I MSU

LIBRARIES

m

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiI]
be charged if book is '
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

r
‘ ééegfb;

 

 

ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
FOR THE
EAST BELTLINE CORRIDOR

By

Steven Alan Warren

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture

1985

ABSTRACT

ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
FOR THE
EAST BELTLINE CORRIDOR
By

Steven Alan Warren

The East Beltline is one of the major transportation corridors

in the Grand Rapids, Michigan urbanized area. Concerns for
maintaining safety and the long term traffic carrying capacity

of this facility has fostered attempts by each corridor communi—
ty to limit the intensity of corridor development and control
vehicular access to the roadway. To complete this overall effort,
there lacks a uniform set of access management guidelines. This
thesis has reviewed the literature in the areas of: prOperty
owner's rights, land use regulation, and access control, and a
uniform set of access management guidelines has been prepared.
Recommendations for the implementation of these guidelines

have been made based upon an analysis of each community's land
use plans and regulatory controls. The major conclusion of this
thesis is that a common site plan review procedure should be
adopted which would allow for the exercise of these access manage—

ment guidelines.

This work is dedicated to
my wife Jane, whose love
and support made my

graduate study possible.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere thanks and graditude are extended to Susan L. Aebi
for her typing and editorial assistance, as well as to
Bradley K. Strader for his assistance in the preparation

of graphic material.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Chapter One: Access and Mobility

1.1 Functional Obsolescence

1.2 Preservation of Mobility
1.3 Reasonable Access

1.4 Regulation and Compensation

Chapter Two: Access Management Through Land Use Control

2.1 Land Use Planning and Regulation
2.2 Zoning

2.3 Planned Unit DevelOpment

2.4 Other Controls

2.5 State and Local Coordination

Chapter Three: Guidelines for Access Management

3.1 Accidents and Access Management
3.2 Design Standards and Performance Criteria

Driveway Width, Radius and Offset
Driveway Surface
Profile
Angled and Divided Driveways
Right Turn Lanes
Sight Distance
Spacing and Corner Clearance
Degree of Access
Additional Driveway Lanes
0 Additional Driveways
Alternative Access
2 Site Design
Frequency of Access

NNNNNNNNNNNNN

Hpromqmmmwmw

DO

wwwwwwwwwwwww
H

Chapter Four: East Beltline Planning and Development

4.1 Corridor Profile

4.2 Planning and Reconstruction

4.3 East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board

4.4 Land Use Regulations of Corridor Communities

4.4.1 Plainfield Township
4.4.2 Grand Rapids Township
4.4.3 East Grand Rapids
4.4.4 Grand Rapids
4.4.5 Kentwood

4.5 Driveway Permit Procedures

iv

Q0300) CO H

13

14
17
18
21

27

27
31

34

42
44
45
47
51
56
58
58
6O

63

7O

7O
73
76
80

81
84
90
90
94

96

Chapter Five: Access Management Opportunities

01010101010101
QOUU'Hh-wNH

Segment One: Plainfield Township

-Segment Two: Grand Rapids Township North

Segment Three: Grand Rapids Township South
Segment Four: Grand Rapids North

Segment Five: Grand Rapids South

Segment Six: Kentwood

Corridor Growth

Chapter Six: Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 General Conclusions

6.2 Site Plan Review
6.3 Recommended Access Management Guidelines
6.3.1 Direct Access Driveways
6.3.2 Driveway Design Standards
6.3.3 Driveway Profile
6.3.4 Driveway Surface and Curbing
6.3.5 Driveway Angle
6.3.6 Right Turn Lanes
6.3.7 Driveway Location
6.3.8 Spacing of Driveways
6.4 Community Recommendations
6.4.1 Plainfield Township
6.4.2 Grand Rapids Township
6.4.3 Grand Rapids
6.4.4 Kentwood
6.5 Access Management Illustration
Appendices
Bibliography

101

102
104
105
107
109
110
111

115

115
118
120

120
121
123
124
126
126
127
128

129

129
130
130
131
132
135

142

ii

iii

iv

vi

vii

viii

ix

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

XV

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Driveway Accident Types Related
to Turning Movements 30

Minimum Turning Radii by Vehicle

Driveway Design Standards of the

39
ITE
Minimum Lane Widths for One-Way "T" 41
Driveways
Safe Sight Distances for Vehicles 49
Exiting Urban Driveways
Adjustment Factors for Steep Grades 50
Recommended Distances for the Spacing
Between Driveways 52
Driveway Traffic Characteristics 57
Developed and Undeveloped Frontage
in Plainfield Township (Segment ne) 103

DevelOped and Undeveloped Frontage
in Grand Rapids Township (Segment Two) 105

Developed and Undeveloped Frontage
in Grand Rapids Township (Segment Threéloe

Developed and Undeve10ped Frontage
in Grand Rapids (Segment Four) 107

Developed and Undeveloped Frontage
in Grand Rapids (Segment Five) 109

Deve10ped and Undeveloped Frontage
in Kentwood (Segment Six) 111

Expected Growth in POpulation and
Dwelling Units 112

vi

ii

iii

iv

vi
vii
viii

ix

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

XV

xvi

xvii

xviii

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

3.10
3.11
4.1
4.2

4.3

4.4

LIST OF FIGURES

Roadway Function by Classification

Relationship Between Delay and
Entrance Speed

Typical "T" Driveway

Effects of Driveway Design on
Entering and Exiting Vehicles

Recommended Driveway Profile
Dimensions

Typical Angled Divided Driveway
Continuous Right Turn Lane
Sight Distance Triangle
Driveway Spacing Relationships

Driveway Blocking and Corner
Spacing

Diagonal Driveway Exit Maneuvers
Establishment of a Frontage Road
The East Beltline Corridor
East Beltline Land Use Plan

East Beltline Zoning Districts:
Plainfield Avenue to Four Mile Road

East Beltline Zoning Districts:
Four Mile Road to Knapp Street

East Beltline Zoning Districts:
Knapp Street to Bradford Street

East Beltline Zoning Districts:
Michigan Street to Hall Street

Vii

34

35

36

43
45
45
48

52

53
55
66
71

78

82

86

87

88

xix Figure 4.7

xx Figure 4.8

xxi

Figure 5.1

East Beltline Zoning Districts:
Grand Rapids City Limits to
Fulton Street 92

East Beltline Zoning Districts:
Hall Street to 28th Street 93

Undeve10ped Frontage and Traffic
Volumes 113

viii

INTRODUCTION

Preserving the public investment and safety of travel along.
major urban roadways is the ultimate goal of access management.
Where land use deve10pment and driveway construction goes un-
checked, without regard to the ability of the roadway to accom-
modate the resulting traffic, severe congestion and high acci-
dent frequencies can occur. This is best illustrated along
roadways where intense commercial strip deve10pment has been
allowed to occur. These situations often require a major re—
investment of public funds to expand the traffic carrying capa-
city of the roadway or the construction of a new parallel facility.
A comprehensive access management program seeks to coordinate
land use decisions with the design and placement of driveways

serving those uses.

Residents and public officials of the Grand Rapids, Michigan
urban area are very concerned about preserving the functional
integrity of their major tranSportation facilities. As one of
those concerned residents, the author of this thesis has re-
viewed the literature on the t0pic of access control as well

as on the t0pics of property owner's rights and land use regula—
tions as they relate to roadway access. Toward the objective

of recommending a comprehensive access management program, a

l

2

uniform set of access management guidelines has been prepared.

This thesis is divided into six major chapters. Chapter One
defines the "right of access" according to legal interpreta—
tions contained in the literature and also explains the concept
of providing "reasonable access" as expressed in court decisions
involving the exercise of the police power and the "taking" of
prOperty. Chapter Two discusses the applications of controlling
roadway access through land use controls. Chapter Three pre-
sents findings in the literature about reducing accident fre-
quency through access control and standards for driveway design
and placement. Chapter Four describes the evolution of the

East Beltline Corridor, community COOperation in establishing
compatible land use patterns and the current status of their
land use plans and regulatory controls as they affect the road—
way. Chapter Five identifies opportunities to implement further
access control based upon the land use character of several
different segments of the East Beltline Corridor. Finally,
Chapter Six presents the major conclusions of the thesis and
recommendations for establishing a comprehensive program of

access management.

CHAPTER ONE: ACCESS AND MOBILITY

1.1 FUNCTIONAL OBSOLESCENCE

The vitality of an urban area is dependent in part on main-
taining the efficiency of its transportation system. It is.
the responsibility of public officials to see that these
systems provide two basic functions: (1) the movement of
people, goods, and services; and (2) land access to adja-
cent development. Functional classification theory suggests
(see Figure 1.1) that if a roadway is to primarily furnish
one function, then its ability to furnish the other is

diminished.

 

I
I
I
ACCESS
FUNCTION

   
  

 
     

 

 

 

I
I
I
I I
2 MOVEMENT I I :
g FUNCTION : l |
I I
g I I | I
3% I I I l I
-H | I I I |
c) a I I I
21;} I I I I
I
2 Ex- lPrimary'SecondT Colleq— -
g press-lArter- 'ary ArT tor |
H way lial iterial| ,

 

Roadway Classification

Figure 1.1 Roadway Function by Classification

3

4

The arterial street serves as the backbone of an urbanized
area street system. Its primary function is the movement of
traffic. Arterials typically provide routing between a cen-
tral city and suburban areas as well as across portions of
urbanized areas. The ability of arterials to move traffic
becomes threatened when adjacent land development along these

corridors intensifies and the demand for land access increases.

The pattern of development along major transportation cor—
ridors is often cyclical, which requires almost constant
capital investment for roadway improvements and/or facility
relocation. The sequence of events has been summarized as
follows (1):

1. Construction or major reconstruction of an arterial,
intended to satisfy primarily the demand for vehicle
trips passing through an area, gives rise to in-
creased land values.

2. Shifts in land use are stimulated by higher property
values. Strip commercial land uses often develOp
along the roadway, attracted by the presence of
passing traffic. These uses tend to generate ad-
ditional, more locally oriented traffic. Growing
traffic volumes in turn increase the attractive-
ness of the corridor for further strip development,
and so on.

3. Owing to traffic growth and frequently conflicting

maneuvers between through and local traffic,

5

congestion eventually reaches intolerable levels

and the facility becomes functionally obsolete.
When an arterial's ability to furnish through traffic mo-
bility fails, means of expanding the capacity of that fa—
cility are sought by both motorists and highway officials.
Because of the high costs of acquiring additional right-
of-way to expand an existing facility, and/or the rights
of access of adjacent property owners, a new facility must

be constructed on a new location.

1.2 PRESERVATION OF MOBILITY

During these times of rising costs, it is becoming more
difficult for public officials to finance the construction
of new transportation facilities. Growth in public reve-
nues collected on the sale of motor fuels and transporta-
tion related items has not kept pace with rising costs.

As vehicles become more fuel efficient, the gap between
costs and available financing are expected to widen. There-
fore, when a facility's; ability to function as an arterial
is diminished, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to
finance a replacement. This makes it necessary to preserve
the efficiency of existing arterials, not only to protect
the investment of public tax dollars but to also reduce:
traffic delay, the frequency of accidents, and environmen-
tal pollution (noise and air) that is associated with traf-
fic congestion. Preserving capacity is also a means of

meeting future traffic demand. By properly managing access

6

along an arterial these benefits can be achieved.

Access management is a process of controlling the manner in
which vehicles enter and exit properties located along trans-
portation corridors. Typically, these controls affect drive-
way geometrics, placement, and their numbers per parcel. -
Access management also encourages the sharing of driveways
and/or the option of indirect access via another roadway.

By exercising these controls, the primary function of an
arterial can be protected and functional obsolescence fore—

stalled.

Therefore, the overall objective of access management is to
preserve, or enhance, the traffic carrying capacity of roads
after their construction while accommodating the access
rights of adjoining property owners. It is very important
to understand the right of access which property owners
possess in order to fully appreciate the types of controls

which access management attempts to implement.

1.3 REASONABLE ACCESS

Access management must be exercised in such a manner as to
protect private property and public mobility. A property
owner's right of access is a condition of his legal ownership.
By virtue of its location along a roadway, property is entitled
to suitable and sufficient access according to its existing

or highest and best use. At the same time, however, the

public has the right of mobility — meaning safe and efficient
movement along roadways regardless of the ingress and egress
maneuvers associated with adjacent deve10pment (2). There-
fore, no right is paramount to the public's right of mobility
and thus a property owner's right of access may be regulated
or even purchased by government (3). Achieving a balance .
between these two often conflicting interests is the chal-

lenge of access management.

Property access rights are protected by one general prinicpal:
the access granted must be reasonable for the property to be
developed to its highest and best use (4). Reasonable access
implies that land must be permitted access to the degree
which is suitable for the type and quantity of traffic nor-
mally expected for existing or intended development. For
example, the owner of a developing shopping center cannot be
limited to the size or number of driveways considered suit—
able for a single family residence. However, the test of
reasonableness works in the other direction as well. The
owner of a single family residence is not entitled to the

degree of access considered suitable for a shopping center.

1.4 REGULATION AND COMPENSATION

The critical issue in the interpretation of access rights

is the extent to which government's authority can control
access to protect mobility before the rights of the property

owner have been taken and compensation justified (5). This

8

issue has been a fruitful source of litigation in the courts
and has generally been decided on a case-by—case basis. Thus
a general doctrine of the rights of property owners can be
drawn from judicial decisions and interpretations of existing

status.

Thomas (6) provides an excellent overview of court interpre-
tations involving property rights and the control of access.
He has found that the courts have held that not every impair-
ment of an abutter's access is compensable because the abutter
is entitled to only reasonable access, not complete access.
Reasonable access has generally been found to include both
direct and indirect access to a roadway; where indirect access
involves a more circuitous route between the roadway and an
adjacent development. Thus, a landowner may not be entitled
to compensation for longer travel distances required by access
control such as one—way streets and median barriers or from
the provision of an alternative access route like a frontage
road. This substitution of an alternative means of access is
held generally to be noncompensable as long as the access pro—

vided is reasonable to meet the needs of the affected property.

(7).

The regulation of access is considered to be a proper use of
the police power. This regulatory ability affects not only
how direct, but also the design, construction, and placement

of driveways (8).

9

The public authority to regulate property or property rights
granted by the police power must be distinguished from its
ability to take property or property rights as granted by

the power of eminent domain. The former power does not re-
quire compensation to the owner for inconveniences or con-.
sequences of regulation; where as the latter requires, in

all states, compensation for the property taken, and in some
states, compensation to the owners for property damage (9).
There are frequently disagreements over the issue of taking
and compensation, typically involving a property owner and
highway authority. In these situations, the property owner's
right of due process of law is upheld and it becomes a matter
of judicial interpretation of which power has been used. The
courts have generally held that in order for there to be a
taking or damaging of access rights it must be demonstrated
that a public authority has unreasonably impaired or sub-
stantially impaired existing access, and that the loss of
direct access is not compensable where the property owner

can achieve a reasonable means of ingress and egress to a

roadway (10).

In cases of litigation, it has generally been up to the
property owner to show what will be left in terms of access
if the regulation is excercised before is can be determined
if that access is reasonable. When compensation is denied,
the courts usually conclude that the particular regulation

falls within the police power of government. Therefore, the

10

courts have had to weigh the facts of each case to determine

whether the action is taking or damaging in the constitutional

sense or is a reasonable exercise of the police power (11).

Statements for determining if compensation is justified in
regulating property access are listed below and on the next.
page. These statements support the conclusion that as long
as the impairment of access is reasonable and the abutting
property owner retains suitable access to his property, there

is no requirement for compensation (12).

Abutter Entitled to Compensation if:

1. All access to the highway network is totally denied;

2. Access permitted him is insufficient for the "highest
and best use" of property;

3. Special injury is incurred to one specific property
through access restrictions;

4. Highway frontage, if the otherwise landlocked prOperty
is rebuilt as limited access facility;

5. Highway improvements damage his use of prOperty through

relocation of access points.

Abutter Not Entitled to Compensation if:

1. Access is circuitous, or regulated reasonably;

2. Access restrictions are sufficient for the "highest
and best use" of prOperty;

3. No special injury is suffered;

11

New limited access facility is constructed on new
right-of-way;

Highway improvements require site design or parking
area changes through relocation of access points.

Source: Reference (13)

10.
11.
12.

13.

CHAPTER ONE: FOOTNOTES

Vergil G. Stover, William G. Adkins, and John C. Goodnight.
1970. ”Guidelines for Medial and Marginal Access Control
on Major Roadways". National C00perative Highway Research
Program Report 93. Washington, DC: Highway Research
Board. pp 4-5.

 

John C. Glennon and James A Azzeh. 1976. "Access Control
on Arterial Highways". Transportation Engineering Journal
(Hereafter cited as TEI). Volume 1: p. 82.

 

H.B. Resse. 1953. "Legal Aspects of Limiting Highway Access".
Highway Research Bulletin Number 77. pp. 36—50.

John W. Flora and Kenneth M. Keitt. 1982. Access Managgment
for Streets and Highways. Springfield: National Technical
Information Service. Report Number FHWA-IP-82-3. p. 11.
(Hereafter cited as Access Management).

 

 

 

 

Ibid. p. 9

Larry W. Thomas. 1979. ”Legal Implications of Control of
Access to Uncontrolled—Access Highways”. Research Results
Digest. Number 112: p. 6. (Hereafter cited as Research
Digest).

Ibid. p. 8

Flora and Keitt. Access Management. pp. 8-9

Glennon and Azzeh. TEL. p. 85.

Thomas. Research Digest. p. 10.

Ibid. p. 11.

Ibid. p. 12.

A.E. Zeiring. 1979. "Highway Access Management: Preserving
Public Investment in the Highway Network". Presented at the

59th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
Washington, D.C.

12

CHAPTER TWO: ACCESS MANAGEMENT THROUGH LAND USE CONTROL

2.1 LAND USE PLANNING AND REGULATION

It is believed that land use planning and regulation, if
properly administered, have the potential of protecting the
public investment in streets and highways (1). Land use plan-
ning, zoning, and subdivision regulations are intended to
shape the pattern of urban development, and as a result can
affect the efficiency of streets and highways. Limiting the
density of development to encourage low traffic generating
land uses is one approach that can help maintain the func—
tional integrity of a highway. When this is combined with

a coordinated effort between state and local officials to
review land use proposals and issue driveway permits, com-

prehensive access management can be achieved.

Any approach to land use planning and regulation must recog—
nize the fact that in the free market, economic forces may

be asserted which can significantly alter the pattern of
development from what was originally intended. Marks et.al.
(2) points out that where land use plans are unrealistic,
economic determinants are of greater importance than land use
controls in determining the actual intensity of development.
This observation actually strengthens the need for comprehen-
sive access management. First of all, community goals and
subsequent plans and regulations must be realistic and recog-

nize the limited ability of a roadway to absorb high concen~

trations of local traffic. Secondly, as land use policies

13

14
change and development proposals are considered, highway
officials responsible for issuing access permits should be
allowed the opportunity of making comments on policies and

proposals before final decisions are made.

The general plan, also commonly referred to as the master .
or comprehensive plan, is an expression by a community of

its direction toward the future. It should never be a final
document but should rather be reassessed and adjusted on a
continuing basis as community goals and economic trends
change. If a plan is realistic, understood, and accepted

it can become a picture of what the future will look like

and thus provide the justification and foundation for regula—

tions which govern land use and transportation decisions.

As a means of furthering the concept of access management,
the general plan can: (1) identify roadway corridors which
are likely to experience intense development pressure, (2)
identify new transportation routes which may satisfy existing
or anticipated access needs, and (3) demonstrate the need for
access management along existing facilities by showing where

alternative routes are not possible.

2.2 ZONING
As a local application of the police power, zoning is used
by many communities to implement the objectives of their

general plans. It therefore has special relevance in the

15
enforcement of access management. Considered the most widely
known land use control, zoning regulates the location, size,

and intensity of development, as well as the type of land use

(3).

Zoning can influence roadway access by (1) controlling the.
type and intensity of land use and by (2) enforcing drive-
way design and performance standards. A community may be
able to head off the functional obsolescence of its major
roadway corridors by zoning adjacent land for low traffic
generating, non-commercial uses. This relationship between
zoning and access control has been recognized in the courts
where denial of zoning changes is based on the concept of
lessening highway congestion (4). A zoning ordinance may
describe specific design criteria and procedures for obtain-

ing a driveway permit (5).

Zoning may be an effective tool when a developer seeks to
change the designated use of his land to one that will generate
higher volumes of traffic or that would in some other way
adversely affect the flow of traffic on the adjacent roadway.
The procedures required to rezone a property can provide local
officials the opportunity to suggest some access control or
relocation of a driveway. While rezoning cannot be used as

a leverage to require access control or public works improve-
ments, rezoning requests are often denied because of the lack

of adequate facilities to accomodate the proposed use (6).

16

While the prospects of enforcing access management through
zoning seem encouraging, there remains problems to this
approach. Stover et.al. (7) reports three major shortcomings
with respect to the use of transportation criteria in zoning:
1) The fact that transportation corridors frequently
cross the jurisdictional boundaries of different I
communities.
2) The local administration of zoning ordinances.
3) The difference in the time horizon of land use
regulation and the functional life of a roadway.
The fact that 21 roadway corridor frequently crosses more than
one jurisdictional boundary poses the problem of uniformity.
It is not uncommon for zoning districts to vary significantly
between neighboring communities in regard to the types of land
uses permitted and subsequent deve10pment restrictions. This
poses substantial problems in achieving continuity in land
use and the degree of access control over any substantial length

of roadway (8).

Zoning is typically a locally controlled process and officials
who enforce it may not understand the traffic-generating charac-
teristics of different land uses and/or the impact different
development patterns can have on the adjacent roadway. The
influence of zoning can be further diminished by the granting

of zoning variances in situations where the local zoning board
is more sensitive to the interests of the property owner than

it is the long—range public benefit of access management (9).

17

Perhaps the most significant shortcoming of implementing
access controls through zoning is the fact that the time
horizon for land use development is considerably shorter

than it is for transportation facilities. Zoning is con-
sidered to be a local police power which reflects the short-
range land use desires of a community and which also attempts
to stabilize the economic influences for successive short
runs in the economy.(10). Conversely, the economic life of

a public transportation corridor may be infinite, despite

the fact that it will probably experience regular periods of
reconstruction. The issue here is what primary function will

the corridor continue to serve, land access or traffic mobility.

2.3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

There is a growing awareness among local zoning officials,
urban designers, and developers of the advantages of large-
scale developments which reflect a more creative approach to
environmental design than has been possible under the re-
strictions of traditional zoning. These developments are
commonly referred to as planned unit development (PUD) and
often feature a mixture of land use types with varying den-
sities (11). With respect to access management, the PUD
ordinance offers some advantages over traditional zoning.
Because a PUD generally involves the development of larger
tracts of land, it is possible to condense the number of
roadway access points to only a few. Where a PUD reflects

a mixture of residential and commercial uses, it is possible

18
that some personal vehicle trips (for perhaps shOpping) may

be satisfied on-site instead of on the adjacent roadway.

2.4 OTHER CONTROLS

Zoning is only one land use control which can influence access
to roadways. Under the police power, other regulations can
ultimately affect the manner in which a particular land use

is afforded access to an adjacent street. These other controls
include: subdivision regulations, mapped streets, and the
granting of building, occupancy and driveway permits. Where-
as zoning is an attempt by a community to affect the type and
intensity of development, these other controls (particularly

in their relation to transportation) attempt to control the

quality of deve10pment (12).

Like planned unit developments, subdivisions typically involve
the development of large tracts of land and there is therefore
a significant potential to control access. For example,
residential subdivision regulations typically specify require-
ments for on-site alignment of streets to avoid direct access
of each residence to a roadway. Subdivision regulations can
also: (1) require minimum set-backs of building and planting
strips from the roadway to ensure adequate sight distance,

(2) require sufficient space for off-street parking, (3) Control
the location and angle that collector streets will interface
with the major roadway, (4) assure adequate drainage, grading

and surfacing of streets and driveways within the subdivision,

19

and (5) require developers to dedicate, at no cost, right-of-
way easements for future roadways and/or widening of an exist-
ing roadway.. This last feature may prove very beneficial to

a community who wishes to establish a frontage road or alter—
native access route for other developments in an overall effort

to reduce the number of driveways along a roadway.

The procedures that a developer must follow in order to obtain
approval for his subdivision plat affords local officials the
opportunity to not only enforce the ordinance but to also
suggest additional controls that could enhance the access
characteristics of the development. In the spirit of coopera-
tion, a developer may be willing to go above and beyond the
restrictions in the ordinance to achieve better roadway pro-
tection. Michigan is considered one of the leading states in
the nation in regard to subdivision control and protection of
its trunkline roadways (13). The Michigan Department of Trans-
portation has the authority to approve all subdivision-division
plats which seek access to a state trunkline highway. An
approved subdivision plat must also conform to planned expan-

sion or relocations of state trunklines (14).

The mapped street is another legal control the community has
of controlling access. Future locations of streets can be
established to prevent construction of permanent buildings or
other improvements on property which will be ultimately used

as a public roadway (15). As an area develops, these roadways

20

may develop and provide a frontage road or alternative rout—

ing for land uses adjacent to the major roadway.

The issuance of permits is another effective use of the police
power to influence roadway access. Prior to the issuance of
building and occupancy permits, it is frequently required I
that there be written certification from other regulatory
agencies that the site plan is acceptable. These other agencies
may include planning commissions and zoning boards. Permit
issuing procedures are thus another means the community has
atifim;disposal of assuring that access has been adequately

addressed (16).

Probably the single most widely used technique for controlling
access to public streets is the driveway permit process (17).
Prior to its construction, a driveway permit must be obtained
by either the state of local agency which has jurisdiction

over the roadway. Generally, plans showing the proposed place-
ment of the driveway are submitted to the proper authority

which enforces certain geometric and construction criteria.

Flora et.al. (18) concludes that despite its widespread use,

the driveway permit process seldom provides the degree of

access control that it is capable of providing. —In Michigan,
for example, the Department of Transportation has developed
specific design and construction standards for driveways

along trunkline highways (19). These standards must be followed

in order to receive 21 driveway permit. As they stand, these

21

standards are a good start toward a comprehensive access
management policy. Unfortunately, they do not go far enough,
Iand as a result treat access control on only a parcel by

parcel basis. In addition to driveway design and construction
criteria, other features of access need to be addressed. These
include: spacing of driveways between properties, total number
of driveways per roadway segment, sight distance, and distance

from signalized intersections.

2.5 STATE AND LOCAL COORDINATION

It would seem that with the potential to regulate access at
both the state and local level that access control would not

be a problem in urbanized areas. Unfortunately, the need for
access control is a chronic problem and issue of great concern
in most urban areas of the nation. Comprehensive access
management, where the principles of access control are effec-
tively endorsed from both the state and local regulatory
agencies, rarely occurs. This is generally a result of (1) the
difficulty many states experience in setting uniform regulatory
policy, and (2) the lack of interjurisdictional coordination

between state and local regulatory procedures.

Many states are reluctant to enforce a vigorous access manage—
ment policy, generally because the associated regulations are
often challenged in the courts by property owners. It has
been difficult for many states to successfully enforce a

collection of uniform standards because these standards must

22
apply to a system of roadways which exhibit varying traffic
and land use conditions. Where these standards are modified
to accommodate a set of unique conditions, they are often
perceived as being arbitrary (20). When these issues are
settled in the courts, precedent is established for future .
access disputes. Unfortunately, legal procedures based on
precedent have a disadvantage; a ruling made in favor of a
property owner, or at least a lenient compromise, may be used
to set a precedent for lenient rulings in other cases (21).
Many state highway authorities do not want to be involved

in frequent and costly court cases.

The second major problem which inhibits the implementation

of comprehensive access management is the lack of coordination
between state and local regulatory agencies (22). This lack
of coordination may stem from the fact that each agency '
approaches the review of a new deve10pment with significantly
different concerns. Marks et.al. (23) concludes that typi-
cally, it is to a single municipality's immediate benefit to
develop intense uses in its area adjacent to a roadway. Where—
as, most of the benefits are received by the minicipality,
most of the costs (in the form of traffic congestion and
possible facility relocation) are shared by all those who use
the roadway. Therefore, a state highway official may perceive
the impact of a new development quite differently than does

a local land use official.

23
Another contributing factor to this lack of coordination is
scheduling of project reviews. A proposal for a new develop-
ment may be subjected to several agency site plan review and
approval procedures before it can proceed. Additional steps
are necessary when a rezoning or variance is requested.
Typically, these approvals are granted before it is necessary
to obtain a permit to construct a driveway. Along state
highways, this authority usually resides with the state. When
the highway agency is presented with a locally approved site
plan, it may be reluctant to deny a driveway permit, even
though the number and/or placement of driveways shown on that
site plan is inconsistent with the practice of good access

management.

In the interest of overcoming the problems of achieving a com-

prehensive access process, the following suggestions are

made:

1. State and local officials must strive to understand

each other's concerns and apply that to the review
of new developments along state highways. State
officials must be willing to enforce proper access
management policy and point out the benefits of
residing or doing business along an uncongested
roadway to both local officials and private developers.
Land use officials must consider the traffic impact

of their land use decisions on a corridor-wide basis.

24
Local officials should consider the traffic con-
sequences of their general plans, zoning ordinances,
and subdivision regulations along state highways.
Regulatory processes must be coordinated to ensure
that highway officials are given the opportunity to
review and make comments on major land use changes.
This should not be limited to the design and loca-
tion of driveways but also to the location of build-
ings and on-site vehicle circulation pattern.
State and local officials should mutually adopt a
complete set of access management controls and work

in a coordinated manner toward their implementation.

«>0on

10.
11.
12.

13.

14.
15.
16.
17.

CHAPTER TWO: FOOTNOTES

Harold Marks and Salem Spitz. 1966. "A Review of
Transportation Aspects of Land Use Control." National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 31.
Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board. p. 6. (here-
after sited as NCHRP 31).

Ibid. p. 2.

Ibid. p. 12.

Vergil G. Stover, William G. Adkins, and John C. Goodnight.
1970. "Guidelines for Medial and Marginal Access Control
on Major Roadways." National C00perative Highway_Research

 

Proggam Report 93. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research

 

Board. p. 12. (hereafter cited as NCHRP 93).

John W. Flora and Kenneth M. Keitt. 1982. Access Manag -
ment for Streets and Highways. Springfield: National

 

 

Technical Information Service. Report Number FHWA-IP-82-3.
p. 25. (hereafter cited as Access Management).

Ibid. p. 26.

Stover and Adkins. NCHRP 93. p. 12.

Ibid. p. 12.

Ibid. p. 12.

Marks and Spitz. NCHRP 31. p. 12.

Stover and Adkins. NCHRP 93. p. 13.

Marks and Spitz. NCHRP 31. p. 12.

Richard Nellett. 1982. "Access Control." Mimeographed.
Lansing, Michigan: Multi-Regional Planning Division,
Michigan Department of Transportation. p. 4.

Ibid. p. 4.

Marks and Spitz. NCHRP 31. p. 12.

Flora and Keitt. Access Management. p. 27.

Ibid. p. 27.
25

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

26

Ibid. p. 27.

Michigan Department of Transportation. 1980. Administra-

- tion Rules Regulating Driveways, Banners and Parades On

and Over Highways. Lansing, Michigan: Secretary of State.

 

pp. 7-8.

Flora and Keitt. Access Management. p. 9.

John C. Glennon and James A. Azzeh. 1976. "Access
Control on Arterial Highways." Transportation Engineering

 

Journal. Volume 1: p. 84.
Flora and Keitt. Access Management. p. 19.

Marks and Spitz. NCHRP 31. p. 13.

CHAPTER THREE: GUIDELINES FOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT

3.1 ACCIDENTS AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT

In assessing the traffic operations of public thoroughfares,
safety is critically important. Accident frequency has proven
to be a reliable barometer in assessing the overall safety of
arterial travel. Numerous studies have been conducted of
roadway accidents attempting to identify cause and effect
relationship. A discussion of these studies and their find-
ings can provide useful background knowledge for understanding
performance criteria and design standards for access manage—
ment. One general conclusion of these studies is that as the
intensity of land use development increases, accident fre-

quency also increases.

A study of road segments in Minnesota with varying traffic
volumes found that segments with commercial activities on
abutting lands had higher accident rates compared to roadways
flanked by non-commercial land uses (1). This study also
found no significant difference in accident rates between road
segments without adjacent land use development and those road
segments with driveways serving non-commercial activities.
These conclusions are similar to those of Peterson (2) who
found the accident numbers increase when (a) the total number
of establishments along a roadway increase and (b) the fre-
quency of driveways per mile increase. The findings of these
two studies suggest that the volume of traffic generated by

adjacent land uses is perhaps a greater contributing factor
27

28

to roadway accident frequency than is the number of drive-
ways. This conclusion is supported by Schoppert (3) who re-
ports that accident rate predictors involve the following
factors in sequence of importance:

1. traffic volumes

2. frequency of driveways or intersections

3. design factors such as land and shoulder width and

sight distance

If, however, the proliferation of driveways is unchecked, the
frequency of access becomes a critical safety problem. Major
and Buckley (4) reports that a multiplicity of driveways at
closely spaced intervals produces vehicular conflict with
through traffic and with each other, resulting in lower capa-
city and increased delays for traffic from abutting property

entering the highway.

Box (5) reports that 11.2% of all accidents in Skokie, IL. in-
volved driveway maneuvers. He points out that results of ac—
cident studies related to the land access may underestimate
the actual number of collisions caused by driveway maneuvers.
This is because there are four types of driveway related acci-
dents which are generally unrepresented in accident statistics.
These are:

1. The rear-end collision that happens upstream from the

driveway because of a vehicle slowing down to enter

the driveway;

29
2. The sideswipe collision caused by vehicles changing
lanes behind a vehicle preparing to enter a drive-
way;
3. The rear-end collision that happens downstream from
the driveway caused by an accelerating vehicle; and
4. Collisions caused by driveways being located too

close to an intersection.

The results of accident studies cited thus far seem to suggest
that driveways contribute to accident frequency because they
introduce additional, often distruptive, movements in the
through traffic stream. More detailed studies of accident
data related to driveway maneuvers reveals that accident rates
vary according to the type and speed of the driveway maneuver.
This may be more easily understood by conceptualizing possible
vehicle turning movements to and from driveways. Left turns
create the greatest amount of distruption because they require
a speed change, a merge or demerge movement,, and the crossing
of opposing travel lane(s). Right turn movements create less
conflict because vehicles are not required to cross opposing

lane(s) of traffic.

Bruggeman's (6) study of accidents in Ohio show that 77 percent
involved traffic entering driveways while only 23 percent were
associated with vehicles leaving driveways. The finding of
Box (7), which are listed in Table 3.0, are similar to those of
Bruggeman with respect to accidents of vehicles entering or

leaving driveways. He reports that 58 percent of the accidents

30
analyzed were associated with vehicles entering driveways,

compared to 42 percent for vehicles leaving driveways.

Table 3.0

Driveway Accident Types
Related to Turning Movements

Number of Percent of

Maneuver Turn Accidents Total
Entering left 246 43
Entering right 85 15

Subtotal 331 58
Leaving left 150 27
Leaving right 84 15

Subtotal 234 42

TOTAL 565 100

Source: Box (7)

The data in Table 3.0 show further that 70 percent of the ac-
cidents were associated with left turns. These findings lead
Box (8) to conclude:
". . . the most critical traffic operational element of
the driveway accident problem in both urban and rural
areas is traffic entering driveways. Left turn accidents,
particularly those involving entering traffic, are the

most critical in relation to safety."

The findings of Box and Bruggeman are supported by the con-
clusions of the research conducted by Stover et.al. (9) who
conludes that at acceptable levels of direct access to major
roadways, the turbulence in the traffic stream caused by the

driveway entrance maneuver is more critical than the exit

31
maneuver, because the vehicle waiting to exit from the drive-
way has the option of waiting for an acceptable gap in the

traffic stream.

It has been demonstrated that driveways contribute to accident
frequency by causing additional, often disruptive movements.

in the through traffic stream. These movements are not only
associated with the vehicle that enters or leaves a driveway,
but also with the vehicle that must change lanes or reduce
speed to avoid a merging or demerging vehicle. On high volume
arterials, these interruptions lead to increased vehicle delay
which in turn diminishes the traffic carrying capacity of the
thoroughfare. Bochner (10) estimates that the capacity of a
four-lane arterial street with a 45 mph speed will be reduced
by over one percent for every two percent of traffic that turns
between the right lane and driveways at unsignalized driveway
locations. He concludes, that if driveway designs are improved
to allow driveway maneuvers to be made at higher speeds, this
potential loss in capacity can be reduced (11). It has been
suggested by others that improper driveway design and the fre-
quency of access poses a greater threat to the carrying capacity

and safety of a roadway in comparison to driveway volumes (12).

3.2 DESIGN STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Guidelines for access design can be viewed at two levels. At
the microscopic level, concern is primarily centered on the

operational elements of driveways and the access requirements

32
of a particular land use. At this level, design standards
govern: (1) the design of driveways and their placement with
regard to other points of access, (2) the degree or amount of
access that a land use requires, and (3) the site plan for a
land use to ensure compatibility between a driveway and the
internal vehicle circulation pattern of a site. At the macro-
sc0pic level, the magnitude of interference caused by land
access is the primary concern. At this level, performance
criteria govern: the frequency of access and decisions to

install shared access driveways and frontage roads.

Other operational factors of roadways ultimately affect access,
such as: the numberzuuiwidth of through lanes, continuous

left turn lanes, median construction, roadway grade, and
drainage. Decisions regarding these factors and others are
normally made at the time a roadway is constructed or recon-
structed. This usually occurs prior the granting of access
for a particular land use. Therefore, these tOpics are not
discussed here. The following discussion of access design
standards and performance criteria is meant to apply to major
arterial roadways such as the East Beltline with both two-

and four-lane cross sections and some median treatment.

It has been suggested that it is often the design and place-
ment of driveways, and not the volume of traffic using them,
that pose the greatest threat to the safety and capacity of

arterial roadways (13). Driveway design directly affects the

33
speed at which vehicles can negotiate an ingress or egress
maneuver. If there is drastic variation between driveway
turning speed and the speed of vehicles in through travel
lanes then accident potential is high. Placement is equally
important to ensure that both the user and non—user has
adequate time and distance to react to the approach of a

driveway.

To quantify the effects of driveway entrance speed on the
interference incurred by vehicles in through travel lanes,
the relationships between delay and driveway entrance speed
have been developed. Figure 3.1 assumes a typical Operating
speed of urban arterials of 45 mph and shows that as drive—
way entrance speed is increased 10 mph, vehicle delay drOps
off significantly. Further reductions are realized as speeds
approach 15 mph. Beyond that speed however, additional re-
ductions in delay are minimal. These relationships suggest
that driveway designs should attempt to allow vehicles to
negotiate entrance maneuvers at speeds of 10 mph or greater
to minimize disruption and accident potential in through travel

lanes.

One researcher has concluded that driveway entrance speeds

between 10 and 15 mph may not be adequate on high speed arter—
ials. Solomon (14) has shown a strong correlation between two-
car rear—end accidents and speed differentials of greater than

10 mph. To suggest however that driveways be designed to

34
allow entrance maneuvers at 45 mph from through lanes travel—
ling at 55 mph may be impractical. Several factors must be
considered in designing driveways and associated entry and
exit speeds such as: hazard to pedestrians, site limitations

and lot size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

30
8
g A ! —— 600 Veh/Hr
3:. S 20- I. --——— 900 Veh/Hr
c: \
a: 5 \ —-— ~1200 Veh/Hr
if > ‘
3 v \
2 2; °
3 \ \
\ g 10.4 \ \
35’ g \ ‘\
'3 \ .
c: \ _‘
0 r I l I r
o 5 10 15 20 25 30

Driveway Entrance Speed

Figure 3.1 Relationship Between Delay and Entrance Speed
Source: Reference (16)

3.2.1 DRIVEWAY WIDTH, RADIUS AND OFFSET
The ability of a driveway to efficiently accommodate vehicles
at given volumes and speed is determined by a combination of

design elements which are illustrated in Figure 3.2 below.

35

 
 

E 90°

Figure 3.2 Typical "T" Driveway

 

Curb return radius (R) relates to the swept path of a vehicle
making a right turn to and from a driveway. Throat width (W)
is the distance between the inner end points of the curb re-
turn radius and is usually measured along the edge of the
highway right-of—way. Offset (O), or taper, is the distance
between the edge of the outer most point of the radius and

the edge of the nearest travel lane.

These design elements should not be considered independent of
each other, but rather their combined affect must be under-
stood to determine appropriate design standards. In combi-
nation, standards can be established for driveways which will
ensure adequate access to and from adjacent land uses with

minimal disruption to through travel lanes.

To illustrate the combined significance of curb return radius
and throat width, Figure 3.3 shows the path of a passenger
vehicle entering driveways of two different designs. Each

access drive has a throat width of 30 feet, however, each has

36
different curb return radii. The upper example shows that
the entering vehicle would have to occupy a substantial por-
tion of the throat width in order to complete its entry man-
euver. If this driveway permitted two-way operation, an enter-
ing vehicle would be in conflict with a vehicle attempting to
exit the driveway. To avoid a collision, the entering vehicle
would have to stop in the through travel lane to permit the
exiting vehicle to complete its turn, or perhaps swing into
an outer through lane. This situation illustrates the poten-

tial congestion and accident problem caused by driveways with

inadequate combinations of width and radii.

 

I—“‘\\
12' “
‘7 Ic—z' Flare
\\L WWI"
I5' \
—- .*.I—H_.—. ..____—_—
2' Flare
Throat
//
// .__.._.

 

LAWN “L

30' Skim—.1

Radius Throat Radius

 

 

 

Figure 3.3 Effects of Driveway Design on Entering and Exiting Vehicles

Source: Reference (15)

37
In the lower example, the turning radius has been increased
to 15 feet which permits the entering vehicle to complete its
driveway turn without encroaching on the exit lane. The great-
er curb return radius would also allow the entering vehicle to

remain within its through lane and not swing into an outer lane.

It can be concluded that in order to efficiently accommodate
driveway turns, while also minimizing disruption to through
travel lanes, driveway design standards should be related to

the turning path and speed of the vehicle.

There is general agreement in the literature supporting this
conclusion and therefore the need to implement minimum standards
for radius and width. However, these standards are qualified

as being only guidelines, and that sound engineering judgement
should override these standards if warranted by unique traffic

conditions and/or site restrictions.

Typically, the path of a turning vehicle will be determined
by its size. Table 3.1 shows that for different vehicle types,
different turning paths (related to minimum inside radius and

minimum turning radius) can be expected (16).

Based on the information in Table 3.1 it would be logical to
assign driveway dimensions according to the type of vehicle
that is assumed to be using it. A report by the Institute of

Transportation Engineers (ITE) recognizes this relationship

38

and has develOped a recommended practice for driveway width

and_radius which are listed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.1
Minimum Turning
Radii by Vehicle Type

Min. Inside Min. Turning
Vehicle Radius Radius
Type Symbol (feet) (feet)
Passenger Car P 15.3 24
Single Unit Truck SU 28.4 42
Semi-Trailer WB-50 19.8 45

Source: Reference (17)

The standards listed below are generally consistent with others
found in the literature. The report of the Highway Research
Board (19) suggests that for residential driveways, widths
greater than 12 feet will provide adequate space for maneuver—
ing, as well as a walkway for passengers who enter or leave a
vehicle. Box (20) concludes that for two-way commercial drive-
ways, a basic width of 30 feet and 15 foot radii represents a

good design.

Where driveway design standards of the ITE fall short is in
the assigning of specific width and radii dimensions according
to Speed. These relationships are only implied by separate

standards being listed for urban and rural areas.

39

Table 3.2
Driveway Design Standards of the ITE

Urban Rural
r-I H

a! H H (.8 H H
a a a -H a d
+9 «4 -:-I H -:--I H
a o H a o H
m H -p o H p
'u o m 'o m m
a E s -H a a
m 'u m c
m o s o o a
a: O H D: O H

Widthl
Minimum 10 15 20 10 15 20
Maximum 2 30 35 4O 30 40 40
Right turn radius
Minimum 5 10 15 10 15 25
Maximum 15 20 25 25 50 50

The minimum width of commercial driveways is intended to
apply to one-way operation.
20n the side of a driveway exposed to entry or exit by turn-
ing vehicles. In high pedestrian activity areas, the radius

should be half the values shown. The maximum radii for

major generator driveways should be much higher than the

values shown.

Source: Reference (18)

Stover et.al. (21) have developed specific relationships between

vehicle speed, driveway lane widths, and radius which are listed

in Table 3.3.

The driveway widths shown in Table 3.3 will permit a passenger

vehicle to enter and leave a driveway at the indicated speed

40
without encroaching on a parallel through lane. For two—way
"T" driveways, where no encroachment on other lanes is desired,
the width can be calculated by summing the dimensions at the
desired entry and exit speeds. If those speeds wish to be the
same, then the widths can simply be doubled for two-way drive-

ways.

Table 3.3 also shows various offset distances. It can be seen
that width and radius dimensions decrease with increased off-
set distances. Where mountable roadway shoulders are present,
the width of these shoulders can be the effective offset dis-
tance. Therefore, the presence of a mountable shoulder provides

greater flexibility in determining driveway dimensions.

Care should be exercised in designing the maximum width of a
driveway. It should not be so wide as to encourage unwanted
parallel driveway turns. Also, excessive width (especially
open frontage) will offer poor pedestrian protection and is
likely to promote haphazard parking and circulation, unparking
by backing into the street, and excessive friction to through
traffic resulting from vehicles parking too close to the edge
of the roadway (22). Box (23) has reported accident rates in
the order of four times greater for driveways with uncontrolled

width as for those with width restrictions.

41

NH ON
ON Hm
mm mm
ON or
bN mv
ON on
OH N
nae +O @

mHoHn®> Omlms mHOHnm> Dm

mH 8H mH
mH mm mH
5H mm mH
RH mm mH
sH mm mH
mH he 8H
4H m“ OH
nae +0 s

0H mH mH
mH mH mH
mH mH mH
mH mH mm
SH mm mm
om om Hm
m o a
gas mH s

OH
ON
ON
ON
mm
an

N

mHoHnm> Hmmcmmmmm

OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH

OH OH OH
OH OH OH
OH OH OH
OH OH OH
OH OH OH
OH NH mH
O O O
:38 +0 ©

AHNO mononowom

OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
ON
N

oHoHno> Homeommdm

msdBo>HpO :9: amaloco HOH maanz mama EBEHGHE

m.m mHQmB

”ooysom

ow
om
ON
ON
OH

OH

Apmmwv
pmmHHo

42
3.2.2 DRIVEWAY SURFACE
Driveway surface should be permanent and well maintained to
ensure that the original profile is retained, and to help
guarantee that drivers do not deviate from logical circulation
patterns to avoid areas in poor condition. Otherwise, potholes
and other surface imperfections can develop, causing drivers
to slow down or even stop before entering and leaving the
traffic stream which evenually leads to interference with
through traffic. Poor surface condition may also cause en-

croachment between vehicles in opposing driveway lanes.

Paving driveways with permanent types of materials such as
cement or asphaltic concrete is a means of preserving the long—
term efficiency of driveway maneuvers. In general, permanent
pavement should extend at least to the end of the driveway
radius, to the sidewalk, or to any other portion of the drive—
way within the public right—of—way. In the case of driveways
serving commercial and industrial land uses, permanent pavement
is desirable for at least 50 feet from the edge of the highway

pavement (24).

3.2.3 PROFILE

Along with throat width and curb return radius, profile is a
major design element in determining driveway speed. Where
there is no significant change in grade between a roadway and
an adjacent driveway, a vehicle's speed is confined by only

the dimensions of driveway width and radius. If however, a

43
vehicle encounters an abrupt change in grade, driveway speed

can be reduced significantly.

To encourage driveway movements at higher speeds, sufficient
clearance needs to be maintained between a vehicle's underbody
and the driveway surface. This amount of clearance is determined

by amount of grade change and length of a driveway (tangent).

(D
II

1 governed by lepe of shoulder

Edge Of or presence of sidewalk

pavement
or shoulder

ZZL~J 2

Q
II

less than 8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

| G
2 I
I
I G1
Tangent
dE- .ap
Peak Hour
Volume Grade Change (D)
High Volume : 3%
Low Volume + 6%

Figure 3.4 Recommended Driveway Profile Dimensions

Source: Reference (25)

Figure 3.4 illustrates desirable values for driveway profile
in order to achieve safe driveway operating speed. These
values are undisputed in literature and are recognized as only

a set of driveway profiles that will be satisfactory for a

 

44

given set of conditions. Where these values cannot be achieved,
the Institute of Traffic Engineers Recommended Practice (27)
for driveway design should be consulted. This reference
suggests that tangent lengths for residential driveways be at
least 10 feet, and for commercial and industrial drives it be

40 feet.

3.2.4 ANGLED AND DIVIDED DRIVEWAYS

The two—way ”T" design driveway with its 900 horizontal axis

to the centerline of a roadway is probably the most common
driveway configuration found along both urban and rural arter-
ials. In some instances however, alternative designs are
desirable. Driveways can be angled where site layout restricts
driveway placement or where large vehicles are frequently en-
countered. Driveways may also be divided, with separated one-
way drive lanes. Divided driveways may be used to increase the
speed of entry and exit maneuvers or to accommodate a special

internal circulation pattern.

Angled driveways should not be at extreme angles to the center—
line of the roadway. Angles less than 450 or more than 1350
can make entry and exit maneuvers difficult. For this reason,
angled driveways are more appropriate along one-way or divided
two-way roadways where permitted driveway maneuvers would be
made at angles of greater than 90°. Figure 3.5 shows a typical
design for an angled divided driveway, where entry and exit

turns are each made at greater than 90°.

 

 

 

Entry
Angle (+900)

 

o ".‘-'J . 'ee 3 .- . ' g r ' : ff '5... ".‘.' 31,, .\--F' Y. .J' '- s a .e.“- 5 -.'-.-_Y'..'., u" n . W "."V I. '7': 1'. _ _ 2' it "5' W“ 157*
-.-.. {zimh- -.a.:.-.>..u..-a‘.~‘,'-'..-'.I~;-»:~-\3.1.:-v.::-'.-~‘-~ 192: m“.- =.-c.: ‘t'u'u‘aa'.17$“:'-"'-“.}.‘.".°C-*-‘"°'-~'31"}5.‘."."£~"'5955'" ‘ " w?» -:
a- . 'u- 0 ..-. -'- \A- .'.-'o v . . e no" '3 . - ' '~o-.'.o-«' ' .- b "-‘ " 9" , --
... ..’Io ,-.-o-' _ . uu.’( . .- l- -,‘.| .‘u 10; \oo . ..‘ ,1.....~r ., .. .1 ...- c\_. u .- .uv L... ,h,
.44 «4’ t .3: unw- h .11: \' . -... .3. 1'3“»: “Sum”- ‘:"’u‘.‘..’.‘. 1;" “ALE-"1 fink: J.‘-~..n'.\fi xxx-1AM» -:‘_"g'.§l'-.‘.:‘ {Adam's-L- u‘Ld'IL- has-C"- 1.-

 

Figure 3.5 Typical Angled Divided Driveway

Angled driveways can enhance roadway safety by encouraging
higher driveway entry and exit speeds. With the same dimen-
sions for width, radii, and offset, angled driveways permit
higher entry and exit speeds than do typical "T" driveways.
To permit entry and exit maneuvers of passenger vehicles.at
15 mph, one-way lane widths should be at least 15 feet at

offsets of 6 feet or greater (27).

3.2.5 RIGHT TURN LANES

Right turn lanes, also commonly referred to as deceleration
lanes, can improve the safety of driveway entrance maneuvers
by creating space for a vehicle to demerge from a through
traffic lane and reduce its speed of approach. The configur-
ation of a right turn lane consists of three components,

(width, length, and taper) as illustrated in Figure 3.6.

Median

 

 

 

 

 

9.. . . .. ' u
.g' ‘a‘ 7. . ‘ . A50» to... ,. . - ”at ».‘-'-g-__-_.. ,. ..-?‘.". v)'-',-.'.“"1‘-'.--
..-?-'.--',-;,:‘.~‘.~'A.-':~-:'~:2;- 1"-?'.'.- o. '-o':"'.‘.7.'.'«‘5.'.i-'1 .-,. Ins-tum !:k:‘..‘.‘r1 .~.~..,:_s;..!.u- .;--.;. .-':.-‘.::.:': 1,. ‘ - .
.nt'u‘. 'ib-l'v‘ “aha-15'1“: ““914 -‘ -.'-'4‘:.-:11_"11:i 1.; 14mm: ‘-.";- -L' .24 --_.LA'. .‘ ' \ - w- ::-: alum: ._ SL- .-." 1...: u“: i ‘1: - -. OLA-L Kin-L.- '-
.. ...
-‘:-' '-:
'_.. It-“ 7 r . ‘r"
‘-
J'.

 

Figure 3.6 Continuous Right Turn Lane

 

46

The width of a right turn lane is usually the same as a nor-
mal through lane (10 to 12 feet). Flora and Keitt (28) suggest
that a 10-foot width is adequate in most instances unless it

will be frequently used by large trucks and/or buses.

In order to achieve the width needed for an exclusive turn
lane, the taper must be effective. The taper, or transition
area, allows the driver to recognize that an exclusive turn
lane is approaching and also allows some deceleration to occur.
There are varying opinions in the literature concerning the
appropriate length of tapers. Flora and Keitt (29) describe
two varying viewpoints in determining adequate taper length.

A short taper will make the presence of a right turn lane more
pronounced and drivers will be less likely to stray into the
lane by mistake. A second viewpoint argues that drivers can
use the length of longer tapers to decelerate and that they

are more aesthetically pleasing.

Flora and Keitt (30) conclude that the use of shorter tapers

has become more common in practice. For typical urban arterials,
they suggest that a taper of 90 feet is adequate and that for
higher speed arterials (40 to 50 mph) a taper of 150 feet is
desirable. Barton-Aschman Associates (31) in their report on
arterial driveway access guidelines for Glendale Heights, Illi-
nois recommend that a 100-foot minimum length be used for right

turn lane tapers.

47
There is less consistency in the literature regarding the
length of exclusive right turn lanes. Flora and Keitt (32)
state that normally, a minimum storage length of 100 feet
should be provided. Conversely, Burton—Aschman (33) recom-

mend that right turn lanes be a minimum of 50 feet.

The warrants for deciding to install an exclusive turn lane

for right turn maneuvers are dependent upon the following
conditions: roadway speed, average daily volume of the drive-
way, and inbound peak hour right turn volume. Flora and Keitt
(34) conclude that right turn lanes are appropriate along road—
ways with speeds of at least 35 mph and that daily driveway
volumes should exceed 1000 vehicles with at least 40 inbound
movements during the peak hour of travel. These warrants are
the same as those expressed by Bochner (35) who further recom-
mends that where successive driveways meet these warrants or
where driveway spacing is not adequate to avoid encroachment

of a right turn lane on another driveway, a continuous right
turn lane should be installed. Authors of both of these refer-
ences agree that a continuous exclusive turn lane is justified
along an arterial if right turning vehicles exceed 20 percent

of the directional average daily traffic.

3.2.6 SIGHT DISTANCE
Before direct access is granted to a highway, it should be
determined that vehicles at the proposed driveway location

will have adequate sight distance to vehicles approaching from

48

through travel lanes. Adequate sight distance can enhance
safety by ensuring there will be a sufficient gap between
vehicles in through lanes and those which exit a driveway.
Also, drivers can safely reduce their speed as they approach
the driveway they intend to enter if they are given clear
vision of the approach of that driveway. Checking sight dis-
tance is particularly important near curves and in rolling

terrain.

Safe sight distances is expressed as the distance from a
vehicle waiting at a driveway to, (1) a vehicle located up-
stream (DL) and (2) a vehicle located downstream (DR), as
shown in Figure 3.7. In establishing safe sight distance,
consideration must be given to the setbacks of: buildings,
signs, utility poles, trees, shrubbery, and other sight ob-
structions from boththe roadway and driveway. The setback
of sight obstructions is normally governed by the width of

right-of-way and local land use regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.7 Sight Distance Triangle

Source: Reference (36)

49

Standards for sight distance recommended by the Institute of
Traffic Engineers (36) for urban areas are listed in Table 3.4.
These minimum standards are designed to enable exiting vehicles:
(1) upon turning left or right, to accelerate tothe operating
speed of the street without causing approaching vehicles to.
reduce their speed by more than 10 mph, and (2) upon turning
left, to clear the near half of the street without conflicting
with vehicles approaching from the left. Along four-lane ar—
terials divided by a median where left turns are restricted, the

primary concern is right turns and sight distance to the left.

Table 3.4
Safe Sight Distances
for Vehicles Exiting Urban Driveways

Operating Passenger Vehicles Semi—Trailer Trucks
Eggs? DL DR DL DR
20 130 130 200 200
30 220 260 400 400
40 380 440 850 850
50 620 700 1600 1600
60 950 1050 2500 2500

Source: Reference (36)

The sight distances for passenger cars are based on a height of
eye of 3.5 feet and height of object of 4.5 feet. For semi-
trailer trucks, the distances are based on 6.0 fOOt height of
eye and 4.5 foot height of object. Vehicles at the driveway

are assumed to be 10 feet from the edge of the roadway.

50
The recommended distances in Table 3.4 apply when highway grades
are 0.0 to :3.0 percent. When highway grades are greater than
3.0 percent, adjustments should be made to the required sight
distance to ensure that a vehicle exiting a driveway can safely
merge with through traffic. Table 3.5 lists apprOpriate adj
justment factors for sight distance. These factors apply to
grades only in that portion of the roadway between the driveway
and the downstream point (right) at which a vehicle exiting
the driveway has been able to accelerate to within 10 mph of
the traffic speed. When an upgrade is encountered, adjustments
are made to compensate for the longer time required to reach
the speed of through traffic. When a downgrade is encountered,

the time is less.

Table 3.5
Adjustment Factors for Steep Grades
Grade Up- Down—
Change Grade Grade
(Percent)
3 - 4 1.4 0.6
5 - 6 1.7 0.5

Source: Reference (37)

When minimum standards for sight distance cannot be met, direct
access to an arterial should be denied in favor of some form
of alternative access, such as: a shared driveway, frontage road,

or rear access.

51

3.2.7 SPACING AND CORNER CLEARANCE

In deciding the placement of driveways, consideration must be
given to the location of: adjacent driveways, intersecting
streets, and median openings. Vehicles should be able to enter
through travel lanes simultaneously from different points of
access without the danger of collision or the need for evasive
maneuvers. Maintaining adequate spacing relationships can en-

hance arterial safety.

Travel speed is a key factor in determining adequate spacing.
Generally, along higher speed arterials, spacing of access
points needs to be greater. In the previous section, it was
shown that a similar relationship exists for determining ade-
quate sight distance. In fact, Stover, et.al. (38) suggests
that driveways with high volumes of traffic should not be
spaced within the sight distance of each other. Unfortunately,

these values are not quantified.

Flora and Keitt (39) recommend that spacing between driveways
should be regulated (see Table 3.6) when high hourly traffic

volumes are anticipated.

The spacing distances listed in Table 3.6 will help ensure that
a vehicle exiting right from a driveway will have ample distance
to accelerate to the through travel speed without having to

slow down or make an evasive maneuver because another vehicle is

making an exit at the same time (either left or right) from a

52
driveway located downstream.
Table 3.6

Recommended Distances for
Spacing Between Driveways

Roadway Minimum
Speed Spacing*
(mph) (feet)

25 105
30 125
35 150
40 185
45 230
50 275

*Spacing is measured from the midpoint of each driveway

Source: Reference (39)

The potential for vehicle conflict also exists when driveways
are located near intersecting streets. The same type of con—
flict described above can be minimized if driveways are ade-

quately separated from each other. These movements are illus-

trated in Figure 3.8.

 

 

 

 

Downstream
Intersection Driveway
or Driveway

 

Figure 3.8 Driveway Spacing Relationships

Source: Author

53

‘Where driveways are located upstream from an intersection,
there is a potential for vehicles in the through lane(s) to

block the driveway while they wait to clear the intersection.

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.9 Driveway Blocking and Corner Spacing

Source: Author

IFigure 3.9 shows the possible congestion that can occur when
a two-way driveway is located too near an intersection. Along
a two-way, two-lane roadway, vehicles waiting to make a left-
turn entry maneuver may cause the vehicles which are following
to back-up into the intersection. Also, if vehicle queues
deve10p at the intersection in the lane adjacent to the inter-

section, then both driyeway entry and exit maneuvers can be

blocked.

Stover et.al. (40) has analyzed vehicle arrivals at both sig-
nalized and unsignalized intersections. They have concluded
that where the flow of traffic in the lane adjacent to a drive—
way approaches the capacity of intersection, the probability
that a driveway located near the intersection will be blocked
increases rapidly. They suggest that a minimum clearance of

at least 85 feet (space for at least three vehicles) should be

J

54
maintained to reduce the potential of driveway blocking. At
signalized intersections, still larger distances should be
maintained because longer vehicle queues tend to develop at

these locations.

Bochner (41) recommends that the minimum distance between any
driveway and an unsignalized intersection should be 50 feet.
At signalized, or potentially signalized locations, he recom-
mends that driveway maneuvers be limited to right turns only
for driveways located 125 feet from a collector street, or

250 feet from another arterial street.

Flora and Keitt (42) recognize that maintaining reasonable corner
clearance can reduce potential driveway/intersection conflicts.
They suggest that minimums of 20 — 40 feet in rural areas and

10 - 20 feet in urban areas he maintained. They also recognize
the value of regulating corner spacing according to traffic

queue lengths.

While the minimum distance for corner clearance are not consistent
between these three articles, they all indicate that traffic

queue lengths should be considered in locating driveways away

from intersections. What seems surprising is that none of the
authors relate corner clearance to driveway spacing. After all,
intersection streets introduce additional vehicles to through
travel lanes in much the same manner as intersections. It

therefore seems reasonable to consult the recommended distances

55

for the spacing Of driveways when determining adequate corner

clearance.

Another factor that should be considered in determining ade-
quate corner clearance is the distance required for vehicles
to exit a driveway and come into proper alignment at a nearby
intersection. This distance is critical for the vehicle that
must weave across one or more through lanes and align with a
left-turn lane at the intersection. These driveway exit turns

are illustrated in Figure 3.10.

J. n-. g - . 5.".‘5" ». . - "Q. - " ..--"IJA ‘-~ .. -\ 'FI' .' -".'
.2 I ‘41“; 0 ”L- Jy'!‘ 1‘ JV”), ‘33“ 'I'J'lu‘lfi' .1..VM‘IEL‘Lu-'o’ 41.". 3""-'-,.l-u'.‘: , o ." I .1 J1.“ 0'4 '_ ’11". .' ‘ ‘

     

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.10 Diagonal Driveway Exit Maneuvers

Source: Reference (43)

The distances shown above will permit a vehicle to move diago-
nally to the next lane(s) and stop without interfering with a

parallel lane.

Much like driveways and intersections, median Openings are
additional points Of access to through lanes. Raised medians
can enhance highway safety by separating Opposing lanes Of
traffic. They also provide protected areas for vehicles making

either left- or U—turns. These turns are Often associated with

56
a driveway entry or exit maneuver. TO minimize the potential
disruption caused by median Openings and associated driveway
maneuvers, adequate spacing must be maintained between median

Openings and driveways.

The distance Of 105 feet shown in Figure 3.10 should provide
proper spacing for either the vehicle exiting a driveway and
approaching a median Opening or for the vehicle leaving a
median Opening and preparing to enter a driveway. Minimum
spacing distances should be enforced where channelized median
Openings only permit a U-turn and no direct cross-overs. This
is the type Of median Opening which exists, and is proposed

for construction along the East Beltline highway.

3.2.8 DEGREE OF ACCESS

The degree of access describes the design and number Of drive—
ways that directly serve a particular land use. Since traffic
volumes and vehicle characteristics differ significantly with
the type Of land use served, access management guidelines must

be flexible enough to permit varying degrees Of access.

A single two-way driveway of the standard "T" design will ade—
quately serve the access needs Of most developments. The de-
cision to deviate from that design, or increase the number of
driveways, will depend upon the anticipated vehicle mix and
traffic volume. The previous discussion Of driveway design

and placement has already indicated that where trucks and

57

semi-trailers frequently use a driveway, greater width and

radius distances are warranted.

Where traffic volumes are

high, it may be necessary to increase the number Of driveway

lanes or install multiple driveways.

Therefore,

it appears

necessary to distinguish between low and high driveway volumes.

Property Use

Residental

Convenience grocery

Service Station

Restaurant

Church

School

Motel

Small Commercial

Small Industrial

Small Public

Large Commercial

Large Industrial

Large Public

Small Recreational

Large Recreational

Neighborhood Shopping
Center

Community Shopping
Center

Regional Shopping
Center

High-rise apartment

Drive-in theater

Supermarket

Truck stop

Source:

Reference (46)

Table 3.7
Driveway Traffic Characteristics

Peaking

None

Low

Low
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate

Moderate
High
High
High

Moderate
Moderate

Driveway Peak
Coincides w/
Roadway Peak

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

NO
Possibly
Possibly
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes
NO
Yes
NO

NO
Possibly

Commercial
Vehicles

Design
Fre- Consid-
quency erations
None None
Low None
Low None
Low None
None None
Low None
Low None
Low None
High Yes
Low None
High Possibly
High Yes
Low None
Low None
Low None
Low None
Low None
Low None
Low None
Low None
Low None
High Yes

The Institue Of Traffic Engineers has considered the classi—

fication of driveways by volume and suggests that a volume Of

58

100 vehicles per hour represents the threshhold between low-
and high-volume driveways (45). Because of the peaking charac—
teristics Of some land uses, however, absolute hourly volumes
may be a poor indicator of the need for more driveways and/or
innovative design. For example, the average daily traffic
volume is concentrated during a particular time of day, the
impact on the adjacent street could be quite severe. This is
especially true if that time coincides with the peak hour of
travel along the street. Table 3.7 lists the peak hour and
vehicle mix characteristics Of several common land uses. This
information, together with published trip generation rates by
land use category, can be helpful in assessing the need for a

greater degree of access (46).

3.2.9 ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY LANES

Where driveway exiting traffic volumes are high, additional
driveway lanes may be warranted. If both right and left turns
are permitted, an additional lane can greatly enhance driveway
performance because vehicles are not delayed waiting for a
vehicle to turn in the Opposite direction. A rule-Of—thumb
used by some engineers is to consider additional exit lanes
when turning volume is estimated to be 100 vehicles or more per

hour (47).

3.2.10 ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS
Before the decision is made to install more than one two-way

driveway, additional driveway lanes should be considered.

59

Additional driveway lanes do not introduce new points of con-
flict as do multiple driveways. Also, additional driveways
may not solve an existing or potential driveway congestion
problem. If vehicle gaps in through lane(s) are short, the
gap in traffic for the downstream driveway will be occupied

by vehicles exiting right from the upstream driveway.

The installation of more than one two-way driveway per parcel
is recommended only as means Of removing existing or potential
turning queues from through lanes. Flora and Keitt (48) recom-
mend that additional driveways are warranted when driveway
volumes are anticipated to be greater than 5000 vehicles per

day (or approximately 500 during the peak hour).

Where additional driveways are permitted, attention must be
given to the standards Of driveway spacing, sight distance, cor-
ner clearance, and location of median Openings. Consideration
should also be given to the directional distribution Of vehicles
who will use the driveways. In general, if accessibility is
equal (both right and left turns are permitted for both inbound
and outbound movements at all driveways) and complete and con-
venient internal circulation is possible, most drivers entering
from a given direction will tend to use the closest driveway (49).
This tendency may be significant in determining the appropriate
design Of driveways and/or the need for deceleration lanes and
additional driveway lanes. It seems apprOpriate when making peak

hour driveway volume estimates, to assign the first driveway a

60

larger proportion of traffic from a direction compared to other
driveways located downstream. A suggested distribution is

50 - 60 percent for the first driveway, 20 - 30 percent for the
second, and 10 - 20 percent at the third. For parcels with two

driveways, the first could be assigned 60 - 80 percent (50).

3.2.11 ALTERNATIVE ACCESS

Another Option for an existing or anticipated driveway conges—
tion problem is alternative or supplemental access. This de-
scribes the strategy Of achieving reasonable access to a prOper—
ty without having absolute direct access frontage on an arterial
roadway. Alternative access can be achieved by a shared drive-
way with an adjoining parcel, or via a frontage road which satis-
fies the access needs Of several parcels and which routes traffic
to either the main roadway or a collector street. Shared access
and frontage roads are discussedeInKnmedetail in Section 3.2.13

on frequency of access.

Direct access to an arterial may also be supplemented by creating
a secondary access route to a collector street. This technique
can be especially useful where the ability to make a left turn
exit or entry maneuver is limited or prohibited. Drivers desir—
ing to turn left can be rerouted along a collector street to
make their left turn at the intersection of the cOllector street

and the arterial.

Care must be excercised in deciding to permit access to a

61

collector street. Additional traffic problems may be created
if the collector street is burdened by a high volume of traffic
or if the introduction Of additional vehicles would be dis—
ruptive to a street that bisects a predominantly residential

area .

3.2.12 SITE DESIGN

A desirable component of comprehensive access management is

the ability to review and make recommendations regarding land
use deve10pment. Thereamceseveral opportunities for this to
occur, which include: the development Of area land use plans,
during the local site plan review process, during consideration
of a rezoning, zoning variance, or special use approval request,
or when there has been application for a permit to construct a

driveway.

Plans for land use development should be Of sufficient detail
to allow the agency responsible for access review to consider
the following:

*driveway design: lane *sight distance

widths, curb return radius *driveway location

Offset, profile and angle *deceleration lanes

*number of driveways and *alternative access

lanes

*driveway spacing
In addition 1K) these access features, the review agency should

also examine the pattern Of internal vehicular circulation and

 

 

 

parkinE
circul:
arteri
separa
vehici
£0110

of a

LI

f:

62

parking. Sites should be designed to allow for all vehicular
circulation to take place on-site and not on the adjacent
arterial. Also, parking areas should be clearly defined and
separated from driveway lanes to avoid conflicts between parked
vehicles and those attempting to enter or leave a driveway. The
following check points have been developed to aid in the review
Of a land use plan (51).
—-Vehicles should circulate internally rather than on the
highway.
--The entrance should be designed to accommodate the peak-
hour traffic volumes and queues.
--Distribution Of vehicles entering the site should be
facilitated by clearly defined circulation patterns.
——Driveways should have minimal interference from internal
crossing conflicts.
--Continuous internal circulation should be provided so
vehicles can internally reach all parking spaces.
--Aisles should be wide enough to permit adequate internal
circulation.
--Adequate parking should be provided tO prevent driveway
congestion caused by an overflowing lot.
--PrOper traffic control (stOp, yield, directional, and
one—way signs, striping, etc.) should be utilized.
Local regulatory agencies concerned with land use and highway
access should attempt to become involved early in the development
of project prOposals. By expressing the need and guidelines

for good access management in the early stages Of a project,

63

costly redesigns, delays and hard feelings can Often be avoided.
Special features such as frontage roads and shared access drives
ways can also be planned for as deve10pment proposals are

brought forth for an area.

3.2.13 FREQUENCY OF ACCESS

Information contained in Section 3.2.7 reports that minimum
spacing distances should be maintained between driveways and
between driveways and intersection streets. Adhering to these
recommended distances will ultimately determine the total num—
ber of driveways, or frequency Of access, for a given segment
of roadway. If, for example, the adOpted standard was 250 feet
for a 50 mph roadway, then no more than 19 driveways per side
per mile should be allowed. It would, however, be desirable

tO have less than the maximum allowable number of driveways per
mile in order to reduce vehicular interference. This assumes,
of course, that by reducing the frequency of access that none

of the driveways would be over-burdened by traffic.

It is often difficult, if not impossible, to maintain minimum
spacing relationships between direct access driveways, and away
from intersecting streets. This is especially true where small
lot frontages and existing driveways are encountered. Three
techniques, however, can be identified to achieve the Objectives
of minimum spacing and reduced frequency Of access. These are:
(1) alternative access to a collector street, (2) shared access
between sites, and (3) frontage roads. Alternative access to

a collector street was discussed in Section 3.2.11.

64
The deve10pment of shared access driveways should be encouraged
if it can be demonstrated that this action will not overload a
driveway beyond its capacity. Flora and Keitt (52) recommend
that driveway pairs with volumes Of 50 vehicles per hour are
prime candidates for this technique, providing that the combined
volume does not exceed 5000 vehicles per day (or approximately

500 vehicles per hour).

This technique is particularly apprOpriate for commercial land

uses where there is a potential for customers to patronize more
than one establishment. A prime example is a neighborhood shOp-
ping center where access to several stores would be gained from

only a few driveways.

It is recommended that where shared driveways are develOped, that
they be constructed along a common property line (53). This
would eliminate the Opportunity of either property owner to deny
or restrict access to his neighbor. It is necessary to ensure
that the resulting joint-use parking area be accompanied by a
good internal circulation pattern that satisfies the vehicular
circulation needs Of each establishment. The vehicular route
between adjoining uses should be clearly defined and unobstructed

by parked vehicles.

An extension of the concept of shared and alternative access is
the establishment of a frontage road. This technique separates
local traffic from higher-speed through traffic. As an access

control measure, a frontage road may completely eliminate delay

65

and accident potential associated with driveway interference.

The connection between frontage roads and arterials is Often
made at cross streets as illustrated in Figure 3.11. At times,
however, a frontage road may intersect with an arterial direct-
ly, and in effect, become another driveway or intersection. In
such instances, consideration should be given to the volume of
traffic that is introduced at that point. Frontage roads may

be either one— or two—way.

Whether a frontage road is one- or two-way, or if it directly
or indirectly interferes with an arterial, extreme care must

be exercised in its development. Creation Of a frontage road
may concentrate traffic to such a degree that it creates more
problems than it is meant tO solve. Congestion and conflicting
maneuvers can develOp where the frontage road intersects either

a collector street or a major roadway.

Ideally, the decision to create a frontage road should be a
product of early planning and site deve10pment. Local Officials
should identify the location Of a frontage road and require that
subsequent development accommOdate its design and placement.
Where more than one parcel is involved, local Officials may

have to take the initiative to establish a frontage road. In
these cases, as individual parcels develop, temporary direct
access could be granted until other parcels deve10p and the

frontage road is eventually established.

66

Section of frontage
road provided by
devel per in front

Driveway access
to frontage road

    

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.11 Establishment of a Frontage Road

yfi

coooqouon

10.

11.

12.
13.

14.

CHAPTER THREE: FOOTNOTES

Vergil G. Stover, William G. Adkins, and John C. Goodnight.
1970. "Guidelines for Medial and Marginal Access Control
on Major Roadways." National Copperative Highway Research
Proggam Repgrt 93. Washington, D.C.: Highway Research

 

Board. p. 83. (hereafter cited as NCHRP 93).

For reference to Peterson, see Paul C. Box. 1970.
"Driveways." Traffic Control and Roadwanylements:
Their Relationshippto Highway Safetyy(Revised). ed.
Peter A. Mayer. Highway Users Federation for Safety
and Mobility. p. 2. (hereafter cited as ”Driveways).

 

For reference to Schoppert, see Box. "Driveways." p. 3.

For reference to Major and Buckley, see Stover, Adkins,
and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 84.

Box. "Driveways." p. 1.

For reference to Bruggeman, see Box. "Driveways.” p. 4.
Box. "Driveways.” p. 5.

Ibid. p. 5.

Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 116.

Brian Bochner, 1978. ”Regulation Of Driveway Access to
Arterial Streets." Public Works. Volume 109, Number 10:

p. 83.

 

Ibid. p. 84.
Stover, Adkins, Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 123.

Harold Marks and Salem Spitz. 1966. ”A Review of Trans-
portation Aspects Of Land Use Control." National Coopera-
tive Higpway Research Program Rgport 31. Washington, D.C.:
Highway Research Board. p. 135.

For reference to Solomon, see Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight.

NCHRP 93. p. 117.

67

15.

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

32.

68

Institute of Traffic Engineers. 1975. Guidelines for
Driveway Design and Location. An Institute of Traffic

 

 

_ Engineers Recommended Practice. Washington, D.C.:

Institute Of Traffic Engineers. p. 32. (hereafter
cited as Driveway Desigp).

 

The minimum turning radii listed in Table 3.1 are based
on the turning paths Of specific design vehicles which

are explained in the following reference. U.S. Department
Of Transportation. 1971. Manual for Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Washington,

 

 

D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation.

John W. Flora and Kenneth M. Keitt. 1982. Access Manag_-
ment for Streets and Highways. Springfield, Virginia:
National Technical Information Service. Report Number
FHWA-IP—82—3. p. 52. (hereafter cited as Access Management).

 

 

Institute of Traffic Engineers. Driveway Design. p. 38.

 

Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 123.

Paul C. Box. 1981. "Analysis of Traffic Impact for New
Developments - Part II." Public Works. p. 37. (here-
after cited as Public Works).

 

 

Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 124.
Ibid. p. 121.
Box. "Driveways.” p. 6.

Institute of Traffic Engineers. Driveway Design. p. 37.

 

Ibid. p. 35.

Ibid. p. 35.

Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 124.

Flora and Keitt. Acceseranagement. p. 58.

Ibid. pp. 58-59.

Ibid. p. 59.

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1979. Arterial Driveway
Access Guidelines for Glendale Heights. Prepared for the
Village Of Glendale Heights, Illinois. Evanston, Illinois.

p. 19. (hereafter cited as Access Guidelines).

Flora and Keitt. Access Management. p. 58.

33.
34.

35.

36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.

45.

46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.

69

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Access Guidelines. p. 19.

 

 

Flora and Keitt. Access Manggement. p. 166.

Brian S. Bochner. 1978. "Regulation of Driveway Access
to Arterial Streets.” Presented to the Institute Of
Transportation Engineers 48th Annual Meeting. Atlanta,
Georgia. p. 6. (hereafter cited as "Regulating Access").

Instihflxeof Traffic Engineers. Driveway Desigp. pp. 31-33.

 

Ibid. p. 33.
Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 120.

Flora and Keitt. Access Management. p. 121.

 

Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 133
Bochner. "Regulation of Access." p. 5.

Flora and Keitt. Access Management. p. 122.

 

Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 115.
Ibid. p. 115.

The Institute of Traffic Engineers has published trip
generation rates for estimating the traffic impact of
various types Of developments. For further information
see, Instituheof Traffic Engineers. 1979. Trip Generation.
Arlington, Virginia. Institute Of Traffic Engineers.

 

Stover, Adkins, and Goodnight. NCHRP 93. p. 115.

Box. Public Works. p. 88.

 

Flora and Keitt. Access Management. p. 105.

Institute of Traffic Engineers. Driveway Degigp. p. 18.
Ibid. p. 18.

Flora and Keitt. Access Management. p. 127.

Ibid. p. 127.

Ibid. p. 127.

CHAPTER FOUR: EAST BELTLINE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

4.1 CORRIDOR PROFILE

The East Beltline is one of the major north/south traffic cor-
ridors in the Grand Rapids Urbanized Area (see Figure 4.1).

Its primary function is to serve long distance trip desires
through parts Of: Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grand Rapids Town—
ship and Plainfield Township, and also along the eastern bor-
der Of East Grand Rapids. This nine—mile roadway is classified
as two different state trunkline highways. For its entire
length, from 28th Street to Plainfield Avenue, it is classified
as M-44. From I-96 south to 28th Street and beyond, it is also

classified as a portion Of M-37.

Through these various political jurisdictions, the highway's
design and adjacent development vary significantly. From 28th
Street tO approximately one-half mile north, it is a five-lane
facility with intense commercial deve10pment along each side.
Within this commercial area exuns two Of the metropolitan area's
largest retail shOpping malls along with numerous free—standing

commercial establishments.

Proceeding north to the I-96 freeway, the character Of the
corridor changes significantly. During the late 1970's, this
three and one-half mile section of the East Beltline was recon—
structed from a two-lane roadway to a four-lane roadway divided
by a 60 - 120 foot wide grassy median. Adjacent deve10pment

70

71

- ”L“! r

 

+‘i L
—V'v

CNN"

5&0” W SPWE}? 5

”mm b

 

 

 

 

 

 

£

 

’
‘ sewfin' .Ataauu caunrznnmv cmuwnrzo _§§
I

S

T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
w
I
fl
I
I
I
I
I

 

couurv

A LPINE Ml F751 C ANA/0N WAN

 

A L
“——

 

 

\ ' ., ,_ ‘11 ." IN E :1.
b—anj" - GRAND EAST BELTL

 

 

 

 

A
A
I 3' {I - z COR R I 00 R I»
CI" 0’ RAPIDS ' .. - I-
I ; .43.: I VERGENN: ; . z
I .. I I , 8
. -__.,_ -- 33:59 names ' . u
I
4 outta —""‘ ’- ' —— x.
I EAST .\ ,
I can: I_ _ ,- W :- ~. -_ _
k‘ ’ ~1? "2'25. \\ . ,
\\ 4 7.1 __ ._ , V
' | ' 'C. l /. ‘ - ‘ .
.1 I , (E
\ I _‘ ‘-
‘ \ =*’.*_,l‘___ _ I .1.-.._..__L_ __
/ 3" 0"
cmr :r LCW:’.L '
new“! ,
J I
- - -_..J' ‘13 \H

‘55? 4'30!)

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

 

r

r

 

L__A__L_ A
r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.fl . ! is
4 .
3 , ‘5
I-‘ - r. .
: sow/E
5‘ gym 611N529 I 1.. ___
I
I I
, ' b
I r\J//u‘5;\\~—~.;:LH ~
I - f r r r r H? >>
*‘ fmfiEG'AN' * ‘ T ' ** 'cpwn ***** I T2455; t t * mum
Base Map Prepared

by the West Michi—
gan Regional Plan—

Figure 4.1 The East Beltline Corridor _ _ ,
ing Comm1ss1on

72

in this section is scattered with predominantly institutional,
office, and residential uses. North Of I-96 to Plainfield Ave-
nue, the roadway narrows again to a two—lane facility through

a scenic area Of rolling terrain. Agricultural uses predominant
in this section, but deve10pment pressure is intensifying toward

institutional, Office, residential, and commercial uses.

Except for the commercial area north Of 28th Street, the East
Beltline corridor is not intensely develOped. However, develOp—
ment pressure is evident and is anticipated to continue. Be-
cause this is the only eastern belt-route facility, it satisfies
thousands of daily trip desires to travel north and south

through this high growth suburban portion Of the metrOpolitan
area. With its high volume of traffic and Opportunity for direct
access, the corridor is a prime area for strip commercial develOp-
ment. The threat that this type of development might occur is

a concern Of both residents and local government Officials.

Concern for the future deve10pment Of the East Beltline Corridor
has been reinforced by the experience along 28th Street. Classi-
fied as state trunkline M-11, 28th Street formerly served as the
major belt-route facility around the southern portion of the
metrOpolitan area. Due to intense commercial deve10pment, however,
the ability of the highway to efficiently satisfy long distance
east/west travel demand has diminished. In 1982, the communities
along 28th Street adOpted a plan for reconstruction and access

control (1). When totally implemented, this plan will greatly

73

improve traffic Operations along 28th Street. However, its
primary function has been permanently switched from traffic
mobility to land access. In an attempt to accommodate long
distance east/west travel, the entire community fO Greater

Grand Rapids is currently considering the construction of a

new south beltline facility.

The lessons learned from the 28th Street experience have in-
fluenced decisions to reconstruct the East Beltline and to
control adjacent deve10pment. The following is a brief chrono—

logical summary Of those events.

4.2 PLANNING AND RECONSTRUCTION

Prior to the construction of the U.S. 131 freeway through the
center Of Grand Rapids in 1963, the East Beltline, in conjunc-
tion with 28th Street, served as the U.S. 131 bypass of the

Grand Rapids area. After the construction Of U.S. 131, this
designation was removed and traffic volumes dropped significantly
south Of I-96. Traffic volumes north of I-96, however, remained
high because this segment provided direct routing between I-96
and Plainfield Avenue (designated as U.S. 131 at that time).

With the extension of U.S. 131 north of Grand Rapids in 1970,

traffic volumes dropped significantly north Of I-96 (2).

Traffic volumes on both segments of the East Beltline soon re-
covered tO their pre-U.S. 131 levels after the construction of

three regional retail shopping malls. In the late 1960's, the

74

Woodland and Eastbrook Malls were Opened and traffic volumes

on the East Beltline south Of I-96 increased to the same levels
they were prior to the construction of U.S. 131 through Grand
Rapids. Construction of the North Kent Mall on Plainfield
Avenue had a similar effect on East Beltline traffic volumes

north Of I-96 when it Opened in 1971 (3).

With the trend of increasing traffic volume in the early 1970's,
the Michigan Department of Transportation considered the recon-
struction Of the East Beltline between 28th Street and I-96.

The first alternative was a five—lane facility which would allow
unlimited left-turns and provide for little or no control of
access to the highway. The second alternative was a four—lane

divided roadway with controlled median Openings for left-turns

(4).

In 1972, an ad hoc citizens group was formed over concerns for
the reconstruction of the East Beltline and adjacent land-use
development. This group formally organized into the East Belt-
line Association with the expressed intent Of:
"To promote the reconstruction Of the East Beltline as
soon as possible from Plainfield Avenue to 60th Street
with an adequate highway, and encourage proper planned

development of the adjacent areas” (5)

The association is governed by a 20 member board of directors.
Each Of the five political jurisdictions have three representa—

tives - one from the general public, one from the business

75
community, and one from the governmental structure. In addi-
tion, there are representatives from the Kent County Road
Commission, Kent County, the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce,

CaScadia Association (a homeowner's group) and Calvin College

(6).

The Association in 1972 retained Williams and Works, a local
planning and engineering consulting firm, to prepare an overall
plan for the East Beltline. The plan made recommendations for
land use deve10pment and endorsed the concept of reconstructing
the East Beltline to a four-lane divided highway (7). Late that
same year, a public hearing was held to discuss the plan's recom-
mendations. There was general support for the reconstruction
concept as well as for a OOOperative effort to control land

use deve10pment (8).

In 1973, the five East Beltline corridor communities signed a
"Memorandum of Understanding" regarding OOOperation in dealing
with requests for zoning and land-use planning (see Appendix A).
Each community assigned one representative to carry out the
provisions of the memorandum. This group eventually became known

as the East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board.

In mid 1975, a public hearing was held to discuss the reconstruc-
tion of the East Beltline south of I-96. In 1977, construction
began toward the eventual completion Of a four—lane divided

highway. In 1983, the Michigan Department of Transportation

76
announced that it was considering the reconstruction Of the
East Beltline north of I—96 to Plainfield Avenue. In late
1984, a public hearing was held to discuss two basic alterna-
tives for reconstruction - again a five—lane facility and a
four-lane divided facility. Department Officials indicated_
that their preferred alternative was the median divided four-
lane facility which was endorsed by the majority of peOple in

attendance.

4.3 EAST BELTLINE ZONING ADVISORY BOARD

In 1974, the East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board adopted a

land use plan for the East Beltline Corridor, including Broadmoor
Avenue from 28th Street to the southern city limits of Kentwood.
This plan was prepared by the West Michigan Regional Planning
Commission. It refined the original, more conceptual plan de-
veloped by Williams and Works. The WMRPC plan corresponded more
closely to actual land use categories and ordinances used by

the communities along the corridor (9).

The East Beltline Land Use Plan of 1974 served as a basis for
carrying out the agreements contained in the Memorandums of
Understanding. The parties to the memorandum agreed that they
would not authorize rezonings or new planned unit developments,
or other major projects in the planning areas, unless and until
they have met jointly and discussed the impact of each proposal -
favorable or unfavorable - on the future deve10pment Of the East

Beltline (10). Subsequent land use deve10pment proposals and

77
the master plans of Kentwood and Grand Rapids Township, includ-
ing.the Kentwood zoning ordinance, were reviewed by the Board

using the plan as a guide.

In 1977, the East Beltline Association requested that the East
Beltline Zoning Advisory Board revise its Land Use Plan. The
Association noted that several communities were preparing up-
dated master plans and zoning ordinances and requested the Board
to examine them with the goal of preparing a single land use plan
which would serve as a basis for the consideration Of future
zoning and planning changes (11). A revised East Beltline Land
Use Plan was adopted by the Board in 1978 and covered an area
extending 660 feet on each side Of the centerline of the road-

way (see Figure 4.2).

The revised land use plan designated substantial areas for low
intensity land uses (predominantly residential). This reflected
the overall goal of the corridor communities tO encourage low
traffic generating land uses. Other areas of the plan, showing
commercial areas, reflect uses that were already established

or designated.by locally adOpted land use plans. Allowable uses

within each category are summarized in Appendix B.

The by-laws of the East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board specify
that the Board shall review and make recommendations to the
political jurisdictions along the East Beltline regarding,

". . . any proposed zoning changes, special approval uses or

 

EAST BELTLINE LAND USE PLAN

 

 

   

lllllIIIIIIlllIIIlIlI—l
llllllllllllllllll:IlT

llllllllllllllllll

 

 

 

 

 

FOLRMI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8L

Low DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
0'6 Dwelling Units per Acre

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
7'I0 DweIIlng [hits per Acre

PUBUC , SEMI PUBLIC

 

fig

OFFICE

COMMERCIAL

Base Map Prepared by the
West Michigan Regional
Planning Commission

 

Figure 4.2 East Beltline Land Use Plan

 

 

 

 

79

or permits, conditional uses, use variations, planned unit
developments, or any other land use change which would allow
uses other than those allowed by right under the member govern-
mental units' present zoning along the East Beltline.” (12).
By reviewing and making recommendations regarding land use
changes, the Board's primary Objective is to encourage the
establishment of land uses in the most suitable locations and
avoid dramatic increases of traffic volumes and turning move-
ments associated with intensive strip commercial deve10pment.
TO accomplish this objective, the Board makes its recommenda—
tion based on the following set Of criteria (13).

1. Does the proposed land use change conform to the
revised East Beltline Land Use Plan?

2. Does the requested change Offer the same or lower
traffic volumes and turning movements as the planned
use?

3. Will the requested change encourage stability rather
than additional requests for land use change?

4. Would the use of land involved in the proposed change
be compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses?

5. Is there a shortage of properly zoned land within the
general vicinity of the parcel in question?

6. Does the existing zoning deny reasonable use of the

land?

Staff of the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission administer

the functions Of the Board. WMRPC staff are in frequent contact

80

with the planning and zoning personnel of each corridor com-

munity, who announce when land use changes are requested. The
Board's meetings are held in the WMRPC's Offices and staff pre-
pare the necessary correspondence tO the apprOpriate community

regarding the recommendations Of the Board.

Along with the type and location Of land use development occur-
ring in the corridor, the Board has become increasingly more
concerned with the type and location Of access between the
roadway and adjacent deve10pment. In 1984, the Board requested
the WMRPC staff to research the tOpic of access control and

develop guidelines to assist in the review of land use proposals.

4.4 LAND USE REGULATIONS OF CORRIDOR COMMUNITIES

The EaSt Beltline Zoning Advisory Board provides the forum for
coordinating local land use plans and for discussing the traffic
implications Of new deve10pment proposals. Ultimately, however,
the authority to regulate land use resides with each jurisdic-
tion. The Board can only advise local communities on their land
use decisions and suggest appropriate access controls. The

power to enforce land use regulatory controls belong to: Kentwood,
Grand Rapids, East Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids Township and Plain-
field Township. Through their authority tO issue permits for
driveways, the Michigan Department of Transportation regulates
the design and construction of access points. The following
discussion describes each jurisdiction's regulatory controls in
light Of their impact on controlling access along the East

Beltline.

81

4.4.1 PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP

The Comprehensive Plan for Plainfield Township designates most
Of the East Beltline corridor between Plainfield Avenue and
Five Mile Road for medium density residential uses (7 dwelling
units per acre). The only exception is a high residential dis-
trict (24 dwelling units per acre) located on the southeast cor-
ner of the Five Mile Road and the East Beltline intersection.
The plan stresses that land use decisions should be made in

conformance with the adOpted East Beltline Land Use Plan (14).

The zoning ordinance for Plainfield Township was adopted in
1982. The zoning districts abutting the East Beltline are shown
in Figure 4.3, and it can be seen that residential and agricul-
tural districts predominate. The information below lists the
required frontage and building set—back distances (from the
right-Of-way line) for each district (15). These requirements

can ultimately affect sight distance and driveway spacing.

ZONING DISTRICT FRONTAGE SET-BACK (ft)
A Agricultural 200 40
R-l Residential (single family) 100 30
R-2 Residential (two family) 90 30

Frontage and setback requirements are not specified for com-
mercial uses. However, the ordinance does require that drive-
way Openings to commercial uses shall not be permitted at an
interval Of less than 300 feet, and that an access road can

serve establishments between driveway Openings.

 

 

   

 

 

PLAINFIELD TWP.
ZONING

  

I>

AGRICULTURAL

I)
I

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

MULTI ‘ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

O

OFFICES

o
_'

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL

.0
C
U

BEEEHD

 

 

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

SCALE: I INCH = 780'

   
 

 

88

M? MILE

D. PLAI NFIELD TWP.

GRAND RAPIDS TWP,

 

 

Base Map Prepared by the
West Michigan Regional
Planning Commission

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.3 East Beltline Zoning Districts — Plainfield Avenue to Four Mile Road

 

83

Site plan approval is required for all land use developments,
except for residential districts. Site plans must show numer-
ous design features including the location of: streets and
highways, parking areas, building locations, and driveway loca—
tions. The building inspector receives and reviews all site
plans. He is required to not issue building permits until.
site plans have been approved by the Township Planning Commis-
sion and Board and until the applicant has received a driveway

construction permit.

The subdivision ordinance of Plainfield Township, adopted in
1972, provides ample Opportunity for the consideration of access
management, and contains some specific driveway standards. Ac-
cording to Article IX Subdivision Design Standards, paragraph
4.12 Location:

The location of all streets providing access to a

state trunkline or county primary road shall be ap-

proved by the Township Board only after the same has

been recommended to the Township Board for approval

by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission

may, in the interest safety, limit access to state

highways and county primary roads to not more than

one means of access to the property included in the

plat every 1,320 feet on the same street (16).
In addition to the review and approval of the Planning Commis—
sion, the Plainfield Township Board requires that the Kent
County Road Commission approve the subdivision plat before it

will render its decision. The ordinance requires that the

84
driveways of subdivision streets intersecting major roadways
shall be designed according to the standards of the Road
Commission, which in the case of the East Beltline, acts as
an agent of the Michigan Department of Transportation for
driveway design. Beyond that, this subdivision ordinance
requires that: the minimum sight distance for an intersece
tion shall be 300 feet, the angle of an intersection shall
not be less than 80°, 900 is preferred, and the verticle align-
ment of an intersection shall not exceed a grade of 4% for a

distance of between 50 and 100 feet.

4.4.2 GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP

Grand Rapids Township has momafrontage on the East Beltline
than any other corridor community. Except for a segment
around the 1-96 interchange, the Township fronts the roadway
from Four Mile Road to approximately one mile south of Cas-
cade Road. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Grand Rapids
Township, adOpted in 1977, designates the frontage prOperties
along the East Beltline for predominantly low density resi-

dential uses. Exceptions to this can be seen in Figure 4.2.

These exceptions to low density residential uses generally
reflect deve10pment which existed at the time the Township's
plan was prepared. Through all these planned uses, the Town-
ship seeks to limit high density land uses along the East
Beltline corridor as evidenced by the following statement:

"A major concept of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan

is that properties along the East Beltline north of

85

I-96 should not be provided direct access to the
Beltline if it is possible to provide access from

another public street (17).

The township also encourages planned unit development (PUD),
and designates the frontage between Knapp and Bradford Streets
for low density residential PUD. The Land Use Plan suggests
that the majority of access to any PUD in this area could be
provided from Bradford, Leonard, or Knapp Streets without the
need for direct access to the East Beltline (18). The Town-
ship recognizes that traffic congestion can be minimized and
traffic safety enhanced along the East Beltline through the

appropriate exercise of zoning controls (19).

The Grand Rapids Township Zoning Ordinance was adOpted in 1979.
Districts along the East Beltline are for the most part con—
sistent with the Township's comprehensive land use plan. The
only significant exception is a strip commercial district along
the east frontage of the roadway between Leonard and Bradford
Streets. The Plan designates just the northeast corner of the
Bradford Street/East Beltline intersection as commercial, not
the entire frontage up to Leonard Street (see Figures 4.4, 4.5

and 4.6).

The zoning ordinance contains procedures and standards for PUD’s.
It recognizes the PUD as a "floating zone", and according to the
procedures for approval, PUD zoning will only be granted for

areas that are designated as PUD districts in the land use plan.

pmmnpm gauge 0. caom mans anon I mpofinpmflo manqoa mqfifipfimm pmmm w.¢ oaswnm

 

86

scammfleeoo wsflqqmam
quoflmom :mwfisoflz puma
may as oonmqosm mas ommm

I'"""'""""

P----.‘.-o--.---o -1
P.----.-- 0....-

 

 

 

 

 

..‘
.01

.

..
|
..

 

 

 

   

 

      

.. .
o
.. ..
II . I I I I . I . . p .m II
I II I . .
.0......0.“H .... ..0.A
... ........ ...
..."..aouu.n .. A
0...... ........... A
. ...... ....D
..00.............
.... . O. .00....
.0..1......0....
O .9......0......
......o..... ...
.....I..........
......o...........
.... ..0...............
.... ......O...
... J.......C....
. ........ ....
. 0 .......0...00.
o........l.... . .
0. O... 00... O .
...-.5. . ... . .
0. O. .. . ..l_
....n..............
.0. o 0.0. 000.0”
...............
......O..... 0...
..................
..... . ......0.....J.“.
..... ......a........... .
....f... . 0......
u........... .... .
n . l...........w
... 0 .. . I .0
...‘O...........
... 0...... .. o.
0.0.5 0 0. . 0....... 0‘
......OH........O...
..........u..u.........
.

Eznge. meg 024mm

n—ImZBOF DIGEZEIE .om was. :30...

. .
. .

.
r---d

 

 

.f/I,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP
ZONING

lR-I SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL
E C-2 RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN
OHHCE

 

 

 

    
 

SCALE= I INCH = 780'
II IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII

 

 

[1]!!!“

11111111]

 

     

llllllll

 

lllllllll

 

.--- ---—1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP
I - I - I - I - I
GRAND RAHDS

Base Map Prepared by the
West Michigan Regional
Planning Commission

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.5 East Beltline Zoning Districts — Knapp Street to Bradford Street

L8

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ \\\\ \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
   
  

 

GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP
ZONING

.R-I SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL
C-l SUBURAN NEIGHBORHOOD
C ERGA

OMM L
E C-2 RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN
OHWCE

 

 

 

I/ZAMLE

EGRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP

l-I-I-l

GRAND RAMOS

Base Map Prepared by the
West Michigan Regional
Planning Commission

 

 

 

Figure 4.6 East Beltline Zoning Districts

Michigan Street to Hall Street

 

88

 

89
Low density residential PUD is shown on the land use plan for
nearly the entire frontage between Knapp Street and Bradford
Street. A small parcel located at the southeast corner of
Michigan Street and the East Beltline is designated as Medium
Density Residential/Low Density Office PUD in the plan as well.
The compatible zoning districts in those areas are R—1 and C—1

respectively (20).

The standards for a PUD in the zoning ordinance are quite specific
in regard to access control. Section 11.3, paragraph 4 states:
"Access to any PUD project located at the intersection of
the East Beltline with either Bradford, Leonard, or Knapp
Streets shall be from Bradford, Leonard, and Knapp Streets.
Access to any other PUD located adjacent to the East Belt—
line only shall be from either Bradford, Leonard, or Knapp

Streets if this is feasible" (21).

Early coordination between developers of a PUD and local land
use officials is possible through a pre-application conference
with the Township Planning Commission. The applicant must sub-
mit a preliminary site plan to the Planning Commission which
must include showing: the location of all streets, driveways,
parking, and size and location of all buildings. The Planning
Commission and Township Board reserve the authority to require
modification to a PUD site plan. Occupancy permits may not be
granted until the Board is satisfied with.aLlrecommended modi—
fications (22). In regard to roadway access for all PUD's, the

zoning ordinance requires that: driveways shall be 30 feet wide

90
and paved, each development shall have at least two access points,
and traffic generated by the development will not cause the
traffic carrying capacity of the adjacent street to be exceeded

nor create a safety hazard (23).

4.4.3 EAST GRAND RAPIDS

The City of East Grand Rapids does not have parcels directly
fronting the East Beltline. However, city officials are con-
cerned about land use deve10pment and traffic conditions along
the roadway, and therefore, have been actively involved in a
coordinated land use planning effort with the other corridor

communities.

Because City property does not front onto the East Beltline direct—
ly, the traffic impact of its land use decisions are concentrated
at the intersection of its major streets, Cascade Road and Lake
Drive, with the East Beltline. Established land uses along these
roadways within the City is not intense, and consists of single
family residential uses (24). Therefore, it is anticipated that
land use decisions of the City of East Grand Rapids will not im-

pose significant traffic volumes onto the East Beltline.

4.4.4 GRAND RAPIDS

The City of Grand Rapids fronts the East Beltline in two areas,
from the I-96 interchange to the northern city limit, and again
south of I-96 from the city limit near Reeds Lake to 28th Street.
The Grand Rapids Master Plan designates its frontage for low den—

sity, predominantly residential and office, uses except for the

91
intense commercial area north of 28th Street to Lake Eastbrook

Boulevard (25).

Since its adoption in 1963, the Master Plan has been revised for
the two areas that front the East Beltline. The most significant
difference between the original and revised plan is that large
areas are designated for special residential (SR) use (26). This
district encourages a mixer of low density residential and pro-
fessional office type developments. Large areas are also desig—
nated for public, semi-public and institutional use and low to
medium residential use. Again, except for the commercial area
north of 28th Street, the revised land use plans designate low
density, low traffic generating, land uses along the City's

frontage on the East Beltline.

The Zoning Ordinance for Grand Rapids, revised through 1984, is
generally consistent with the revised land use plans for zoning
districts along the East Beltline (see Figures 4.7 and 4.8).
Except for PUD districts, the Ordinance does not contain Specific
regulations for vehicular access control. Varying ranges of
residential densities and neighborhood and community commercial
uses are allowed in a PUD, however, strip commercial development
is prohibited. Both the preliminary and final site plans for a
PUD must include showing the location of: streets, driveways,
turning lanes, and parking areas (27). The City Traffic Engineer
is among several city officials which review each PUD site plan.
He is required to examine: the traffic flow pattern, parking

within the project, and access to existing public roads (28).

  
   

’l - I - I -I!_I_.!_I. ,

I i
i LEONARD ST.

GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS ZONING

R-I ONE FAMILY ZONE

m PUD PLANNED UNIT EVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

  
     
  
  

l-I-I-l-
GRAND RAPDS
‘GRAND RAMOS
MICHIGAN I-I-I-I-I: SCALE: I

H

" - 468w RAPIDS TOWNSHIP IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

O

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.7 East Beltline

 

INCH = 780'
IIIIII

    

VZMLE

Base Map Prepared by the
West Michigan Regional
Planning Commission

 

 

Zoning Districts — Grand Rapids

City Limits to Fulton Street

86

 

mm

 

 

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
ZONING
ONE FAMILY ZONE

M I...

 

R-3 LOW DENSITY MU.TIPLE FAMILY ZONE

E} SR SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE

m C-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZON'E

y the
nal

 

Base Map Prepared b
West Michigan Regio
Planning Commission

 

ZONING

C-S REGIONAL COMMERCIAL

CITY OF KENTWOOD

 

 

 

 

GRAND RAPDS TOWNSWP

GRAND RAHDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

= 730'

IINCH

SCALE:

 

 

Fi . . .
gure 4.8 East Beltline Zoning Districts — Hall Street to 28th Street

 

 

 

 

94
The ordinance does not contain specific access control review

standards.

The Opportunity for extensive review of vehicular access for
most zoning districts may be available if the City adopts a

set of proposed site plan review procedures into its zoning
ordinance. A draft set of procedures, revised in 1984, would
require site plan review by the Planning Commission for all
developments except for a single or two-family dwelling on a

lot on which there exists no other use (29). Like the review

of a PUD, site plans would be required to show the location of
all streets, driveways, turning lanes and parking areas. The
Planning Commission would review and approve all site plans
according to a list of review standards. In regard to access
control, these standards state: ”vehicle access onto an adjacent
street should not impose a significant burden upon public facili-

ties which could be avoided by modifications in the plan" (30).

4.4.5 KENTWOOD

Kentwood's Land Use Plan of 1980 designates the City's entire
frontage on the East Beltline for commercial use (31). This .
area is within the massive commercial district located at the
intersection of 28th Street and the East Beltline. There are

no indications in the Plan that this use will change.

The East Beltline frontage in Kentwood is zoned C—3, which per-

mits several types of commercial uses. However, this district

95
is primarily meant to accommodate regional commercial uses. Site
plan review is required for all C-3 uses which can include: re-

gional shopping malls, offices, banks and hotels (32).

In addition to C-3 uses, site plan review is also required for
higher density residential uses, most industrial uses, and de-
velopments prOposed within flood plains. Preliminary and final
site plans must include showing: the location and dimensions

of all existing and proposed driveways, sidewalks, internal cir-
culation streets, and adjacent public roads. Planning Commission
approval is required of all site plans, however, the Commission
may waive this authority. In such cases, site plans are reviewed
and approved by a local land use review team consisting of Kent-
wood's zoning administrator, city planner, and city engineer. In
either case, modifications can be required to the site plan,
which can include the design of driveways and placement of build—

ings (33).

Section 20.11 of the Kentwood Zoning Ordinance contains specific
standards forsfite plan review and paragraph (C) has special
significance for access control.
Section 20.11(C) Drives, Parking and Circulation: with
respect to vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including
walkways, interior drives and parking, special attention
shall be given to location and number of access points,
general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian
and vehicular traffic, and arrangement of parking areas

that are safe and convenient and insofar as practicable,

96

do not detract from the design of the proposed building

and structures and the neighborhood properties (34).

More specifically, Section 21.4 lists site design standards

for specific land uses, some of which arezfllowable in C-3 dis-
tricts. For example, hotels and motels are limited to only one
access point to a major thoroughfare, and the ordinance states,
"access should not adversely affect flow on adjacent streets"
(35). Also, access points to drive-in restaurants must not be

located within 75 feet of another driveway or intersection (36).

Kentwood also has a PUD district in its ordinance. The oppor-
tunity for early coordination of the PUD site plan is available
under the procedures of a pre-application conference. A review
sketch must be submitted to the zoning administrator, city planner
and city engineer and must include internal circulation patterns,
location of driveways and major streets. Under the commercial

PUD district, the ordinance requires that driveways must be de-

signed so as to minimize traffic congestion (37).

4.5 DRIVEWAY PERMIT PROCEDURES

Michigan's Public Act 200 of 1969 provides the authority for
control of state trunklines and issuance of driveway permits
along those highways to the Michigan Department of Transporta-
tion, or to a county road commission. The act mandates the
Department of Transportation to promulgate administrative rules
for the design and placement of driveways. It can also allow

county road commissions to adopt the Department's rules or

97

develop their own, but makes no mention of cities and villages
being able to develop standards individually. However, the act
does allow that cities and villages can require driveway permits

for any street within their corporate limits (38).

The Michigan Department of Transportation has developed a de;
tailed set of design standards for individual driveways along
state highways. As they stand, the present standards are an
excellent start toward an effective access control policy. How-
ever, these standards affect access on only a parcel by parcel
basis for design features such as: driveway width and radius,
right-turn lanes, and paving. As demonstrated in Chapter Three,
additional access features such as: driveway spacing, corner
clearance and site distance, should be considered in the context
of how the corridor is affected. These additional features are

not addressed in the Department of Transportation regulations.

Ooqoucnus

10.
11.
12.
13.

14.

15.

CHAPTER FOUR: FOOTNOTES

For more information regarding 28th Street access
control, see: WBDC, Inc. 1982. The 28th Street
Study. Grand Rapids, Michigan; WBDC, Inc.

Michigan Department of Transportation. 1973. "Improve-
ment of M—37/44 The East Beltline." Engineering Report
1832. Lansing, Michigan: Route Location Division.
Michigan Department of Transportation. p. 15. (here-
after cited as Report 1832).

 

 

Williams and Works, Inc. 1972. East Beltline Avenue

A Plan for Land Uses and Roadway Treatment. Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Williams and Works, Inc. p. 5. (here~
after cited as East Beltline Treatment).

Michigan Department of Transportation. Report 1832. p. 37.
Williams and Works, Inc. East Beltline Treatment. p. 1.
Ibid. p. 1.

Ibid. p. 23.

East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board. 1978. A Land Use
Plan for the East Beltline, Kent County, Michigan. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: East Beltline Association. p. 3. (here-
after cited as East Beltline Plan).

Ibid. p. 4.

Ibid. pp. 7—8.

Ibid. p. 6.

Ibid. pp. 11-12.

Ibid. p. 12.

Plainfield Township Board of Commissioners. 1975. Compre-
hensive Plan A Guide to Growth/ Belmont, Michigan: Plain-
field Township. p. 23.

Plainfield Township Board of Commissions. 1982. Plain-
field Charter Townshingoning Ordinance. Belmont, Michigan:
Plainfield Township. pp. 7.1-23.3.

98

16.

17.

18.
19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.
29.

30.
31.

997

Plainfield Township Board of Commissioners. 1972.
Plainfield Township Subdivision Ordinance. Belmont,

.Michigan: Plainfield Township. p. 12.

Grand Rapids Township Planning Commission. 1977. Grand
Rapids Township Kent County, Michigan A Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Prepared with
the assistance of Williams and Works, Inc. p. 35.

 

Ibid. p. 38.
Ibid. p. 30.

Grand Rapids Township Board of Commissioners. 1977.
Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Grand Rapids, Kent
County, Michigan. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids
Township. p. 41.

 

Ibid. p. 44.
Ibid. p. 36.
Ibid. p. 38.
East Grand Rapids City Commission. 1984. A Comprehensive

Plan East Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Prepared
with the assistance of Williams and Works, Inc. p. 6.

 

Grand Rapids City Planning Commission. 1963. Master Plan
City of Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, Michigan: City of
Grand Rapids. Land Use Map.

Grand Rapids planning Commission. 1984. Northeast Area
Land Use Plan Amendment to the Master Plan of the City of
Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, Michigan. p. 63.

 

Grand Rapids City Commission. 1984. Grand Rapids City
Code Chapter 61 Zoning. Grand Rapids, Michigan: City of
Grand Rapids. p. 5.28. ,

 

Ibid. p. 5.29.

Grand Rapids Planning Commission. 1984. "Draft Site Plan
Review Article 26." Unpublished report. Grand Rapids,
Michigan. City of Grand Rapids. p. 1.

Ibid. p. 5.
Kentwood City Commission. 1980. Land Use Plan City of

Kentwood, Michiggn. Kentwood, Michigan: City of Kentwood.
Land Use Map.

 

32.

33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

38.

Kentwood City Commission. 1980.
of Kentwood Ordinance No. 17—80.
.of Kentwood. pp.15-17.

Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. p.

"O’U'U'U

100

19.
20.
21.
21.
31.

gpning Ordinance City

 

Kentwood, Michigan:

City

Michigan Department of Transportation. 1980. Administra-
tive Rules Regulating Driveways, Banners, and Parades On

and Over Highwayg.

 

pp. 1-6.

Lansing, Michigan:

Secretary of State.

CHAPTER FIVE: ACCESS MANAGEMENT OPPORUNITIES

The Opportunity to successfully implement access management can
vary significantly between corridors and within the same corridor,
depending upon the amount, type, and intensity Of land use develop—
ment. For example, the Opportunity to control access along the
intensely developed commercial corridor Of 28th Street is less

than it is for the East Beltline, which is predominantly undevelOp-
ed or developed with low intensity land uses. Retrofitting road-
way access along 28th Street according to the guidelines contained
in Chapter Three would require removal and consolidation Of many
driveways. This would be an extremely expensive and potentially
unpOpular undertaking. Property owners with established businesses
and driveways may be very reluctant to give up their direct access
to 28th Street. Other Obstacles include the location Of buildings
and parking areas. Conversely, because the East Beltline corridor
is relatively undeveloped, the Opportunity to manage access is
greater. Access controls can be anticipated as local plans are
prepared, and implemented as parcels are developed, or redeveloped

to more intensive uses.

This chapter will identify, on.a corridor segment basis, Opportuni-
ties tO implement access management along the East Beltline cor-
ridor. This will be based upon an amount Of land fronting the

East Beltline which is undevelOped, or develOped with low intensity
uses such as single family residences or agriculture. Corridor
segments are defined by the boundaries of the political jurisdic-

tions abutting the roadway and are listed below. These segments
101

102
were presented graphically in Chapter Four which showed the

zoning districts Of each jurisdiction.

Segment One Plainfield Township

Segment Two Grand Rapids Township North
Segment Three Grand Rapids Township South
Segment Four Grand Rapids North

Segment Five Grand Rapids South

Segment Six Kentwood

Using these segments as a guide, developed and undeveloped road-
way frontages, by land use type, will be defined according to
the number of parcels, total length of frontage, and average
frontage distance per parcel. Also, the total number Of drive-
ways and average number Of driveways per parcel will be identi-
fied, as well as the location Of severe development restrictions
due to slope and soil conditions. This information will help
define opportunities for access management by locating areas Of

potential deve10pment and redevelopment.

5.1 SEGMENT ONE: PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP

By far, most Of the develOped and undevelOped frontage through
Plainfield Township is dedicated to single family deve10pment.
A significant portion of the undeveloped frontage is zoned for

agricultural purposes, which permits single family uses.

Table 5.1 lists the amount of developed and undeveloped East
Beltline frontage through Plainfield Township. It shows that

the undeveloped parcels have, on the average, long frontage

103
distances. This can help assure adequate driveway spacing. North
Of Five Mile Road, deve10pment restrictions are significant due
to severe slope conditions. Along the east side Of the roadway
in this area, several undeveloped parcels zoned for single family
use have frontage to the rear Of their property along Weber Ave-

nue, which can provide an alternative means Of access to these

parcels.
TABLE 5.1
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED FRONTAGE IN
PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP (Segment One)
NO. Of Front- Avg. NO. Of Avg. NO.
Parcels age Front- Drive- Of Drive-
(miles) age per ways ways
Parcel
DevelOped
Single Family 12 .86 377 9 .75
Multifamily 2 .30 777 2 1.00
Public, Semi-Public 1 .09 500 0 0.00
Office 1 .06 310 1 1.00
PUD 1 .19 1000 1 1 00
Commercial 1 1.56 310 O 0.00
TOTAL 18 1.56 — 13 --
Undeve10ped
Single Family 14 1.97 743 - --
Multifamily 1 .15 807 - --
Public, Semi-Public 0 — - - --
Office 0 - - - -—
PUD 1 .07 375 - -—
Commercial 0 - - — -—
TOTAL 16. 2.19 - - --

Between Four Mile and Five Mile Roads, development restrictions
are not severe and large tracts Of undeveloped land are zoned
for both single family and agricultural use. The PUD and sub—
division control ordinances can potentially be effective as

these parcels eventually develop. Table 5.1 shows that existing

104
multifamily and PUD developments are effective in minimizing

the number Of driveways for large frontage distances.

5.2 SEGMENT TWO: GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP NORTH

Similar to Plainfield Township, the develOped and undeveloped
properties fronting the East Beltline through Grand Rapids
Township are dedicated tO primartursingle family and agricul—
tural uses. There are, however, a greater number of undeveloped
parcels zoned single family with shorter average frontage
distances. This may limit the Opportunity for larger PUD type
deve10pments and thus the potential to minimize the number Of
driveways. For example, from approximately one quarter mile
north to three quarter miles south Of Three Mile Road, the fre-
quency Of driveways serving single family prOperties is high,
with many driveways being spaced at intervals Of less than 200
feet. A similar condition exists south Of Knapp Street to where
the Township boundary line meets the East Beltline on the west
side Of the roadway. If the trend toward single family develOp—
ment continues in these two areas, the need for more restrictive
access control should not be necessary. If, however, there

are attempts to redevelop these areas, or portion thereof, tO
more intensive uses, the consolidation of lots and especially
driveways should be required. Shared access roads and driveways

could satisfy the access needs Of larger, more intensive uses.

The largest undeveloped areas, zoned for single family use, are
generally located near the intersections Of Four Mile Road, Knapp,

Leonard, and Bradford Streets with the East Beltline. The size

105

Of these parcels provides the Opportunity to minimize the fre-
quency Of driveways serving the uses that deve10p, and their
location provides the Opportunity Of absolute or supplemental

access to the intersecting streets.

TABLE 5.2
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED FRONTAGE IN
GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP (Segment Two)

NO. Of Front- Avg. NO. Of Avg. NO.
Parcels age Front- Drive- Of Drive-
(miles) age per ways ways
Parcel
Developed
Single Family 38 1.34 186 39 1.03
Multifamily 0 - - - --
Public, Semi-Public 3 .34 593 6 1.50
Office 3 .31 543 2 .67
PUD 1 .18 950 1 1.00
Commercial 4 .24 320 5 1.25
TOTAL 49 2.41 - 53 --
Undeveloped
Single Family 25 2.50 527 - --
Multifamily 0 - - - -—
Public, Semi-Public O — - - -—
Office 3 .56 983 - -—
PUD 0 - — — -—
Commercial 2 .13 330 - —-
TOTAL 30 3.19 - - --

5.3 SEGMENT THREE: GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP SOUTH

Table 5.3 lists the amount Of develOped and undevelOped front-
age in the southern portion Of Grand Rapids Township. It can
be seen that with the exception Of two small parcels zoned for
commercial use, the entire undeveloped frontage is zoned for

single family use.

106

TABLE 5.3
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED FRONTAGE IN
GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP (Segment Three)

NO. Of Front- Avg. NO. Of Avg. NO.
Parcels age Front- Drive- Of Drive—
(miles) age per ways ways
Parcel

DevelOped

Single Family 38 .92 128 8 :21
Multifamily 0 - - — --
Public, Semi-Public 0 - - — ——
Office 0 - - - --
PUD 0 - - - --
Commercial 0 - - - --
TOTAL 38 92 - 8 --
Undeveloped

Single Family 35 1.73 261 - --
Multifamily O — - - --
Public, Semi-Public O — - - --
Office 2 16 425 ~ --
PUD 0 — - - --
Commercial 0 — — - --
TOTAL 37 1.89 - - --

*significant frontage with no developable lots due to alignment
Of Reeds Lake Road

Most Of the undeveloped single family frontage exists south of
Cascade Road. It is possible that due to high slopes, much Of
this area may never develop. However, when and if it does, large
PUD deve10pments should be considered to minimize the frequency

Of access to the East Beltline.

Finally, the two undevelOped parcels zoned for commercial use
(which allows Offices), are located adjacent to the Michigan
Street intersection. A shared driveway arrangement for these

eventual uses should be investigated.

Most of the developed single family parcels along the East

107

Beltline in this area Of the Township are located within large
subdivisions. With a few exceptions, many of them do not have
direct access to the East Beltline. Some undeveloped lots

within these subdivisions do exist, but their eventual develop-
ment should not pose a threat to the traffic Operations on the

East Beltline.

5.4 SEGMENT FOUR: GRAND RAPIDS NORTH
Most Of the property fronting the East Beltline in the northern

section Of Grand Rapids is developed as shown in Table 5.4.

TABLE 5.4
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED FRONTAGE IN
GRAND RAPIDS (Segment Four)

NO. Of Front- Avg. NO. Of Avg. NO.
Parcels age Front— Drive- Of Drive—
(miles) age per ways ways
Parcel

Developed

Single Family 7 .24 176 7 1.00
Multifamily O - - — --
Public, Semi-Public 5 .43 450 7 1.40
Office 1 .04 220 l 1.00
PUD ‘1 .04 200 1.00
Commercial 2 .09 450 2 1.00
TOTAL 16 .84 - 17 --
Undeve10ped

Single Family 7 .55 411 - -—
Multifamily O - - - --
Public, Semi-Public 0 — - - --
Office 0 - - ‘ - --
PUD 1 .05 275 - --
Commercial 0 - - - --
TOTAL 8 .60 - - -—

Along the west side Of the East Beltline, north Of Leonard Street,

108

several single family homes are located next to a recently
constructed restaurant. Any redevelopment Of these single
family parcels tO a more intensive use should consolidate these

parcels and their driveways.

South Of Leonard Street, again on the west side Of the road4

way, the abutting land is completely develOped with primarily

the Grand Rapids Baptist College and Seminary. This is most
likely the area's highest and best use and therefore no redevelOp-
ment is expected. Across the roadway from the Baptist College,
the prOperty fronting the East Beltline is zoned for commercial
use, which allows Offices. The southern portion, at the north—
east corner Of the East Beltline and Bradford Street, is developed
as the United Auto Workers Offices, which has its access from
Bradford Street. The northern portion is undeveloped. The Op-
portunity exists there for absolute or supplemental access onto

Leonard Street for any uses that eventually develop.

Between Bradford and Michigan Streets, the City's frontage lies
in close proximity to the on and Off ramps Of the I-96 freeway.
Intensive deve10pment or redevelOpment Of these parcels should
feature primary access to one Of the intersecting streets so
as not to conflict with the freeway ramp maneuvers. Currently,
a large church is being developed at the northwest corner Of
the East Beltline and the freeway. Its primary driveway is
located near the on-ramp Of the freeway, a potentially hazard-

ous location.

109

South Of Michigan Street, two large undeveloped parcels are
located along the west side Of the roadway, both Of which are
zoned for single family uses. The first is located immediately
south Of Michigan Street, and the second, immediately north

Of Fulton Street. Their proximity to these two streets prO-

vides the Opportunity of alternative access.

5.5 SEGMENT FIVE: GRAND RAPIDS SOUTH
Table 5.5 shows that withthe exception Of a few parcels, the
East Beltline's frontage through the City of Grand Rapids be-

tween Hall and 28th Streets is develOped.

TABLE 5.5
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED FRONTAGE IN
GRAND RAPIDS (Segment Five)

NO. Of Front- Avg. NO. Of Avg. NO.
Parcels age Front- Drive- Of Drive-
(miles) age per ways ways
Parcel

Developed

Single Family 4 .27 362 3 .75
Multifamily 1 .14 750 1 1.00
Public, Semi-Public 4 1.44 1895 9 2.25
Office 1 .04 200 1 1.00
PUD (Special residential)5 .47 500 6 1.20
Commercial 10 .31 162 14 l 40
TOTAL 25 2.67 - 34 --
Undeve10ped

Single Family 5 .23 240 - —-
Multifamily O - — 4 --
Public, Semi-Public 0 - - - --
Office 0 - - ' - -—
PUD (Special residential)4 .21 284 — --
Commercial - - - - -—
TOTAL 9 .44 - - --

PUD is special residential Office development

110

The remaining undevelOped prOperties are primarily concentrated
in three locations. North of Lake Drive along the west side

Of the roadway, there is an area Of undevelOped land zoned for
single family use. Its location in relation to Lake Drive pre-
sents the Opportunity for alternative access. Southeast Of Lake
Drive, there are three parcels zoned for special residential
use, which permits Office deve10pment. Care must be exercised
when these parcels are developed so that their driveways are
adequately spaced away from the three existing driveways which
serve two established Office developments. The only other un-
developed parcel in this segment lies approximately one-quarter
mile south Of Burton Street along the west side Of the roadway.
This parcel is zoned for special residential use and is bounded
on the north and south by two collector streets which serve
neighboring Office developments. These streets provide the

Opportunity for indirect access to the East Beltline.

The remainder of the East Beltline's frontage through this
southern portion of Grand Rapids is developed in rather intense
uses, primarily consisting Of: multifamily, institutional, and
commercial establishments. Little redevelopment Of these uses

is expected.

5.6 SEGMENT SIX: KENTWOOD
Table 5.6 below shows the developed frontage along Kentwood's
boundary with the East Beltline. The entire frontage is develOp-

ed with commercial uses, and none is undevelOped.

111

TABLE 5.6
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED FRONTAGE IN
KENTWOOD (Segment Six)

NO. Of Front- Avg. NO. Of Avg. NO.
Parcels age Front- Drive- Of Drive-
(miles) age per ways ways
Parcel

DevelOped .

Commercial 6 .39 340 4 .67

Undeveloped

None

Good access management is evident along this segment of the
East Beltline. Most Of these commercial uses gain access to
the road via collector streets which serve the regional shop-

ping mall.

5.7 CORRIDOR GROWTH

The preceeding discussion Of each corridor segment gives
support to the need for access management along the East Belt—
line. There is a large amount Of undeveloped roadway frontage
as well as areas which may be redeveloped. Significant Oppor-
tunities exist to manage the roadway access Of these prOperties
as proposals tO develop them are considered by local Officials.
As growth occurs along the corridor and land use becomes more
intense, it will become increasingly important to manage access
according to a uniform collection Of guidelines. 'This growth
can be reflected in terms Of population, dwelling units, and

traffic volume trends.

112

TABLE 5.7
EXPECTED GROWTH IN POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS

Corridor Population Dwelling Units
Section 1980 2010 Change 1980 2010 Change
North Of I—96 14797 17142 +15.84% 4278 6583 +53.88%
South of I-96 9615 12948 +34.66% 3631 5834 +60.67%
TOTAL 24412 30090 +23.26% 7909 12417 +57.00%

Source: Author (1)

The data listed in Table 5.7 shows that growth in the East
Beltline corridor area is expected tO be dramatic by the year
2010. This growth will not result exclusively from deve10pment
abutting the roadway, but rather from increases in pOpulation
and dwelling units that are projected to occur in a much larger
area which borders the East Beltline on each side. Therefore,
based on the demand shown in Table 5.7, it can be assumed that
new developments will occur along the East Beltline given the

availability Of abutting developable land.

Growth in population and dwelling units in the East Beltline
corridor, combined with an overall growth rate in the urbanized
area Of 21% will generate additional travel demand. Figure 5.1
lists current and projected traffic volumes at several locations
along the roadway. It also shows the general locations Of un-
develOped frontage. Therefore, it can be seen that the prospects
for the East Beltline arenmuteintensely developed frontage re—

quiring more roadway access and significantly higher traffic

volumes.

 

 

 

 

EAST BEEHJNE

   
   

GRAND RI VEH

 

'IfIII
///EEEEEfffjiflfl H' GRANDIHVER DR

10,000
(26,000)

    
    

FIVE MILE I

13,000

    
 

RMRMMJH;

 

 

  
     
    

 

 

 

THREE mpg 553.55 “
------- 10,000

(33 ,000)

 

 

 

KNAPP ST

..-“.

 

$33 19,000

(40,000)

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
0'6 Dwelling Units per Acre

HMH DENSTY REQDENUAL

7' IO Dwelling Units per Acre
[:l AGRICULTURAL OR

UNDEVELOPED FRONTAGE

 

I MILE

Figure 5.1 Undeveloped Frontage and Traffic Volumes

LAND USE PLAN

 
  
   
    
      
 
 
       
  
 
    
   
   

TI; 523£LE0NARD ST

10,000

5? BRADFORD ST

(30,000)

25,000

(30,000)

33${FULT0N ST

20,000 a'fl‘ CASCADE RD

(30,200)

28,000

(52,000)

 

OUTER DR. ékf
22,000 ”I“ an-,
“- I'IIIII iII'III EASTBROOK
(45,000) 'NH '$h
I'l
ID 28TH St
mfi; huh

      
 

   

 

i j PUBUC,SEMIPUBUC

Egg OFHCE

III'
0“: COMMEROAL
EXISTING

./\ TRAFFIC VOLUMES

(PROJECTED)

Base Map Prepared by the
West Michigan Regional
Planning Commission

 

Li

SIT

 

CHAPTER FIVE: FOOTNOTES

Estimates Of 1980 and 2010 population and dwelling unit
numbers were developed by the West Michigan Regional
Planning Commission. The data listed in Table 5.7
represent those totals for the land use areas (technically

referred to as "traffic analysis zones") which abutt the
East Beltline roadway on each side.

114

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Anticipated growth along the East Beltline, as evidenced by
projected increases in population and dwelling units and the
presence Of undeveloped and underdeveloped frontage, re-enfOrces
the need for a comprehensive access management program for the
corridor. The essential elements Of an effective program consist
Of: (1) the understanding by local Officials for the interrela—
tionship between land use and transportation planning; (2) the
adoption of local land use controls intended to protect the
functional integrity Of major transportation thoroughfares;

(3) a coordinated effort between neighboring corridor communities
to establish compatible land use development patterns; and

(4) procedures in place tO review land use proposals by local
Officials in cooperation with highway Officials who have the
authority to issue driveway permits, with approval contingent
upon the proposals' consistency with a uniform collection Of

access management guidelines.

The history Of coordinated planning, and policies toward the
reconstruction Of the East Beltline, gives evidence to the con-
clusion that corridor communities have made significant gains
toward the establishment of a comprehensive acceSs management
program. The creation Of the East Beltline Association and com-
munity participation in the East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board
reflects the area's understanding for the interrelationship be-

tween land use and transportation planning and need to establish

115

116

compatible land use patterns. Further evidence for the estab—
lishment Of a comprehensive access management program is prO-
vided by an investigation Of each community's land use controls.
In each jurisdiction, recent land use controls are attempting

to limit the density of development and discourage strip com-
mercial uses. In several instances, ordinances address access
control directly by specifying the location Of access points

for certain areas and requiring that deve10pments shall.be modi-
fied 0r disapproved if they cause an adverse impact on the East
Beltline. Finally, each corridor community has established, or
is in the process Of establishing, site plan review procedures
which provide the Opportunity to exercise access management con-

trols.

The elements which remain lacking for the establishment of a
comprehensive access management program are the early involve-
ment Of state highway Officials in the site plan review processes
and a uniform collection Of access management guidelines. Typi-
cally, state highway Officials are involved after the local
decision has been made to grant a land use change and the approval
of a site plan is given. When state highway Officials receive

a request for a driveway permit, there is only the Opportunity

to ensure that the design Of the driveway is consistent with
state regulations. There is generally little Opportunity, nor
guidelines to follow, which affect the location of these drive-
ways in relation to: other driveways, median Openings, corner

clearance, sight distance, or Opportunities for alternative access.

117

While the communities Of the East Beltline corridor have made
significant progress toward the establishment Of a comprehen-
sive access management program, more needs to be done to involve
state highway Officials in local land use review and approval
processes. Up to now, communities have attempted to limit the
intensity Of corridor development tO low traffic generating-
land uses. Also, access to these uses has only been considered
on a parcel by parcel basis according tO the driveway design
standards established by the Michigan Department of Transporta—
tion. As the corridor becomes more fully developed, and in-
filling and redevelopment occurs, it will become more critical
to control the location Of driveways. In essence, there should
be greater emphasis placed on restricting direct access in favor

of indirect and/or shared access to the East Beltline.

Restricting direct access is an apprOpriate exercise Of the
police power, so far as an abutter retains reasonable access to
his property, to fulfill its highest and best use. It is within
the authority Of local Officals tO adopt land use plans and
establish regulatory controls which control access to major
arterials in the interest Of protecting the public's investment
in that roadway and the safety Of travel upon it. It has been
demonstrated by many researchers that controlling access can
have an absolute impact in reducing accident frequency and the

prolonged life of a facility to accommodate travel demands.

118

6.2 SITE PLAN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION

TO complete the establishment Of a comprehensive access manage-
ment program, each community should require site plan review
for all deve10pments along the East Beltline corridor, with the
exception Of single family residences. These review procedures
should involve the participation Of the Michigan Department Of
Transportation and other corridor community representatives

to ensure that the proposed use is consistent with the East
Beltline Land Use Plan and the recommended access management

guidelines contained in Section 6.3.

The most appropriate forum for this element Of each community's
site review process is the East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board.
Applicants should be required to submit preliminary site plans
to the Zoning Advisory Board, prior to their scheduled approval
by the individual planning commissions. The bylaws Of the East
Beltline Zoning Advisory Board should be amended to include a
representative Of the Michigan Department Of Transportation.

As they exist now, the review and subsequent recommendations Of
the Zoning Advisory Board would be only advisory, and approval
Of the site plan would not be contingent upon the approval Of

the Zoning Advisory Board.

The review Of site plans by the East Beltline Zoning Advisory
Board would accomplish the following three Objectives toward the

establishment Of a comprehensive access management program.

119

Enhanced coordination between corridor communities

tO establish compatible land use patterns consistent
with the East Beltline Land Use Plan.

Early involvement Of the Michigan Department Of Trans-
portation in the layout Of land use deve10pment in
order to Optimize the design and location Of access
points.

Provision Of professional access control recommenda-
tions to local Officials to ensure that their land
use decisions will not threaten the functional in-

tegrity Of the East Beltline.

The following list Of criteria should be adOpted by the East

Beltline Zoning Advisory Board for their review of submitted

site plans.

1.

Does the design of the internal circulation pattern of
the site plan allow for all vehicle movement to take
place on-site and not encroach Of the adjacent road—
way Or driveway lanes?

Are the dimensions of the driveway(s) design adequate
for the types Of vehicles that are anticipated to use
it on a daily basis according to a desired speed?
(Refer to Section 6.3; subsections: 2.1—2.5, 3.1-3.2,
4.1—4.5 and 5.1-5.2)

Is the location Of the driveway(s) consistent with the
adequate spacing and location criteria? (Refer to

Section 6.4; subsections: 7.1-7.5)

120

Is the number and angle Of driveways appropriate for the
intended use? (Refer to Section 6.3; subsections: 1.1—
1.7, 5.1—5.2)

Is there a need for a right turn lane on the main road-
way tO handle entering traffic? (Refer to Section 6.3;
subsections: 6.1-6.4) I

Are alternative means Of access available either through
collector streets, frontage roads, or shared access

driveways?

6.3 RECOMMENDED ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

6.3.1 DIRECT ACCESS DRIVEWAYS

1.1

1.4

At no time shall a parcel be denied reasonable access
to the East Beltline.

A maximum Of one (1) driveway shall be provided to

an individual parcel or to a contiguous parcel under
the same ownership from the East Beltline only when

the property in question has no other reasonable access
to another abutting street or access road.

Temporary direct access to the East Beltline may be
granted in instances where access roads or adjoining
parcels are not yet developed. A temporary driveway
permit shall specify the future means Of access, loca-
tion if known, and date the change will be made.

NO additional driveways shall be provided upon the
dividing of parcels with an existing driveway(s) unless
anticipated traffic volume meet the warrants listed

in 1.5 below.

1.5

121
A parcel may be granted an additional driveway when
driveway traffic volumes are projected to be more
than 5,000 vehicles per day and/or anticipated to
cause traffic congestion during the morning or
afternoon peak hour Of roadway travel. Traffic
projections and peak hour analysis shall be based
on a professional traffic study and accepted trip
generation rates.
NO more than two and three driveways shall be per-
mitted for parcels with frontages Of 300 and 600
feet respectively. For parcels with inadequate
frontage, applicants seeking an additional driveway(s)
should attempt a shared driveway arrangement with
adjoining properties.
Where shared-access driveway arrangements are in-
tended, it is desirable but not required that these

driveways be bisected by the mutual prOperty line.

6.3.2 DRIVEWAY DESIGN STANDARDS

2.1

Any driveway design utilized must allow an entering
vehicle to complete its access maneuver at a speed

Of at least 10 mph.

The standards listed here shall apply to all drive-
way permit requests unless the zoning administrator

in consultation with a traffic engineer determines
that another dimension is more suitable for a particu—
lar site or special condition and is approved by the

Michigan Department Of Transportation.

2.

2.

122

Unless otherwise noted, the following standards shall

apply to two—way "T” styled driveways.

Two-and One—Way Driveway Width, Radii, and Offset

2.41

2.46

Width shall be measured parallel to the center-
line Of the roadway at the end Of the return
radius nearest the property line.

Two—way residential driveways shall have a
width Of 15 to 20 feet, return radius Of 15 to
20 feet and Offset Of at least 4 feet.

Two-way commercial driveways shall have a width
Of 30 to 40 feet, return radii Of 25 to 40

feet and Offset Of at least 10 feet.

Two-way driveways serving semi-trailers and/0r
single unit vehicles exceeding 30 feet on a
daily basis shall have a width Of 40 to 50 feet,
return radii of 30 to 50 feet and Offset Of at
least 10 feet.

One-way commercial driveways shall have a width
Of 15 tO 20 feet, return radii Of 25 to 40 feet
and Offset Of at least 10 feet.

One-way driveways serving semi-trailers and/or
single unit vehicles exceeding 30 feet on a
daily basis shall have a width of 20 to 25 feet,
return radii Of 30 to 50 feet and Offset Of at

least 10 feet.

Divided Driveway, Width, Radii and Offset

2.51

Divided two-way driveways serving commercial

land uses shall be permitted when traffic

.52

.53

123

volumes are anticipated to exceed 100 Vph during
the afternoon peak hour of travel.

Divided driveways shall have a curbed island
separating the entrance and exit drives with

a width Of 10 to 30 feet and length Of 20 to
150 feet. .
Divided commercial driveways shall have drive-
way lane widths Of 15 tO 20 feet, radii Of 30
to 50 feet and Offset Of at least 10 feet.
Divided driveways serving semi-trailers and/or
single unit vehicles exceeding 30 feet on a
daily basis shall have lane widths Of 20 to 25
feet, return radii Of 30 to 50 feet and offset

Of at least 10 feet.

6.3.3 DRIVEWAY PROFILE

3.1

For curbed and uncurbed highways where the sidewalk

is more than 10 feet from the edge of pavement, or

if there is no sidewalk, driveway profile shall be

determined by the following criteria.

3.11 The grade Of a two-way, one-way, or divided

3.

12

driveway (commercial and industrial) shall not
exceed 1.5% for a minimum distance Of 25 feet
from the edge Of pavement unless otherwise noted
in sections 3.11 or 3.12. Beyond the first 25
feet, the grade shall not exceed 8%.

Where driveway traffic volumes are anticipated

to be greater than 100 vehicles during the

124
afternoon peak hour Of travel the grade Of a
driveway shall not exceed 3% for a minimum dis-
tance Of 40 feet from the edge Of pavement.
Beyond this distance, the grade shall not
change 6%.

3.13 For driveways serving a single family residence
or field entrance, grade should not exceed 3%
for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the edge
Of pavement.

3.14 If the highway is 'uncurbed, the grade Of the
driveway between the highway edge Of pavement
and the edge Of the shoulder shall conform to
the lepe Of the shoulder.

If the highway is curbed and a sidewalk is 10 feet

or less from the edge Of pavement, the grade of a

driveway shall be the grade required to meet the

sidewalk elevation; but if that grade would exceed
the maximums specified in 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13, the

sidewalk shall be tilted or inclined.

6.3.4 DRIVEWAY SURFACE AND CURBING

4.1

The surface of a paved driveway, excluding right turn
lanes, shall be concrete, bituminous or equivalent
surface material. The thickness Of the surface and
the base to be used shall be sufficient to provide
the bearing capacity needed to carry the proposed
traffic loads. A 2% inch, 250 pounds per square yard

bituminous mix Of 8 inches Of unreinforced concrete or

125

equivalent surfacing material which meets current

MDOT Standard Specifications for Highway Construction

is acceptable for normal driveway traffic loads over

stable soil.

The driveway curb shall either match the existing

highway curb or shall conform to MDOT standards for

curb and gutter.

Driveway surfacing and curbing shall extend from the

edge Of roadway pavement; to end Of driveway radii

curvature, to the edge Of an existing or prOposed
sidewalk, or to the end Of the roadway right—Of—way,
whichever is greatest.

If the roadway is curbed, the following driveway

surfacing and curbing requirements apply:

4.41 A driveway serving a single residential use
shall be paved and curbed. If there is no
existing or prOposed sidewalk, surfacing and
curbing shall extend at least 10 feet from
the edge Of the roadway pavement.

4.42 A driveway serving a multifamily, commercial, or
industrial use shall be paved and curbed for a
distance Of at least 50 feet.

If the roadway is uncurbed, the following driveway

surfacing and curbing requirements apply:

4.51 A driveway serving a single residential use may
be paved or surfaced with stabilized gravel and

may be curbed or uncurbed.

126

4.52 A driveway serving a multi—family, commercial,
or industrial use shall be paved and curbed
for at least 50 feet. NO curbing may be required
where a proper ditch and other adequate road-

side control Or delineation can be demonstrated.

6.3.5 DRIVEWAY ANGLE

5.1

The horizontal angle Of two—way and one-way drive—
ways shall be at a right angle (90°) to the center—
lane Of the highway and extend at least 40 feet from
the edge Of pavement.

An exterior horizontal angle Of between 900 and 1200
is acceptable for undivided driveways when warranted
by physical constraints, site design features, or
where higher driveway speeds are desirable. Divided
driveways may have exterior horizontal angles Of be-

tween 900 and 1050.

6.3.6 RIGHT TURN LANES

6.1

6.2

Alright'turn lane and taper shall be required for
driveways with anticipated right-turn inbound traffic
volumes in excess Of 40 vehicles during the hours Of
4:00 PM and 6:00 PM.Or 1000 vehicles per day.

Where right turn lanes are not required, there shall
be an entering taper Of 150 feet to an Offset Of at
least 10 feet to the driveway(s).

Where right turn lanes are required, there shall be

127

an entering taper Of 50 feet to a lane width of 12
feet. The length Of the deceleration lane shall

be at least 100 feet from the end of the entering
taper to the beginning Of the driveway return radius.
The pavement and lepe of the right turn lane shall
be determined by the Michigan Department Of Trans-

portation.

6.3.7 DRIVEWAY LOCATION

7.1

Where safe sight distances cannot be established
according to the following criteria, alternative
means Of access must be sought, such as shared drive-
ways Or access to a collector or frontage road.

7.11 Driveways shall be placed where safe sight
distances can be maintained between the drive-
way and vehicles approaching from through lanes.
Safe sight distance shall be measured from a
point 15 feet from the edge Of highway pave—
ment, or edge Of an extended right-turn lane,
along the centerline Of the driveway.

7.12 anhighway grades Of 0 to :3 percent, sight
distances shall be 620 feet tO the left and
700 feet tO the right Of a driveway to the
center Of approaching travel lanes.

7.13 For driveways frequented by semi-trailer trucks
along highway grades Of 0 to 3 percent, sight

distances shall be 1600 feet to the left and

128

1600 feet to the right Of a driveway to the
center Of approaching travel lanes.

7.14 Where grades are greater than :3 percent, the
following adjustment factors shall be multi—
plied by the appropriate sight distance as

determined by the criteria listed in 7.12 or

7.13.
Adjustment Factors
Grade Change for
(percent) Up-grade Down-grade
3-4 1.4 0.6
5-6 1.7 0.5

6.3.8 SPACING OF DRIVEWAYS
(Spacing shall be measured from the centerline Of each

8.1

8.

8.

.2

3

4

driveway)

A driveway serving a multi-family, commercial or
industrial use shall be Spaced at least 275 feet
from another driveway serving the same or similar
use.

A driveway serving a single residential use shall be
spaced at least 100 feet from all other driveways.

A driveway shall not be constructed along taper Of a
right turn lane or the acceleration or deceleration
lane and taper connecting to an interchange ramp
terminal.

A driveway's placement shall be determined by the
following criteria if it is to be located near an

intersecting street.

129

1) If the intersecting street is curbed, the
point Of curvature Of the driveway along the
highway shall be at least 105 feet from the
point Of curvature Of the intersection street
radius.

2) If the intersection street is uncurbed, the
point Of curvature Of the driveway along the
highway shall be at least 135 feet from the
intersecting street's edge Of pavement.

3) At no time shall a driveway be located in the
clear vision area Of an intersection as estab-
lished by the Michigan Department Of Transporta—

tion.

6.4 COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS

Each community should continue its active involvement in the
East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board and should amend its site
plan review procedures to require that all land use development
proposals, with the exception Of single family residences, be
reviewed for access control recommendations by the Board. Each
Board member. should become thoroughly familiar with the content
Of this thesis, especially the guidelines for access management

as preparation for those reviews.

6.4.1 PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP
Plainfield Township Officials have made significant gains to

control access through their planning and land use controls,

130

especially in the requirements of their subdivision ordinance

and site plan review. Large areas Of undeveloped and agricul-
tural frontage exist along the East Beltline, which are desig-
nated for future multi-family, PUD, and single family residen-
tial uses. These designations should continue, and commercial
uses should be discouraged. Where possible, new developments

should be required to have alternative access via Weber Avenue,

Five Mile Road, and Four Mile Road.

6.4.2 GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP

With the most underdevelOped frontage in the corridor, Grand
Rapids Township Officials will have a large impact on access
control to the East Beltline. Their plans and ordinances re-
flect their appreciation of the need to limit access, and that
should not diminish. For deve10pment that are more intensive
than single family uses, planned unit deve10pments should be
allowed toward the Objective Of minimizing the number Of addi-
tional driveways. The Township's intention for alternative
access at major cross streets should be stressed for new develop-
ment proposals. For the area zoned commercial along the east
side Of the East Beltline between Leonard and Bradford Streets,
a frontage road should be established with primary access tO

these cross streets.

6.4.3 GRAND RAPIDS
The City Of Grand Rapids should adopt a site plan review process

and require its exercise for all land use changes along the East

131
Beltline, with the exception Of only single family residential
uses, regardless Of whether a previous use existed. Revisions
of the City's land use planning documents along the East Belt-
line have designated more areas for special residential uses (SR).
This designation is particularly encouraging for access control
due to the fact that large scale mixed use developments are
allowed. Special residential uses should be encouraged at the
City's major undeveloped areas. In particular, alternative
access to cross streets could be required near the intersections
Of the East Beltline with: Leonard Street, Michigan Street,
Fulton Street, and Lake Drive. Alternative means Of access also
exist for the undeveloped parcel south Of Burton Street, since
it is bounded to the north and south by small collector streets.
Shared access driveways would be beneficial for the undeveloped
parcels along the east side Of the East Beltline south Of Lake
Drive. Their short frontage distances and locations Of existing
driveways will make adequate spacing Of future driveways diffi-
cult. The City should attempt to consolidate some Of the drive-
ways to the free-standing commercial uses south Of Eastbrook

Drive if any redevelopment occurs in this area.

6.4.4 KENTWOOD

Like Grand Rapids and Plainfield Townships,the City Of Kentwood
has established measures tO include access management in their
zoning ordinance and site plan review procedures. The review Of
current land uses, despite the fact that these uses are commer-

cial, demonstrates that access control has been exercised.

132
Shared access and collector streets serve most of the develOp—
ment in this area. Any redevelopment Of these uses should not
allow additional driveways, since those which exist are adequate

and well spaced.

6.5 ACCESS MANAGEMENT ILLUSTRATION

This thesis has promoted access management as an effective means
Of preserving the functional ability Of major transportation
corridors to satisfy through traffic mobility while protecting
the rights Of prOperty owners to reasonable roadway access.
Numerous access design and performance standards have been
recommended in such a manner as to provide criteria for site
plan review by local Officials. Also, a greater degree Of co-
ordination between state and local Officials with developers

has been recommended as a requisite to effective access manage-

ment.

TO gain a greater level Of appreciation for the utility Of these
recommendations, it would be useful to illustrate two develop-
ment situations where access management is being exercised along

the East Beltline.

The first situation involves the proposed construction Of a
human services deve10pment near two existing Office buildings
at the southeast corner Of the East Beltline and Lake Drive.
After it was originally prOposed, the Grand Rapids city plan—

ner in consultation with the East Beltline Zoning Advisory

133

Board, found that the introduction of another driveway, at the
land owner's southern—most easement to the roadway, would re—
sult in inadequate spacing between that driveway and those
serving the two existing Office buildings. TO ameliorate this
situation, the Board recommended to the City Planning Commission,
after extensive negotiation with the land owner, that the site
plan be modified to require the land owner establish his drive-
way at his northern-most easement to the roadway and thus allow

for adequate spacing between all driveways in this section.

A second situation involves the potential rezoning and redevelOp-
ment Of several existing single-family prOperties to commercial/
Office uses at the northwest corner of the East Beltline and
Leonard Street. One attempt to have these properties rezoned
failed, in part due to the Board's conclusion that this re-
zoning could potentially intensify land use to the point that
high traffic volumes using existing driveways would threaten
motorist safety in the area. Since no site plan accompanied
this rezoning request, their was no evidence that driveway con—
solidation would occur in order to prOperly manage access to

and from the uses that might be created. After this rezoning
was denied by the Planning Commission, the city planner and
Board have considered more positively a concept to redevelOp
these single family properties to commercial uses; which however,
features a common frontage road to collect traffic and dispense
it at two major driveways, one on the East Beltline, and the

second on Leonard Street.

134

In conclusion, these two situations illustrate the need for
access management standards as a basis for making further site
plan review recommendations. They also reflect the commitment
local Officials have tO properly manage the access needs Of
corridor land use development. This thesis has been prepared
with those two ideals in mind and will greatly benefit its

author as an urban planner.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

The following Resolution and Memorandum Of Understanding is
Offered in view Of the need for cooperative and coordinated
effort on the part Of the local governments in the East Belt-
line Avenue study area. It is strongly urged that this memo-
randum be used as the first step toward an areawide commitment
and that it be reviewed by the respective attorneys and modi-

fied, if necessary.

Resolution

WHEREAS, the 1, located at , Kent

 

County, Michigan,has reviewed the plans Of the East Beltline

Association for the improvement Of this roadway; and

WHEREAS, the 1 recognizes the need to implement

 

a controlled land use development in the interests Of all

parties; and

WHEREAS, the 1 has reviewed the attached Memorandum

 

Of Understanding which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1
hereby adopts the said Memorandum Of Understanding as a policy

document and instructs the staff and affected Boards and Commis—

sions Of the 2 to implement the provisions

 

thereof.

135

136

Adopted this day or , 1972.

 

,Yeas:

 

Nays:

 

Memorandum Of Understanding

In furthering the Objectives Of the East Beltline Association,
which seeks to -—
"Promote the reconstruction Of the East Beltline as soon
as possible from Plainfield Avenue tO 60th Street with an
adequate highway, and encourage proper planned deve10pment
.Of the adjacent areas,"

the 1, which is a part Of the East Beltline

 

Avenue planning area (comprised Of the Cities Of East Grand
Rapids, Grand Rapids, and Kentwood, the Townships Of Grand
Rapids and Plainfield, and the County Of Kent), jointly and
mutually agree to participate in a comprehensive, cooperative,
and continuing planning process for the East Beltline planning

area.

For purposes Of this memo, the planning area is defined as:
660 feet on both sides Of the centerline Of the East
Beltline (M—44 and M—37) from the Grand River to 60th

Street.

Parties tO this agreement recognize that the comprehensive
character Of the planning process requires an inventory, analysis,

and continual updating Of the following basic elements as they

137
pertain to future development activity:
.1) land use
2) development proposals
3) pOpulation
4) economic factors
5) natural features
6) public utilities
7) traffic volumes and travel patterns
8) traffic control facilities
9) financial resources
10) state and federal grant programs

11) codes, ordinances, and regulations

The parties to this Memorandum Of Understanding agree that they
will not authorize rezoning or new Planned Unit DevelOpment

or other major projects in the planning area unless and until
they have met jointly and discussed the impact Of the proposal ——
favorable or unfavorable —— on the future deve10pment Of the

East Beltline.

Signatures to this Memorandum Of Understanding jointly and
mutually atree to participate in this Comprehensive Planning

Program.

 

(city or township)

 

(Mayor or Township Supervisor)

Attest:

 

138

1Insert name Of governing body Of the city or township

2Insert city or township

APPENDIX B
EAST BELTLINE LAND USE CATEGORIES

Low DensityiResidential: This category includes all types of

 

single family detached residential deve10pment. Such residen-
tial development might take place on a variety of lot sizes,
depending upon the requirements Of the local municipality.
Related uses which are generlly allowed in single family resi-
dential areas would also be included in this category. Du-
plexes are also considered to be low density residential uses
and would be considered apprOpriate in the this category, if
permitted by the zoning ordinance Of the local unit Of govern—

ment.

Multiple Family Residential: This category includes townhouses.

 

(attached single family dwellings), apartments and all other
types of multiple family uses, such as quadraplexes and condo-
miniums. The apprOpriate densities would range generally from
7 units per acre to 15 units per acre. The uses in this cate—
gory are locally regulated by a variety of densities, some
determined by net acreage and some by gross acreage, and so the
particular density requiremnts Of each jurisdiction, within

above recommended range, would be the determining factor.

Public and Semi-Public: This category includes all types Of

uses which are carried out either by units of government or

139

140
nonprofit institutions such as churches, public schools and
colleges. The public use category also includes governmental
Offices and Open land maintained for recreational or park
purposes. Buildings owned and used by the schools and colleges

along the East Beltline are included in this category.

Office: This category includes all types Of executive, ad-
ministrative and professional Offices. Depending upon the
zoning provisions Of each local government, financial institu-
tions such as banks and credit unions would also be considered
appropriate. The category does not include any use which
would involve retail sales. Personal service establishments
would be included in the category if such uses are ancillary

to an Office development and are intended to serve the same.

Commercial: This category includes all types of commercial

 

uses occurring within an enclosed building. Various types

Of retail sales which are partially outside a building, such

as nursery and produce sales, are also considered apprOpriate.
Other commercial activities such as restaurants, motels and
motions picture theaters, in addition to retail sales, are also

included.

Industrial: This category includes all types Of industrial uses

 

such as light manufacturing, warehousing, fabrication and re-
lated office uses. The category also includes all Operations
commonly included in industrial activities, such as the assembly

and finishing associated with the production of a product.

141

Retail sales are not included in this category.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

10.

11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. 1979. Arterial Driveway
Access Guidelines for Glendale Heights. Prepared for the
Village of Glendale Heights, Illinois. Evanston, Illinois.

 

Bochner, Brian. 1978. "Regulations Of Driveway Access tO
Arterial Streets.” Public Works. Volume 109, Number 10.

 

Box, Paul C. 1970. "Driveways." Traffic Control and
Roadway Elements: Their Relationship to Highway Safety
gRevised). ed. Peter A. Mayer. Highway Users Federation
for Safety and Mobility.

 

East Beltline Zoning Advisory Board. 1978. A Land Use
Plan for the East Beltline, Kent Countyl Michigan. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: East Beltline Association.

 

East Grand Rapids City Commission. 1984. A Comprehensive
Plan East Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Prepared
with the assistance Of Williams and Works, Inc.

 

Flora, John W. and Keitt, Kenneth M. 1982. Access Manage-
ment for Streets and Highways. Springfield: National
Technical Information Service. Report Number FHWA-IP-82-3.

 

 

Glennon, John C. and Azzeh, James A. 1976. "Access Control
on Arterial Highways." Transportation Engineering Journal.
Volume 1.

Grand Rapids City Commission. 1984. Grand Rapids City
Code Chapter 61 Zoning. Grand Rapids, Michigan: City Of

 

Grand Rapids.

Grand Rapids City Planning Commission. 1984. "Draft Site
Plan Review Article 26." Unpublished report. Grand Rapids,
Michigan. City Of Grand Rapids.

Grand Rapids City Planning Commission. 1963. Master Plan
City Of Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, Michigan: City Of
Grand Rapids. Land Use Map.

Grand Rapids City Planning Commission. 1984. Northeast
Area Land Use Plan Amendment to the Master Plan Of the
City Of Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

 

142

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

143

Grand Rapids Township Planning Commission. 1977. Grand
Rapids Township Kent County, Michiggn A Comprehensive

, Land Use Plan. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Prepared with

 

the assistance Of Williams and Works, Inc.

Grand Rapids Township Board Of Commissioners. 1977.
Zoningrdinance Of the Township Of Grand Rapids, Kent
CountyyMichiggp. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids
Township.

 

Institute of Traffic Engineers. 1975. Guidelines for
Driveway Design and Location. An Institute Of Traffic
Engineers Recommended Practice. Washington, D.C.:
Institute Of Traffic Engineers.

Institute Of Traffic Engineers. 1979. Trip Generation.
Arlington, Virginia. Institute Of Traffic Engineers.

Kentwood City Commission. 1980. Land Use Plan City Of
Kentwood, Michigan. Kentwood, Michigan: City Of Kent-
wood. Land Use Map.

 

Kentwood City Commission. 1980. Zoninngrdinance City
Of Kentwood Ordinance NO. 17-80. Kentwood, Michigan: City
of Kentwood.

Marks, Harold and Spitz, Salem. 1966. "A Review Of
Transportation Aspects Of Land Use Control." National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 31. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Highway Research Board.

Michigan Department Of Transportation. 1980. Administra-
tion Rules Regulatin Drivewaysi Banners and Parades On
and Over Highwayg. Lansing, Michigan: Secretary Of State.

 

 

Michigan Department of Transportation. 1973. "Improve-
ment Of M—37/44 The East Beltline." Engineeripg Report
1832. Lansing, Michigan: Route Location Division.
Michigan Department Of Transportation.

Nellett, Richard. 1982. "Access Control." Mimeographed.
Lansing, Michigan: Multi-Regional Planning Division,
Michigan Department of Transportation.

Plainfield Township Board Of Commissioners. 1975. Compre-
hensive Plan A Guide to Growth. Belmont, Michigan: Plain-
field Township.

Plainfield Township Board Of Commissioners. 1982. Plain-
field Charter Twonship ZoningiOrdinance. Belmont, Michigan:
Plainfield Township.

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

144

Plainfield Township Board Of Commissioners. 1972. Plain-
iield TownspipSubdivision Ordinance. Belmont, Michigan:
Plainfield Township.

Reese, H.B. 1953. "Legal Aspects Of Limiting Highway
Access." Highway Research Bulletin Number 77.

 

Stover, Vergil G.; Adkins, William G.; and Goodnight,

John C. 1970. "Guidelines for Medial and Marginal Access
Control on Major Roadways." National Copperative Highway
Research Program Report 93. Washington, D.C.: Highway
Research Board.

 

 

Thomas, Larry W. 1979. "Legal Implications Of Control Of
Access to Uncontrolled-Access Highways." Research Results
Digest. Number 112.

U.S. Department Of Transportation. 1971. Manual for
gpiform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways.
Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department Of Transportation.

 

WBDC, Inc. 1982. The 28th Street Study. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: WBDC, Inc.

 

Williams and Works, Inc. 1972. East Beltline Avenue
A Plan for Land Uses and Roadway Treatment. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Williams and Works, Inc.

 

Zeiring, A.E. 1979. "Highway Access Management: Pre-
serving Public Investment in the Highway Network." Pre-
sented at the 59th Annual Meeting Of the Transportation
Research Board. Washington, D.C.