of the Village line along the railroad tracks behind and below the Palmer Avenue frontage. The range of usesincludes a supermarket and retail shops, gas stations, a small office building and several service uses--almost all of which provide some off-street parking. The vacant land totals some three and one-half acres. The south side of Palmer Avenue is used for residential purposes and, in many cases, is seperated from it by topographic barriers. -29- 2. Traffic Considerations Palmer Avenue is the principal thoroughfare through this planning unit. There are no major intersections and it carries approxi- mately 12,000 vehicles per day, well below its capacity as a two- lane road. The pavement is sufficiently wide to accommodate parking along both sides. Conflict from parking maneuvers and reduced sight distance as a result of parking within the sight triangles of driveways along the north side of Palmer Avenue are both traffic safety issues. The proper response to these traffic issues is to reduce the number of parking spaces, especially those which affect sight distance. A more comprehensive approach would be to eliminate all parking along the north side of Palmer Avenue and an even more drastic approach would eliminate parking on both sides. To maintain a reasonable balance between traffic considerations and parking considerations it is recommended that only those vehicles which obstruct sight distance be removed. 3. Parking Considerations Most of the businesses in Planning Unit #6 offer some off-street parking, although sometimes insufficient to satisfy their demand. Parking along both sides of the street is heavily utilized, with a few open spaces on the south side on a weekday but not on Saturday. The north side is constantly heavily utilized. The survey showed that the high utilization of this on-street parking extended only as far west as Pine Brook Drive. This tends to indi- cate that those businesses to the west of Pine Brook Drive have their parking needs satisfied within this length of Palmer • Avenue. No heavy parking demand is placed on the residential streets located to the south of Palmer Avenue such as Soundview Drive, where 2-hour parking is permitted. It is reasonable to interpret the results of the parking survey to imply that there is sufficient parking to satisfy the needs of Planning Unit #6 either in private off-street facilities or within the relatively short length of Palmer Avenue extending from Parkway to Pine Brook Drive. There is no apparent need for the provision of additional munici- pal parking facilities within the Planning Unit area. The parking situation in this area will remain satisfactory, provided future business uses are required to provide adequate parking for their needs. -30- It would be reasonable to elimimatethose few parking spaces necessary to clear the sight lines at driveways along the north side of Palmer Avenue. Displaced parkers would be expected to walk slightly further along Palmer Avenue as a consequence. It would be appropriate to reallocate the parking along the south side of Palmer Avenue to accommodate long-term parkers while reserving the north side parking for short-term parkers. Such a reallocation would tend to reduce conflicts by limiting frequent short-term parking maneuvers to one side of the street while leaving the other side relatively dormant. 4. Current Development Policies All of the frontage on the north side of Palmer Avenue is desig- nated for business use under the same zoning district as applies elsewhere in the Town and Village. In the Village, a strip of land behind this frontage and along the railroad is designated as Industrial , the only location where this district is mapped. 5. Development Issues The primary issue in this planning unit is the use of the major parcel Of vacant land along the railroad. This parcel, under its Industrial designation, can be used for a wide range of business uses plus various industrial type uses. The ap- propriateness of the industrial designation is based on land uses no longer present. Many of the permitted uses may well be inappropriate in the core of the Village and should be pre- cluded. 6. Proposed Land Use Policy • Both retail and office uses are appropriate in this area. However, neither appropriate sites nor sufficient demand exists for the industrial uses presently permitted. Therefore, the Industrial designation should be removed and the vacant strip along the railroad allocated to expansion of retail sites on Palmer Avenue or supporting uses, including long term parking. 7. Site Planning Considerations Access and parking along this heavily travelled section of Palmer Avenue are the most important site planning consider- ations. Actions which would consolidate smaller parcels and make use of the land along the railroad should be encouraged to provide more efficient parking and to limit curb cuts on Palmer Avenue. Also, site planning should carefully evaluate the impact of development on the stable residen- tial neighborhood across Palmer Avenue. -31- 8. Possible Implementation Actions The zoning regulations should be revised to remove the Industrial zone, as illustrated in Section IV. -32- PART IV ACTION PROGRAM IV. ACTION PROGRAM This section sets forth the specific legislative, administrative and physical actions recommended in Section III to implement land use, traffic, parking and design policies. A. LAND USE Various amendments to the zoning regulations of both the Town and Village are proposed. These are divided into separate sections for the Town and Village, since each municipality's zoning regulations follow a different format. See also Map No. 9, Proposed Zoning. 1 . AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE * Establish New Service Business (SB) District A new zoning district, SB - Service Business will be established under §89-4 to distinguish an area intended primarily for service uses from the existing B - Business District. The Zoning Map will be amended to designate both sides of Fifth Avenue, extending to the Thruway ramps, from Madison Avenue to the New Rochelle line as Service Business. The district regulations would be as follows: Permitted Uses a. Principal Uses (1 ) Indoor recreation or amusement establishments. (2) Business or professional offices. (3) Sale or hire of new or used motor vehicles, but no used car lot except as accessory to a new car dealer. (4) Undertaking and funeral homes. (5) Newspaper printing and publishing. (6) Automatic car-washing facilities as an adjunct to existing gasoline filling stations and/or public garages. -33- EXISTING DISTRICTS .,,..0-- • u` -—o\ Town Village Q©• OQ� , t3 D , 8 Business RB Retail Business .�, LI Light Industry RROC Railroad Office Commercial Q e3 O �� R-TA Residential Tower I Industrial MF Multi-Family Residence t, 4] , PROPOSED DISTRICTS• ♦��.�.i4 F° f , . SB Service Business RC Retail Center•♦ QQ �� I � •� w,on ..,. • , ..i r dm r , wcw" i • NOTE: All other areas not indicated. 0000�♦ ���II �� 0'• � r� are single family residential•_ ,�Y °' districts. .„,... loll, ,, ,1.1c Wrif _,.: ...-. itill ii. ---- I __I il...-1 s— % _ VI ...0 ® r-` _� soa•'•00.x. :nat e� :vain O I .,..F""D , _ •: 1• 1`-i t41. rQUWAY N__ • Gw ,GIrluse�'i..ir L. r -----,9-2--WIY- - vjrX,ng�or �3 _�� �.r rJ ♦ 2f+'O'yj-9S E , rs"�rr �Y� - 1.'1 r4 J • we 1117.x. aus �as ads∎ - - l; ' , :!. AVfii �'d 4�- i LTY•tee'/,: '�\ J/ '�'♦_._-__.r. —�' /.• ITT t L I„i.,Nkr:-D � p ,...--A•�'l i.0% ,._----V.ir',<to.j-C ..,V.r \i;i1 ' I J11/�1 ti 1 a MA �.im.ome.i■ ,∎0#gms ER �J ,�i �'1.] c2i.a � ' �'•`•• (RANK I` �`I'•;' � ' ✓AND.ee✓ - '1 ♦♦ /- )t`1'a U Ca - 1-Q 1,� '•I? ,C; 0•C),/./AV , - �c,,." s • ..I, -s s a pA X ♦ , p��y i 0 F q- J 3 . t: 0,6 l t ; rd,ti• \;,, ',..:''n �® NOE y ,;> ,_k L.-... D�Q SAID- p • I- .. •� ° • Q n'Ms.1 5.•..) o ..'„.....r �l AvE \111.0- . 4. i- �/ /i Cootiocf sr ET• :1 o�� I 1 A S�D y� , ,1.,t +��, -�, .\ \ v =7-1/2 o , 1 ' 1 c', I r M tD r / a t ,- IOi T .O o 1. :•! t'.N r_I I U u i ° 7"69 �� ) ' \1 a to \ \ r 't l ..\ �, ,• ,•�) t 1 ; ' a1Qp�,�,i�. 4, 11: 4..Jr i.r ', r j' •t (i �rfs_44,� '1, P. v� yi-N 01141)*,e U ? '1. \ CJNiO�^v '\ 1 �_ I.�I'I-j ;,a?IaCji •C) ,5,1 �1ir '_/- i,I1Li:j-1” S i �r 1i I_�I, '', , •'- i.` `,•� -� \ \ ��' \ 1 I I1/1.:.^.°;LN ,� '1,. r›Fe. . ,, ... .41.'1.'VI/E `_1'. -�t.! t\ .∎ .. N . , :\ \' `\ Map No. MASTER Proposed Zoning 9 PLAN UPDATE SHUSTER ASSOCIATES RD 1.Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12181 1 II = 500 I VILLOF AGE TOWN ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK T,allic Engineering•Pa,king Studios (7) Nursery use: for the sale of plants, trees, shrubbery, nursery stock, seeds, nursery sup- plies, fertilizers, soil conditioners, garden hand tools and accessories, and gardener's masonry and incidental supplies (fruits, vege- tables and food not permitted). (8) Restaurants for the sale, service and consumption of food and drinks on the premises, and all food and drink services must be consumed in the princi- pal building. This regulation does not permit the use of lunch wagons, hot dog stands, diners dining cars, fast-food operations, indoor counter- service restaurants intended, to cater to motor vehicle trade which serve in disposable containers and provide on-premises or off-premises parking. No outdoor table service will be permitted. (9) Wholesale or storage businesses in enclosed buildings. ( 10) Municipal uses. (11 ) Public utility structures serving a local area. b. Special Uses • (1) Store for sale of goods at retail,or performance of customary personal services, or service clearly incidental to retail sales, but no fabrication or manufacturing except incidental to and on the same premises with such retail sales. (2) Gasoline filling stations and garages, including facilities for servicing and repair. (3) Motels or hotels. (4) Radio, television and other electronic transmission structures. (5) Veterinary hospital , boarding and care of small pets. (6) Contractor's establishments. Construction Requirements Same as for B Business District, except that under G, Other Provisions and Requirements, the following shall be added: -34- (3) Site Planning Standards During its review of site plans for development within the SB District, the Planning Board shall apply the following standards in addition to all those other applicable standards set forth in the Site Plan Approval. (a) Buildings shall be situated on the site in a manner that minimizes the visual impact, in terms of scale and height, on adjacent residential properties. (b) Landscaping and/or fencing shall be pro- vided along the property lines of adjacent residential properties and along streets giving access to residential neighborhoods so as to provide the most effective visual screening. The species and materials to be used shall be reviewed to determine the effectiveness of such screening at all times of the year. * Special Permit Provision in B District The use regulations in the B District will be amended to add the following item 10, under B. , Special Uses. This provision is applicable to the block bounded by Madison Avenue, the Thruway. and the Thruway ramps; it may also be appropriate for some Post Road sites. (10) Mixed Use Development (a) The following uses or combination of uses may be permitted, upon approval of a site plan by the Planning Board, and compliance with the standards set forth in (b) below: (i) Multi-family dwellings. (ii ) Business and professional offices. (iii) Retail stores and personal services establishments. (b) Uses listed in (a). above must comply with the following specific standards and site planning objectives: (i ) Minimum site area shall be two acres. (ii) Minimum gross site area per dwelling unit shall be 2,500 square feet. -35- (iii ) Maximum height shall be six floors or sixty feet. (iv) Maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R. ) shall be 1.0. (v) All uses must meet the off-street parking requirements of §89-66; however, where it can be demonstrated that two different uses can share the same parking because of dif- ferent hours of operation, the total parking provided may be reduced to 125% of the spaces required by the use with the greater parking requirement. (vi ) No residential uses shall be permitted on the first floor or on any floor below a non-residential use. (vii ) Retail uses shall utilize ground level street frontage to the maximum extent possible. * Change in Parking Requirement §98-66 shall be amended so that the minimum required parking for retail or service establishments shall be one space for each 200 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Recent traffic and parking studies* indicate that the present re- quirement of one space for each 100 square feet is excessive. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE ZONING LAW * Establish New Retail Center (RC) District A new district will be established for the intensive retail centers in the Village. The new district would be mapped to include the existing RB District on Palmer Avenue from Depot Way West to a point opposite Glen Lake Drive. The regulations for this new district are intended to accomplish several objectives: 1 . To establish realistic groundrules for determining the necessary amount of and responsibility for off-street parking to serve new or expanded structures. 2. To preserve the traditional scale and pattern of develop- ment in the retail center. 3. To improve the visual character of the business area. * Parking Generation, Summary of Parking Occupancy Data, Interim Report, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington , D.C. , 1985 -36- The regulations of this district would be as follows: Use and Bulk Regulations: Same as RB District, excluding motor vehicle sales and service. Parking Requirements 1 . Any legally permitted expansion of a building existing as of January 1 , 1986, which complies with all other density and bulk requirements, by an amount of less than 25% of its gross floor area shall be exempt from the requirement that off-street parking be provided. The computation of the percent of expansion shall be based on the sum of all additional usable floor area constructed after the above date, whether at one time or in stages. (Note: See Table 6) 2. On-site parking for a new structure or expansion of an existing structure by more than 25% of its gross floor area may be waived in part upon ap- plication to and approval by the Planning Board. • The proportion of the required parking that may be waived shall not exceed the limits established in the following table, in accord with the findings set forth below. However, if such waiver would re- sult in a requirement for provision of 5 parking spaces or less the entire parking requirement may be waived. • Percent of Maximum Percent of Additional Floor Area Parking Waiver 25 - 40% 90% 40 - 55% 80% 55 - 70% 70% 70 - 85% 60% 85 - 100% or more 50% The Planning Board shall issue such a waiver only upon a finding that one or more of the following conditions exist: a. The applicant has secured private parking within 400 feet of the site to serve the proposed struc- ture. Such parking shall be new spaces as opposed to reallocation of spaces already used for parking purposes. b. The size and/or shape of the site and any buildings thereon are such that provision of all required on-site parking would substantially impair the ability to develop the site or expand an existing structure as otherwise permitted under the regulations: -37- c. Provision of on-site parking would create a condition detrimental to the function and/or appearance of the business district. For example, breaking the continuity of retail frontage, creating pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, creating small parking areas which are inef- ficient or difficult to maintain. Design Guidelines In the review of applications for building permits, special permits, and site plan approvals, as re- quired by this or any other local law, the responsi- ble board or department shall adhere to the following design guidelines and objectives unless it is found that such guideline cannot be feasibly achieved. 1 . Site Plan Guidelines a. Buildings shall be set back no more than . five feet from the rear edge of the side- walk of Palmer and Chatsworth Avenues and . shall occupy at least 80% of the frontage on these streets. b. No vehicular access shall be provided across the Palmer or Chatsworth Avenue sidewalks. c. No parking area, whether open or enclosed shall occupy the Chatsworth or Palmer Avenue frontage. 2. Building Design Guidelines a. Ground level facades facing Palmer and Chatsworth Avenues shall contain the maximum amount of window area appropriate to the particular use. As a general rule, at least 50% of the first floor facade should be glass. b. In the case of existing buildings, original architectural details and proportions of facade elements shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible. c. Facades shall be designed to include sign panels or specific sign placement to avoid covering architectural details or windows with signage. d. In the case of multi-story buildings, store front materials and proportions shall be related to those of upper stories. -38- B. TRAFFIC 1 . With modification of the traffic signalization at the intersections of Myrtle Boulevard with Chatsworth Avenue and Murray Avenue, there is no pressing need for modifi- cation of the traffic facilities or traffic control system within that part of the Study Area which lies within the Town. 2. Within the Village part of the Study Area, it is recom- mended that pedestrian crossing facilities be made consistent by providing pushbuttons for pedestrians to walk at all signalized intersections. This will increase traffic capacity at Larchmont Avenue/Palmer Avenue and reduce delays while having no noticeable negative impact on pedestrian safety. At the Depot Way West/Palmer Avenue intersection, capacity will be reducedsomewhat while pedestrian safety is in- creased. Sufficient reserve capacity is available to accommodate this change. 3. Within the Village, curb-side loading zones should be provided on the east side of Chatsworth Avenue, north of Palmer, and on the west side of Chatsworth Avenue, south of Palmer. Once adequate loading space is avail- able, vigorous enforcement should be used to prevent trucks and other vehicles from double parking. By locating the zones contiguous with other "No Parking" curb lengths, such as driveways or fire hydrants, only 3 addditional automobile spaces need be eliminated for each loading zone. Loading for the stores on Chatsworth Avenue south of Palmer Avenue might be achieved by creating a joint loading zone in the rear accessible via Parking Lot #4. This would save three on-street spaces. C. PARKING (See Maps 10A and 10B) 1. In the Town, provide for employee parking in the Myrtle Boulevard lot by strictly enforcing a no parking re- striction on the 12-hour meters until 8:30 a.m. 2. In the Town, reduce the number of metered parking spaces within the commuter parking lot by 27, to correspond with the number of meters in the Myrtle Boulevard lot. In- crease sales of permits correspondingly. -39- 3. In the Town, require all new development to provide an adequate number of off-street parking spaces. 4. In the Village, introduce long-term parking on: a. Palmer Avenue, south side, from Parkway to Pine Brook Drive. b. Vanderburgh Avenue, north side, from Larchmont to Hall. • c. Chatsworth Avenue, both sides, Vanderburgh to Concord. d. Larchmont Avenue, both sides, south of Center. e. Wendt Avenue, both sides, south of Vanderburgh. This may be achieved by posting "No Parking, 6:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m." in lieu of "2 Hour Parking" in the appropriate locations. 5. Modify the permit regulations in lots 4, 7, 9, and 10 to allow parking in those lots from Sunday through Friday, excluding Saturday, and provide for holders of permits in lots 4. 7. 9, and 10 to park in lot 1 or 3 on Saturdays. 6. Strictly enforce the permit regulations and on-street parking regulations on all days Monday through Saturday. The introduction of short term meters would reduce man- power requirements for this task and is a proven technique to stimulate turn-over and generate revenues to off-set the cost of parking administration. 7. In the Village, eliminate all non-Village/Town resident commuter parking permits. 8. In the Village, designate 8 - 12 spaces as "No Parking, 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.", among the red metered (general public access) spaces adjacent to the railroad station in a location suitable for departing passengers who use the railroad after the commuter peak. 9. The order of implementation of these recommendations is important to their acceptance by the community and their success in managing the parking system in the Village. The introduction of long term parking is the first priority. Second is an increase in enforcement. Third is the change in permit regulations on Saturdays. D. DESIGN Some aspects of design are covered by standards for site plan development, landscaping and building design features included in the proposed zoning amendments set forth in Section A of this Part. Some other guidelines are recommended below. -40- KEY ' {{UUnnn Short Term Parking Long Term Parking __________je. vu,,,, _ VIM '' /• ` Imo ��� : ` n•�� ,O.' 'I� ... iI= �` //A 1111.. 4.i i i ;`� �I_ 11�,- {•{{.!!!� II II ,r, : w 14001,1. ft1 { A ....{ I►{u { ► n ♦ � { { .... •• ` �a� u � ♦ , � 4'09.. • .• 7I t It Map No. MASTER Pro osed Parking Reg. - wee.kdays 1OA PLAN UPDATE E SHUSTER ASSOCIATES RD 1,Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12484 1 " = 500 ' VILLAGE TOW N OF OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.. LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Traffic Engineering•Perking Studies • KEY mull Short Term Parking wt.-- Long Term Parking _______J.. .. tea.., ..",,4,,A 11 0.A I1i V 1 7 IP ..... 10 1.0 . l ---- ottt�l��t , tttm� �t... 1 1` ''t.•.....0 0.... .......1..%..,.j.... .t . al sow oi .. to , ,� __..=+=. TNauw�r cur .,..• "� 11111 ������ '.w� ���=-..===t �- -T �r�"•I ' 111 t� -'7 -::2-:.=:: ------------'-'- ---- • :G►►tttt►' s�ss��� Ott` ♦ �1 =� ►pt�fYl�lYnn►►�t k Olt ' ttt t ..tit,,„ ri'1 j1II,1 ► �� to •° tttf,,tttt tr. ,'t►t►tt iq��� 'f►►►tttttntttt --j, 10000000 000th ��1111111 •�ttittttt �'`,, 1,,ttt,,t ,tt%t%%,__ t►ttttttt ,�a.". ►tttttttt It'll r.a.0 MM� 1 L ttttttttt•� .+ttt=% % :30.0. ••�,• mot. V1 GF .0. .0. ♦ 'a•{ ,,.•°s ,`cats t, �r ♦♦'�.00° .0 ..a..a 1 ... . . IA •.r.7_000 -"•----7 \ ?. i Map No. MASTER PLAN Proposed Parkin Reg. - s 10B, UPDATE aturday g SHUSTER ASSOCIATES VILLAGE TOWN RD I.Box 259 Stone Ridge,New York 12484 11 = J U U I OF OF ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC., LARCHMONT MAMARONECK Traffic Engineering•Parking Studies 1 . Sign Regulations (Private Signs) The Village should consider incorporating its sign regu- lations in the Zoning Law so as to standardize procedures for application and approval . More detailed study, beyond the scope of this report, should be made of the sign stan- dards in both the Villag' and the Town. The application of one set of standards throughout the community does not reflect the differences in character between "strip" type business districts and concentrated business core areas. In certain instances, use of hanging, or projecting, signs should be considered, particularly as an incentive to im- prove or bring into conformity other signs on the premises. 2. Public Signs Signs related to traffic control , parking regulations and directions to public facilities should be coordinated in terms of design, construction and location. Wherever pos- sible, signs relating to the same function should be of uniform size, color and letter style and mounted on a solid standard designed for that purpose. An annual program staged over, say, five years would achieve an upgrading of signs throughout the business area. 3. Street Furniture Sidewalks, trash receptacles, bike racks, trees, planters, benches, etc. are all items which can enhance the appear- ance and function of the business district. These items are expensive and should be part of an annual improvement program. However, to ensure continuity, a basic design vocabulary should be developed to guide selection and installation in future years. Design elements should be selected on the basis of initial construction as well as cost and ease of maintenance. For instance, metal grates are more expensive than bricks around tree bases but do not deteriorate or become dislodged in time and can, it required be relocated. Trees such as honey locusts should be considered for use along business area streets; they are less dense and have smaller leaves than maples or oaks. Therefore, they do not obscure signs and leaf pick-up is less of a problem. The more dense trees are suitable in parking lots where the shade is welcome. -41- TABLES TABLE 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Location Two Way Daily Traffic Thruway Ramps 2, 629 Palmer @ New Rochelle Line 11, 580 Palmer @ Weaver 12, 981 Chatsworth @ Summit 8, 069 Chatsworth @ Edgewood 5 , 122 Larchmont @ Summit 6,710 Murray @ Edgewood 5 ,509 Myrtle @ Weaver 5 ,056 Fifth @ New Rochelle Line 6 , 236 TABLE 2A PRIVATE PARKING FACILITIES MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY, BY LOT WEDNESDAY, 11/20/85 No. of Maximum Maximum Location Spaces Accumulation Occupancy Village A Larchmont Professional Building 15 7 47% B Woodland Building, Woodland Ave. 16 10 62% C Parking Lot, Woodland Ave. 17 8 47% D Parking Lot, Woodland Ave. 7 7 100% E Office Building, Woodland Ave.* 104 15 14% F Railroad Ave. Lot 15 3 20% G Wendt Ave. Lot 9 9 100% H Chatsworth Ave. Lot East 5 3 60% I Chatsworth Ave. Lot West 10 6 60% J Corner, Chatsworth & Franklin 8 8 100% K People's Bank Lower Level 35 32 910 Peoples Bank Drive-Thru Area 5 5 100% People's Bank Upper Level 40 33 82% L Corner Bridge & North 3 2 67% M North Ave. Lot 2 1 50% N S/E Corner North St. & West St. 6 6 100% 0 N/E Corner North St. & West St. 22 15 68% P West Ave. 31 31 100% Q Palmer Ave. Across From Glenlake 14 18 130% R New Prof. Bldg./Palmer Ave. 21 21 100% S Palmer Ave./Electrolux 6 6 100% T Parkway Lot 8 8 100% U Ryne Corp. 88 60 68% V Palmer Ave./Behind Electrolux 15 15 100% W Shopwell 133 74 56% Town AA French Rest. Next Door 23 20 87% BB Lot Behind French Rest. 26 18 69% CC Shopwell, Liquor Store 45 45 100% DD Madison Ave. , Roof Deck 35 27 77% EE Washington Square/Next to Clock Tower 11 11 100% FF Washington Square/South 9 8 89% GG Washington Square/North 12 10 83% HH Jefferson St. 46 46 100% JJ Large Lot Behind Apt. Building Near Memorial Park 94 69 73% KK Myrtle Blvd./North 3 2 67% LL Myrtle Blvd./Middle 12 10 83% MM Myrtle Blvd. /South 25 18 72% *Under Construction tDOlo V' O101oNCOOOCOUlc1rlD NNf7MMM 0101M01 inNNN U b C1 0O HNVDr V VD ' in 'V' V' 0NID U CD CD (*1 N M Ul Ul Ul U) U1 1/1 Ul Ul V' V' M N V) H U) I-1 0 U N COONtD01elrA ' co00 ,4 V C) P4 in cc a in cc cc o O D \DN CO 'D 01 f:C N N N in in rl C1 Nl M M in in N N N a- cn U cn C7 U 0- a H 0 V OlNt MlD 'NT ONO\ 'NT VD 00lDNv' 1-7 O o 000 V' U1N (1N ,INNICOOUI 4 \ N N in Ul Ul lfl ifl Ul Ul in In NT M 01 N E-1 p VD a W r W o Q 0 z : 3 H VI a a, • u rd a 4-1 0 1•-1 (1) w 000000000000000 H O.) 000000000000000 N •.-1 VDr C0 OlOHNHNC1 •4' UllDro0 0 El H H H H • TABLE 4A MUNICIPAL ON-STREET AND OFF-STREEET PARKING WEDNESDAY, 11/20/85 Maximum Number of No. of Occupied Maximum Spaces Spaces Occupancy Village Lots 1 & 2 310 303 98% Lot 3 242 238 98% Lot 4 59 54 92% Lot 7 37 36 97% Lot 9 24 19 79% Lot 10 57 45 79% On-Street East of Chatsworth 145 97 67% On-Street Chatsworth and West 127 108 85% On-Street Palmer, West of Glen Lake Drive 80 69 86% Subtotal 1,081 969 Town Lot 1, Commuter Parking Lot 300 269 90% Lot 3 , Myrtle Boulevard Lot 84 57 68% On-Street 145 81 56% Ramp Extensions 60 49 82% Subtotal 589 456 TOTAL 1,670 TABLE 4B MUNICIPAL ON-STREET AND OFF-STREEET PARKING SATURDAY, 1/4/86 Maximum Number of No. of Occupied Maximum Spaces Spaces Occupancy Village Lots 1 & 2 310 150 480 Lot 3 242 88 36% Lot 4 59 58 98% Lot 7 37 36 970 Lot 9 24 19 79% Lot 10 57 58 102% On-Street East of Chatsworth 145 93 64% On-Street Chatsworth and West 127 126 99% On-Street Palmer, West of Glen Lake Drive 80 71 91% Subtotal 1,081 699 Town Lot 1, Commuter Parking Lot 300 22 7% Lot 3, Myrtle Boulevard Lot 84 57 68% On-Street 145 97 67% Ramp Extensions 60 43 72% Subtotal 589 219 TOTAL 1,670 TABLE 5 PARKING CHARGES Village Lots Town Lots Commuters Village Resident $125/yr $150/yr Village Resident $2/yr + $1/day 50/yr Town Resident $5/yr + $1/day $150/yr Other $100/yr + $1/day Residents $135/yr $150/yr Nighttime Daytime $75/yr $100/yr N/A $175/yr Reserved (24 hr) TABLE 6 REMAINING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Planning Unit No. 5 • Block No. Remaining Develop- Parking required Parking as ment Potential as per zoning** per existing (sq.ft. )* ratio*** 1 5,200 21 7 2 14,350 57 19 3 16,050 64 21 4 37,160 149 50 5 - - - 6 5,000 20 7 7 37,400 150 50 8 21 ,550 86 29 Total 136,7'10 547 183 See Note: 24,700 124 42 *Remaining development potential , as used here, is the difference between existing floor area and the theoretical floor area per- mitted under existing zoning (floor area ratio of 1 .6). **Based on the requirement for retail or office uses of one space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. ***Based on the actual ratio of existing parking provided as compared to the zoning requirement - See Table 7 Note: This line reflects 25% of the floor area in buildings which have remaining development potential . See proposed RC District, page 36. \ P /a3a Parking.44,7- — --— - ----- DEWEY � ..►.. OU/1 �'y--- -���t•�'o.�G� �'I- 1"S , c^ for w --- __^ `:.- :1 . : j.OX-2? .� . AVENUE \\ ,, -�.. �1 NOR .t1 rnC- \, a -�, o rfa • ', - to ''''''i `, \ • rl to -, � .�;� A VNS J: � '�y. ��.-Y:\� R�, ('11 1, •\` ';� 7: Rte\n ` "">; i ;= ` t ■ -Z C0146`;'.. ..� TABLE 7 EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY VS. ZONING REQUIREMENT Planning Unit No. 5 (a) (b) Ratio Block No. Existing Spaces* Zoning Requirement** • a: b 1 129 388 .33 2 . 78 239 .33 3 70 464 . 15 4 122 216 .56 5 93 105 .86 6 17 22 .77 7 70 131 .53 . 8 69 331 .21 Total 648 1896 .34 *Includes all public and private parking lots plus on-street parking on the block front, excluding commuter lots 1 and 3. **As per existing Village Zoning Law. \ / v _\ P Iaja --- ��'WE! , Parking.4 r `�''27.47:;..-''4711-,..7, ,,,,l,„::". ,.,--- Cam'"oT.� 7. ��,� i P y .�rn r .l . gVENU �. a,, .. , „'C /- /0 _ �� t, ,__� "1 f,i Sr., a�1 �\ �• I' ' , , Lill r _ 4 ,� iN o ' 9eL µyo �c f % . -' igk- 01 VI') 0 d'.1 tT% *kilit'.-.; V SST T - fa .�% `Z ti �.v EN /�N?C � ,a �ASE. , ^M1% "�. :•. f �� L;.; , ' • - z 1E �- , .... ��� .�. � �,;� � ORS� •, o_�:i �.: fir; .� 'D T=1,.ANpERB ...\ a �-Z �! D--� : . A ,S: �.: . \ FOR ,, EXHIBIT A TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS LEVELS OF SERVICE (Traffic Signals ) The Highway Capacity Manual ( 1985 ) is the basic guide for determining the level of service of roads , streets and intersections. LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-of- service criteria are stated in terms of the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-min analysis period. The criteria are given in the Table. Delay may be measured in the field, or may be estimated using procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual. Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables , including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group or approach in • question. Level-of-service A describes operations with very low delay, i.e. , less than 5 . 0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Stopped Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service ( SEC) A < 5 . 0 g 5 . 1 to 15. 0 C 15 . 1 to 25. 0 D 25 . 1 to 40. 0 E 40 . 1 to 60 . 0 F > 60 . 0 -2- Level-of-service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5 . 1 to 15 . 0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths . More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level-of-service C describes operations with delay in the range of 15 . 1 to 25 . 0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Level-of-service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25 . 1 to 40. 0 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths , or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level-of-service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40. 0 to 60 . 0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios . Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level-of-service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60. 0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e. , when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1. 00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. RELATING CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Because delay is a complex measure, its relationship to capacity is also complex. The levels of service in the Table have been established based on the acceptability of various delays to drivers . It is important to note that this concept is not related to capacity in a simple one-to-one fashion. The lower bound of LOS E was defined to be capacity , in the 1965 Manual ; i .e . , the v/c ratio was , by definition , 1 . 00 . This is not the case for the procedures of the 1985 Manual . It is pos- sible , for example , to have delays in the range of LOS F (unac- ceptable ) while the v/c ratio is below 1 .00 , perhaps as low as 0 . 75-0 . 85 . Very high delays can occur at such v/c ratios when some combination of the following conditions exists : ( 1 ) the cycle length is long , ( 2) the lane group in question is disadvantaged -3- (has a long red time ) by the signal timing , and/or ( 3 ) the signal progression for the subject movements is poor. The reverse is also possible : a saturated approach or lane group ( i .e. , v/c ratio = 1 . 00 ) may have low delays if : ( 1 ) the cycle length is short , and/or (2 ). the signal progression is favorable for the subject movement . Thus , the designation of LOS F does not automatically imply that the intersection , approach , or lane group is overloaded , nor does a level of service in the A to E range automatically imply that there is unused capacity available . The procedures and methods of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual re- quire the analysis of both capacity and level -of-service conditions to fully evaluate the operation of a signalized intersection . It is important to recognize the unique relationship of these two concepts as they apply to signalized intersections . -o • 9'P as 4) V m Nil 1 0 0 LARCHMONT AVE. y m4 1_79' H ...), l-85 r 36 EAST z } o m •--I 96---t 1 I AVE. -x1 x N A U k. 159 co N-1 �-32 IT m CHATSWORTH i (70 AVE. J ! r 70 N. CHATSWORTH AVE. X 31� 1 II — 125—) Ir 281- _ 1 g-2 gk �'1 31-i �i n)- 19 7 ��o N— ' ! Z A V CO D \ r O Z J ` ^`/ G � r z Z K m :1,1 7x0 tfri„4 D R1 m �q} N nl ,�' -I o > D < 6cw o 4L m r A=o1 l L35 .< 0 r N ,— 51 DEPOT C WAY W. czi �] Cm/) ba/ • w Li 40 > a x I- 3 'J4/ N I- I A It �J z _NN k--63 4y45 —NN ..._178 L—178 ' 0\0 L 50 MYRTLE J j l_ F-277 -/!C ...._(--3500 306 BLVD. 12—ft 1 t r 250-" 140--+ _ • ti 137 145 —,°0 re) 9—) GOV. THOMAS E. 4i DEWEY THRUWAY a METRO NORTH R.R. l,��R a a mm 1 MmN -1("111"1-N m l_I59 d } al Ji �. r"57 t ` 1— 47 PALMER o 3 421 (' 250—) 'I t r q`e 61� _ Q, 286- N—Nr salt' co Qp� As / \J gij o\ FRANKLIN AVE. \\,, \cl w \ G > 27 vis 3-- I- 7 5 z o co I- = a . 0 m cr o a J r EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - EVENING PEAK HOUR R5inink FIGURE B ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC. W 4, > a I H cr 3 'J4 N 1 A () Q.-Q-- �J i "� 24 0 N v �-- 12 2 '143\ \0 (...19 MYRTLE J } (-'296 �// 201 BLVD. 6— 1 1 x243- 102--• _ n� 1159—) o N N � GOV. THOMAS E. W DEWEY THRUWAY a 1 METRO NORTH R.R. d—; v ui cn A4<MFR W _ > r I39 cDinrn O 8 I 9 a r Jt lit) . -64 J� L X89 PALMER o 4 480—) ,� 206 J 9` t F MO 1 QQ--/ tDO1N -A —�PN N In in FRANKLIN AVE. i 4 4i \<1 > = 27 Y F2 4 0--- i I- p 91 -i Z o co I- = 4 U = cr U 4 r EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES SATURDAY PEAK HOUR f"kinelk FIGURE C ALLAN DAVIS ASSOCIATES. INC. PALMER & CHATSWORTH INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PEAK ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.84Th. Rt. Rt.Th.ALt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 1 _ 0 0 1 0 0 ( WB 0 1 00 1 0 it NB 0 1 0 1 0 0 SB 1 0 0 1 0 0 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Richt Turn Thru Turn Total EB 235 215 64 514 ' WB 38 292 161 491 ( NB 31 281 31 343 SB 7C) 285 159 514 ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH ( WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) Va LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EOUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCE1t Vlt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes ER 453 2 235 470 279 749 1 749 0 0 749 NB 279 2 38 76 453 529 2 265 189 227 265 ( NB 444 2 31 62 312 374 2 187 125 156 187 SB 312 2 70 140 444 584 1 584 0 0 584 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 ( 600 -799 3 . B00 -999 4 1000 & up 5 ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS EB LT= 235 NB LT= 31 WB TH&RT= 265 SB TH&RT= 444 SUM= 500 SUM= 475 WB LT= 38 SB LT= 70 ( EB TH&RT= 279 NB TH&RT= 187 SUM= 317 SUM= 257 MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 975 Right Turn Check: OK LOS: B ( PALMER & CHATSWORTH INTERSECTION EXISTING PM PEAK ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTER.SEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt,Th.&Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 1 . 0 ii 1 0 0 ( WB 0 1 0 1 0 0 NB 0 1 0 1 0 0 SB 1 0 0 1 0 0 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right ( Turn Thru Turn Total. EB 250 286 67 603 WB 74 347 159 580 ( NB 42 361 34 437 SB 48 228 129 405 ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH ( WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET} • Yo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EOUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCE1t Vlt PCE's (TH+RTI Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes ( EB 506 2 250 500 353 853 1 853 0 0 853 WB 353 2 74 148 506 654 2 327 179 253 327 ( NB 357 2 42 84 395 479 2 240 156 198 240 SB 395 2 48 96 357 453 1 453 0 0 453 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 ( 600 -799 3 800 -999 4 1000 6 up 5 ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS C EB LT= 250 NB LT= 42 WB TH&RT= 327 SB TH&RT= 357 ( SUM= 577 SUM= 399 WB LT= 74 SB LT= 48 l EB TH&RT= 353 NB TH&RT= 240 SUM= 427 SUM= 288 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 976 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: B ( PALMER & CHATSWORTH INTERSECTION EXISTING SATURDAY PEAK ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC • Date Updated: Auaust 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN ' GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Fit.&Th. Rt. Rt.Th.&.Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes ED 1 0 0 1 0 0 ( WB 0 1 0 1 ci 0 NB 0 . 1 0 1 0 0 SB 1 0 i 0 1 0 0 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Lef t Ri aht ( Turn Thru Turn Total EB 243 206 100 549 WB 89 279 139 507 ( NB 63 294 28 385 SB 68 251 149 468 ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH ( WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EQUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCE1t Vlt PCE's . (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes ( -------------------------------------------------------- ------------ EH 418 2 243 486 306 792 1 792 0 0 792 WB 306 2 89 178 41B 596 2 298 120 209 29B ( NB 400 2 63 126 322 448 2 224 98 161 224 SB 322 2 68 136 400 536 1 536 0 0 536 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 ( 600 -799 3 B00 -999 4 1000 & up 5 • ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS ( . ES LT= 243 NB LT= 63 WB TH&RT= 298 SB TH&RT= 400 ( SUM= 541- SUM= 463 WB LT= 89 SB LT= 68 ( ES TH&RT= 306 NB TH&RT= 224 SUM= 395 SUM= 292 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 1004 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: B ( PALMER & LARCHMONT INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PEAK ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt.Th.&Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 0 - 0 0 1 0 0 ( WB 1 0 1 0 0 0 NB 1 0 0 1 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0 1 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right ( Turn Thru Turn Total EB 0 414 46 460 WB 46 321 i 0 367 ( NB 91 5 96 192 SB 36 85 79 20() ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH ( WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EAUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The . Volume PCEIt Vit PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes EB 321 2 0 0 460 460 1 460 0 0 460 NB 460 2 46 92 321 413 1 413 0 0 413 ( NB 164 1.1 91 100.1 101 201.1 1 201 0 0 201 SB 101 1.1 36 39.6 164 203.6 1 204 0 0 204 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 ( 600 -799 3 800 -999 4 1000 & uo 5 t ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS ( . EB LT= 0 NB LT= 91 WB TH&RT= 321 SB TH&RT= 204 (. SUM= 321 SUM= 295 WB LT= 46 SB LT= C> t EB TH&RT= 460 NB TH34RT= 101 SUM= 506 SUM= 101 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 801 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: ,A ( PALMER & LARCHMONT INTERSECTION EXISTING PM PEAK • ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR F'LANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: Auoust 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN ( GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt.Th,&Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes ES ii . 0 �0 1 0 0 ( WB 1 . 0 1 U 0 0 NB 1 0 0 1 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0 1 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right Turn Thru Turn Total EB 0 421 61 482 WB 57 419 0 476 NB 111 5 149 265 SB 72 78 93 243 ( • LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH • WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) VG LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EQUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCE1t Vlt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH. Lane Remaining (vph) Lane-M- Lanes ( EB 419 2 0 0 482 482 1 482 0 0 482 NB 482 2 57 114 419 533 1 533 0 0 533 ( NB 171 1.1 111 122.1 154 276.1 1 276 0 0 276 SB 154 1.1 72 79.2 171 250.2 1 250 ' 0 0 250 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 ( 600 -799 3 800 -999 4 1000 It up 5 ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS EB LT= 0 NB LT= 111 WB TH&RT= 419 SB TH&RT= 250 C SUM= 419 SUM= 361 WB LT= 57 SB LT= 0 EB TH&RT= 482 NB TH&RT= 154 SUM= 539 SUM= 154 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 900 (. Right Turn Check: OK LOS: A ( PALMER & LARCHMONT INTERSECTION EXISTING SATURDAY PEAK ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16, 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt,Th,&Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 0 • 0 0 1 0 0 ( WB 1 0 1 • 0 0 0 NB 1 0 a 1 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0 1 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right . ( Turn Thru Turn Total EB 0 448 80 528 WB 64 338 0 402 ( NB 135 5 207 347 SB 59 75 76 210 ( • LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH ( WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) . Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EMUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCE1t Vlt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Regaining (vph) Lane Lanes ( EB 338 2 0 0 528 528 • 1 528 0 0 528 WB 528 2 64 126 338 466 1 466 0 0 466 ( N8 151 1.1 135 148.5 212 360.5 1 361 0 0 361 SB 212 2 59 118 151 269 1 269 0 0 269 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 ( 600 -799 3 • 800 -999 4 1000 & up 5 ( . ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS ( EB LT= 0 NB LT= 135 WB TART= 338 SB TART= 269 ( SUM= 338 SUM= 404 • WB LT= 64 SB LT= C) ( EB TH&RT= 528 NB TH&RT= 212 SUM= 592 SUM= 212 (. MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 996 • ( Right Turn Check: OK .LOS: B ( MYRTLE & MURRAY INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PEAK . ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN ( GEOMETRY No. of No. of No of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt,Th,R.<Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 1 " 0 0 1 0 i 0 ( WB 0 0 0 00 00 1 NB 0 0 0 0 0 1 SB 0 1 0 0 1 0 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right ( Turn Thru Turn Total EB 178 197 14 389 WB 4 320 37 361 ( NB 0 5 0 5 . SB 37 18 296 351 ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH ( WITH•PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) • Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EQUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCE1t Vlt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes (. -------____--------------------- ----- -------------------_ EB 357 2 178 356 211 567 1 567 0 0 567 NB 211 2 4 8 357 365 1 365 0 0 365 . ( NB 18 1.1 0 0 5 5 1 5 0 0 5 SB 5 1.1 37 40.7 18 58.7 1 59 0 0 59 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 ( 600 -799 3 800 -999 4 . 1000 & up 5 ( ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS ( • EB LT= 178 NB LT= 0 WB THBCRT= 365 SB TH&RT= 59 ( SUM= 543 SUM= 59 WB LT= 0 SB LT= 37 l EB TH&RT= • 211 NB TH&RT= 5 SUM= 211 SUM= 42 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 602 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: A • ( MYRTLE & MURRAY INTERSECTION EXISTING PM PEAK ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 ' William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN ( GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&<Th. Rt. Rt,Th,&<Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 1 • 0 0 1 0 0 ( WB 0 C 0 0 0 C 0 1 NB 0 0 0 0 0 1 SB C> 1 0 0 1 0 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right J. Turn Thru Turn Total EB 250 137 9 396 WB 1 306 50 357 ( NB 0 5 0 5 SB 10 5 235 253 ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH ( WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) . Vo —�—�— LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EOUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCE1t Vlt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes ( EB 356 2 250 500 146 646 1 646 0 0 646 WB 146 1.1 1 1.1 356 357.1 1 357 0 0 357 ( NB il 1.1 0 0 5 5 1 5 0 0 5 SB 5 1.1 10 11 8 19 • 1 19 0 0 19 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 ( 600 -799 3 800 -999 4 1000 & up 5 ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS EB LT= 250 NB LT= 0 WB TH&<RT= 357 SB TH&RT= 19 ( SUM= 607 SUM= 19 WB LT= 0 SB LT= 10 EB TH&<RT= . 146 NB TH&<RT= 5 ( SUM= 146 SUM= 15 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 626 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: A ( MYRTLE & MURRAY INTERSECTION EXISTING SATURDAY PEAK NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC ( Date Updated: August 16, 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN ( GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt,Th,&Lt ( Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes ES 1 - 0 0 1 0 0 WB 0 0 0 0 0 1 ( NB 0 0 ci 0 0 1 SB 0 1 i 0 00 1 0 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right Turn Thru Turn Total ( EB 203 148 1 352 WB 1 201 19 221 NB C) 5 C) 5 ( SB 10 1 230 241 ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In. Vol. In ( Opposing EQUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCE1t Vlt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vphl Lane Lanes ( EH 220 2 203 406 149 555 1 555 0 0 555 WB 149 1.1 1 1.1 220 221.1 1 221 0 0 221 NB 1 1.1 0 0 5 5 1 5 0 0 5 ( SB 5 1.1 10 11 1 12 1 12 0 0 12 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 600 -799 3 ( 800 -999 4 1000 & up 5 ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS• EB LT= 203 NB LT= 0 WB TH&RT= 221 SB TART= 12 SUM= 424 SUM= 12 WB LT= 0 SB LT= 10 ES TH&RT= 149 NB TH&RT= 5 ( SUM= 149 SUM= 15 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 439 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: A ( FRANKLIN & PALMER INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PEAK • ( NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt.Th.&Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 0 0 0 0 0 1 ( WB 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 NB 0 0 a 0 0 1 SB 0 0 0 0 0 1 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right ( Turn Thru Turn Total EB 16 469 C) 485 WB 0 443 32 475 ( NB 16 11 41 68 SB Si. 0 35 86 . ( • LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH ( WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) . Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In ( Opposing EOUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCEIt Ylt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes ( EB 475 2 16 32 469 501 1 501 0 0 501 NB 469 2 0 0 475 475 1 475 0 0 475 ( NB 35 1.1 16 17.6 52 69.6 1 70 0 0 70 SB 52 1.1 51 56.1 35 91.1 1 91 0 0 91 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 (. 600 -799 3 B00 -999 4 1000 & up 5 ( ( • CALCULATIONS OF STATUS ( EB LT= 16 NB LT= 0 WB TH&RT= 475 SB TH&RT= 91 ( SUM= 491 SUM= 91 WB LT= 0 SB LT= -T5 ( EB TH&RT= • 501 NB TH&RT= 70 SUM= 501 SUM= 105 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 606 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: A FRANKLIN & PALMER INTERSECTION EXISTING PM PEAK (. NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN ( GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No of No. of No. of Lt. Lt.°<Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt,Th,°:Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes ES 0 0 0 0 0 1 ( WB 0 00 0 0 0 1 NB 0 0 00 0 0 1 SB 0 0 0 0 0 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right C Turn Thru Turn Total EB 18 360 0 378 WB 0 467 26 493 ( NB 27 3 75 105 SB 29 0 89 118 (. LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In t_ ' Opposing EQUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCEIt Vit PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes EB 493 2 18 36 360 396 1 396 0 0 396 WB 360 2 0 0 493 493 1 493 0 0 493 NB 89 1.1 27 29.7 78 107.7 1 108 0 0 108 SB 78 1.1 29 31.9 89 120.9 1 121 0 0 121 PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 - 2 ( 600 -799 3 800 -999 4 ( 1000 k up 5 ( CALCULATIONS OF STATUS C • . EB LT= 18 NB LT= 0 C WB TH&RT= 493 SB TH&RT= 121 SUM= 511 SUM= 121 WB LT= 0 SB LT= 2 EB TH°<RT= • 396 NB TH&RT= 108 SUM= 396 SUM= 110 (. MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 632 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: A ( FRANKLIN & PALMER INTERSECTION EXISTING SATURDAY PEAK ( . NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16, 198.E William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN l GEOMETRY No. .of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt,Th,&Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 0 " (3 0 0 0 1 ( WB 0 0 C) 0 0 1 NB c i 0 0 0 0 1 SB 0 0 C) 0 0 1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right c Turn Thru Turn Total EB 0 368 C) 368 WB 0 421 1 3 4•_+4 ( NB 27 0 91 118 SB 60 6 33 99 • ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. in Opposing EDUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCEIt VI PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Re'aining (vphl ---�M- Lane ��----M-LanesM ( ED 434 2 0 0 368 368 1 368 0 0 368 NB 368 2 0 0 434 434 1 434 0 0 434 NB 39 1.1 27 29.7 91 120.7 1 121 0 0 121 SB 91 1.1 60 66 39 105 1 105 0 0 105 PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 600 -799 3 600 -999 4 1000 & up 5 CALCULATIONS OF STATUS • EB LT= 0 NB LT= 0 WB TH&RT= 434 SB TH&RT= 105 ( SUM= 434 SUM= 105 WB LT= 0 SB LT= ES TH&RT= 368 NB TH&RT= 121 SUM= 368 SUM= 154 ( MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 588 Right Turn Check: OK LOS: A . • ( MYRTLE & CHATSWORTH INTERSECTION EXISTING PM PEAK - ( .JEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN ( GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of ( Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt,Th.&Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes EB 0 - 0 0 G 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 WB c i 1 0 1 0 0 SB 0 1 0 1 0 0 ( TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right Turn Thru Turn Total EB 12 140 145 297 WB 227 178 63 468 NB 112 302 237 651 SB 22 226 11 259 • LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In Opposing EBUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCElt Vlt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes EB 241 2 12 24 285 309 1 309 0 0 309 NB 285 2 227 454 241 695 1 695 0 0 695 NB 237 2 112 224 539 163 2 382 158 Thy 382 SB 539 2 22 44 237 281 2 141 97 119 141 - - PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 600 -799 3 800 -999 4 1000 & up 5 ( . CALCULATIONS OF STATUS ES LT= 0 NB LT= 112 WB TH&RT= 241 SB TH&RT= 141 C SUM= 241 SUM= 253 WB LT= 227 SB LT= 22 ( ES TH&RT=• 309 NB TH&RT= 382 SUM= 536 SUM= 404 MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 940 C. Right Turn Check: OK LOS: B ( MYRTLE & CHATSWORTH INTERSECTION EXISTING SATURDAY PEAK NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: August 16. 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN ( GEOMETRY No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&<Th. Rt. Rt.Th.&<Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes ES 0 0 0 0 0 1 WB 1 0 0 1 0 0 NB 0 1 0 1 0 0 SB 0 1 0 1 0 0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Riaht Turn Thru Turn Total EB 6 102 159 267 WB 296 122 24 442 NB . 109 257 242 608 SB 46 277 15 294 ( LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH _'ryNWITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET)__ • Va LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In Opposing EAUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCElt Ylt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes EB 146 1.1 6 6.6 261 267.6 1 268 0 0 268 NB 261 2 296 592 146 738 1 738 0 0 738 NB 248 2 109 218 499 717 2 359 141 250 359 SB 499 2 46 92 248 340 2 170 78 124 170 PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 600 -799 3 B00 -999 4 1000 & up 5 ( • CALCULATIONS OF STATUS ES LT= 0 NB LT= 109 WB TH&RT= 146 SB TH&RT= 170 SUM= 146 SUM= 279 ( WB LT= 296 SB LT= 46 EB TH&RT= 268 NB TH&RT= 359 i. SUM= • 564 SUM= 405 MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 968 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: B ( MYRTLE & CHATSWORTH INTERSECTION EXISTING AM PEAK . NEW HIGHWAY CAPACITY PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS OF INTERSEC Date Updated: Auoust 16, 1985 William A. Martin DATA INPUT SCREEN GEOMETRY ( No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Lt. Lt.&Th. Thru Rt.&Th. Rt. Rt,Th,&Lt Approach Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes Lanes ( EB 0 0 0 0 . i 0 1 WB 1 0 0 1 c 0 0 NB 0 1 0 1 0 00 SB 0 1 0 1 0 0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Left Right Turn Thru Turn Total ' EB 7 132 148 287 WB 327 178 50 555 NB 125 175 197 497 SB 70 244 32 346 LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) Yu LT Total Na. of Equiv. Thru Vol. In Vol. In Opposing EQUIV Volume Lanes On Volume Vehicles LT+TH Ea. Of The Volume PCEIt Vlt PCE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining ( (vphl Lane Lanes . _------------- ----------------_-_--------------- ----_ . EB 228 2 7 14 280 294 1 294 0 0 294 W8 280 2 327 654 228 882 1 882 0 0 882 ( NB 276 2 125 250 372 622 2 311 61 186 311 SB 372 2 70 140 276 416 2 208 68 138 208 ( PCE Lookup Table 0 -199 1.1 200 -599 2 (. 600 -799 3 800 -999 4 1000 & u p 5 CALCULATIONS OF STATUS EB LT= 0 NB LT= 125 WB TH&RT= 228 SB TH&RT= 208 SUM= 228 SUM= 333 ( WB LT= 327 SB LT= 70 EB TH&RT= 294 NB TH&RT= 311 SUM= 621 SUM= 381 MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES= 1002 ( Right Turn Check: OK LOS: B