The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBUCKING HORSE FILING TWO - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2014-08-041\� Andrew S. Gingerich From: Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:01 PM To: Ward Stanford; Nick Haws Cc: Sheri Langenberger; Andrew S. Gingerich; Aaron Iverson; Joe Olson; 'Gino Campana'; 'Matt Delich'; 'Michael P. Delich' Subject: RE: 131-12-Drake Turn Lane Attachments: Drake Turn Lane-300' Storage.pdf Hi Ward, I think I can help to explain our rationale for the currently proposed design. I have attached an exhibit that shows our currently proposed layout in dark gray, with a 300' storage bay option overlaid in red. To quickly summarize, our proposed design sought to match the existing sidewalk and right of way as much as possible. This also prevented the need to remove any existing trees. This geometry also provides (or comes very near to) meeting the taper requirements of Figure 8-5. In short, we can simply make our saw cut along the existing bike lane, build the new curb from A to B, and pave the new lane. When you increase the turn bay storage much beyond what we currently propose, there are a host of issues that develop. In the scenario with a 300' storage bay, we are forced to remove 7 trees, relocate the existing bus stop, demolish and rebuild several hundred feet of sidewalk. We also must acquire approximately 3600 sf of additional ROW from the Sidehill Condominiums. That additional ROW would be taken from their existing detention pond, and the resulting encroachment would force the relocation of the existing outlet structure, removal and reconstruction of a private sidewalk, the removal and relocation of portions of private fencing, and would likely require the construction of retaining walls along the sidewalk to account for the lost detention volume in the pond itself. I think that refinements to my quick layout could be made that would lessen the impacts somewhat, but anything beyond what our current design calls for would have these issues to some degree or another. I hope that helps to provide some clarification on our limitations out there. Let me know what you think. Sincerely, Andy Reese Project Engineer Northern Engineering Direct: 970.568.5403 Office: 970.221.4158 andy@northernengineering.com From: Ward Stanford [mailto:WSTANFORD@fcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:08 PM To: Nick Haws Cc: Sheri Langenberger; Andrew S. Gingerich; Aaron Iverson; Joe Olson; Andy Reese; 'Gino Campana'; 'Matt Delich'; 'Michael P. Delich' Subject: RE: 131-12-Drake Turn Lane Nick, thanks for the thoughts behind the design. I agree with you on the lane not needing to extend thru Illinois. I'm in favor with maximizing the right turn lane storage (which also assists in thru traffic not blocking entry into the turn lane) and minimizing the decal length and taper. Since traffic volumes are desiring 300' of storage and the plan only shows 145', what are the existing infrastructure items restraining the design from providing more of the 300' of storage? Thanks, Ward Stanford Traffic Systems Engineer City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations off: 970-221-6820 fax: 970-221-6282 wstanford@fcgov.com From: Nick Haws [mailto:nick@northernengineering.com] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:58 AM To: Ward Stanford Cc: Sheri Langenberger; Andrew S. Gingerich; Aaron Iverson; Joe Olson; Andy Reese; Gino Campana; Matt Delich; Michael P. Delich Subject: RE: 131-12-Drake Turn Lane Ward, The design shown reflects consultation with Delich Associates. According to LCUASS, right -turn lanes at signalized intersections should provide storage and deceleration. The storage is based upon the long range right -turning forecast (365/265, from the TIS). Those volumes would require storage alone at —300 feet. The deceleration component is based upon the design speed (50 mph) and would result in a length of 435 feet, including bay taper. The total would be —735 feet long. That length would be through the Illinois Drive intersection. Delich Associates did not believe that was not a reasonable approach, and we concur. It was decided to maximize the right turn lane, while causing minimal disturbance to the existing infrastructure. It is understood that the proposed design will not meet LCUASS to the "T," and that a variance will be required. We wanted to get the information out for initial review prior to preparing the variance request to help further vet the design. The thought is that the variance request can follow as final documentation once all parties agree on the design. Perhaps our team can get together with you and other City departments of interest once you've had a chance to further digest the proposed design? Thanks, Nick Haws, PE, LEED AP NORTHERN ENGINEERING From: Andy Reese Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:25 AM To: Ward Stanford Cc: Sheri Langenberger; Andrew S. Gingerich; Aaron Iverson; Joe Olson; Nick Haws Subject: RE: 131-12-Drake Turn Lane Hi Ward, Thanks for the response. Let me touch base with our traffic engineer (Mike Delich) and get back to you. Thanks, Andy Reese Project Engineer Northern Engineering Direct: 970.568.5403 Office: 970.221.4158 aridy_C�)_iiorthernengineering.com From: Ward Stanford [mailto:WSTANFORDC-afcgov.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:40 PM To: Andy Reese Cc: Sheri Langenberger; Andrew S. Gingerich; Aaron Iverson; Joe Olson Subject: RE: BH2-Drake Turn Lane Andy, I'm booked up today but I'm currently open Friday between 12 and 3:30 My first question would be is the design of the turn lane based upon right turn demand analysis from your Traffic Engineer? It needs to be designed with that as the guidance when meeting City design standards. The design provided looks like it may only be matching the left turn lane, but I may be in error with that assumption. Transportation Planning and Development Review Engineering should also be included in the review as this area may be required to have pedestrian refuge in the design. Ward Stanford Traffic Systems Engineer City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations off: 970-221-6820 fax: 970-221-6282 wstanford@fcgov.com From: Andy Reese[mailto:andy(&northernengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 7:51 AM To: Ward Stanford Subject: BH2-Drake Turn Lane Good morning Ward, I have a couple of additional plan sheets for the Bucking Horse -Filing Two that we are hoping to have you review. In particular, the plan sheets provide design information for the westbound right turn lane that is being required at Drake and Timberline. I have attached a pdf containing both files, but I imagine it would help to provide you with a hard copy as well. Is there a time that I can bring these down to you, or can I leave them somewhere for you? Andy Reese Project Engineer Northern Engineering Direct: 970.568.5403 Office: 970.221.4158 andy@northernengineering.com Andrew S. Gingerich From: Craig Foreman Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:55 AM To: Andrew S. Gingerich Subject: RE: Bucking Horse Neighborhood Park D.A. Andrew: We have not done a parking sharing before. But several trail cost shares. Recently the McClellands Creek project by Zach Elementary. Craig From: Andrew S. Gingerich Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:53 AM To: Craig Foreman Cc: Bill Whirty; Marc Rademacher; Eileen Scholl; Dawna Gorkowski Subject: RE: Bucking Horse Neighborhood Park D.A. Have you done parking stall cost share and/or trail reimbursements back to the developer on any other projects? If you have and can remember the names of the projects than I am interested in grabbing those development agreements and trying to use similar language for this Bucking Horse Development Agreement. hanks, Andrew S. Gingerich, P.E. Phone: 970.22�i..66og agingerichnfegov.com From: Craig Foreman Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:03 PM To: Andrew S. Gingerich Cc: Bill Whirty; Marc Rademacher; Eileen Scholl; Dawna Gorkowski Subject: Bucking Horse Neighborhood Park D.A. Andrew: The Bucking Horse development ( in the old Sidehill Development) will have a parking lot (about 30 stalls) for their farm area. This parking lot will be located adjacent to our neighborhood park site. Since we will likely have park users parking in the parking lot I believe a bit of a cost share of the parking lot is appropriate. The proposal is for the City to fund the construction cost of 10 stalls adjacent to the park boundary. This will meet our Code requirement if we ever wanted to do some sports programming at the park site. Also, long term the cost sharing of maintenance/repair/replacement at a 50% City share for the 10 stalls funded by the City. Beyond the 10 stalls the City will have no responsibility related to the parking lot. I'd like to have the Development Agreement contain the language about this agreement. Do you need any more information from me to start this out? Thanks. Craig t Craig Foreman From: Andrew S. Gingerich Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:17 PM To: Craig Foreman Cc: Sheri Langenberger; Paul Eckman Subject: RE: Bucking Horse Neighborhood Park D.A. Craig, See below where I have taken a shot at putting together some language for the parking stalls and trail reimbursements you had discussed with the applicant of Bucking Horse Filing Two. I was unclear if you were anticipating taking the maintenance responsibilities for the trail within the park or only reimbursing the construction? Please review what I have prepared below and offer any feedback or revisions. We will also need to run this by Paul Eckman for approval as well. E. Parks and Recreation , 10 1. The City w' reimburse the Developer for the construction of 10 parking stalls located in Tract C of the Fi I Development Plan Documents a , Tiaet-B. The amount to b reimbursed shall be agreed upon between the Developer and the City after an engineer's esti to for the cost of the installation of the parking stalls has been provided by the Developer to the ' y. The City agrees to enter into cost sharing of the maintenance, repair and replacement of the arking stalls. The cost share obligation for the maintenance, repair and replacement will be 50% the City and 50% the Developer. The City assumes no other responsibilities related to the parking lot other than the 10 parking stalls described above. 2. The City will reimburse the Developer for the construction of 630 L.F. of trail that exists within Tract B and is adjacent to the northeast park boundary as shown on the Final Development Plan Documents. The amount to be reimbursed shall be agreed upon between the Developer and the City after an engineer's estimate for the cost of the installation of the trail has been provided by the Developer to the City. Thank you, Andrew S. Gingerich, P.E. Phone: 970.221.6603 �gincerichWcgov.com From: Craig Foreman Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:55 AM To: Andrew S. Gingerich Subject: RE: Bucking Horse Neighborhood Park D.A. Andrew: We have not done a parking sharing before. But several trail cost shares. Recently the McClellands Creek project by Zach Elementary. Craig From: Andrew S. Gingerich Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 11:53 AM To: Craig Foreman Cc: Bill Whirty; Marc Rademacher; Eileen Scholl; Dawna Gorkowski Subject: RE: Bucking Horse Neighborhood Park D.A. Craig, Have you done parking stall cost share and/or trail reimbursements back to the developer on any other projects? If you have and can remember the names of the projects than I am interested in grabbing those development agreements and trying to use similar language for this Bucking Horse Development Agreement. Thanks, Andrew S. Gingerich, P.E. Phone: 970.221.6603 agingerichafcgov.com From: Craig Foreman Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:03 PM To: Andrew S. Gingerich Cc: Bill Whirty; Marc Rademacher; Eileen Scholl; Dawna Gorkowski Subject: Bucking Horse Neighborhood Park D.A. Andrew: The Bucking Horse development ( in the old Sidehill Development) will have a parking lot (about 30 stalls) for their farm area. This parking lot will be located adjacent to our neighborhood park site. Since we will likely have park users parking in the parking lot I believe a bit of a cost share of the parking lot is appropriate. The proposal is for the City to fund the construction cost of 10 stalls adjacent to the park boundary. This will meet our Code requirement if we ever wanted to do some sports programming at the park site. Also, long term the cost sharing of maintenance/repair/replacement at a 50% City share for the 10 stalls funded by the City. Beyond the 10 stalls the City will have no responsibility related to the parking lot. I'd like to have the Development Agreement contain the language about this agreement. Do you need any more information from me to start this out? Thanks. Craig