HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS RESIDENCES (4TH FILING) - PDP - 33-10 - CORRESPONDENCE - TRAFFIC STUDY (13)Page 2 of 3
parking, access separated from the building by a detention area, possible ground water issues, etc) and that we
doubt we would ever stripe that area of Avondale with a center turn therefore no real overlapping left turn concern
we've come to terms with accepting the access as shown.
Traffic Ops Comment 91— Remove Utility Information from Street Sheet - I think that I am allowed to grey this
back, but I believe I am required to show the utility information. I will try to make the pertinent road
information clear.
I'm fine with minimizing the utility info on the plan (that's what I should have stated vs. delete) or with providing
separate Signing and Striping plans without the utility info altogether, but I would want the S&S plans with the next
submittal.
Engineering Comment 39 — Driveway intersection angle — I have had driveways approved in the past with a
radius leading into the connection to the street at a 90 degree angle (Seven Generations Office Park — no
variance was required). The red driveways shown on the attached plan are drives intersecting at 10 degrees
from perpendicular and would meet the letter of the law. I would ask that the original driveway layout be
allowed as I think it places the stopped car in a much better position to enter Avondale. Please advise if this is
allowable and if a variance would be required.
Engineering Comment 42 & 56 — Design Avondale, Show Cross Sections every 50' — In the Conceptual Review
Comments, it was stated that we would be allowed to use the previously approved design. We relied on these
comments when scoping the project for the Owner and held the original design in the PDP plans. The 3rd filing
plans did show 1,000' off site plan and profile of the street, but did not show cross sections at 50'. 1 understand
that the plans have expired and would like to propose that Interwest will show final plan, profile, grading and
striping of Avondale in the final plan documents for the construction of the street. We would request that the
City not require the cross sections or the off site design.
Engineering Comment 40 — Escrow for Avondale and Turnaround Removal — I have discussed this item with my
client, and we will need to discuss the funds that were already escrowed for Avondale with the 3rd Filing. The
issue with the old escrow will need to be rectified prior to discussions for this project to escrow additional funds.
There also appear to be quite a few comments that are not required at PDP (phasing, singing and striping,
detailed grading, etc.). Our goal is to provide the cleanest and least cumbersome set of drawings possible to
expedite the project getting to Public Hearing. Please understand that some of the comments will be addressed
by stating that we will show the item with the FCP submittal.
In some cases it may be ok not having the new Signing and Striping information initially but the existing S&S info
should be on the plans from 1 si submittal. That's integral to the review the submittal.
Thanks — please call or email with any questions.
Mike
Michael Oberlander, PE, LEED AP
Interwest Consulting Group
970-674-3300 x102
970-631-2671(cell)
Information contained herein is neither necessarily complete nor accurate. Final stamped and signed documents govern. Use of these
data is solely at the user's risk. By accessing the data contained in these files the user agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend
Interwest Consulting Group, their employees, officers and agents from any and all claims arising from the use of the data.
2/9/2011
Pagel of 3
Steve Olt
From: Ward Stanford
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:30 PM
To: 'Mike Oberlander'; Susan Joy
Cc: Matt Delich; Shannon Robbins; Marc Hendricks; Linda Ripley; Daman Holland; Steve Olt
Subject: RE: Ridgewood Hills 4th Filing - Comment Questions
Hello Mike,
Hope things are off to a good start for you in 2011.
Please see my replies following each of your discussions below.
Ward Stanford
Traffic Systems Engineer
City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations
off:970-221-6820
fax:970-221-6282
From: Mike Oberlander [mailto:moberlander@interwestgrp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:56 AM
To: Susan Joy; Ward Stanford
Cc: Matt Delich; Shannon Robbins; Marc Hendricks; Linda Ripley; Daman Holland; Steve Olt
Subject: Ridgewood Hills 4th Filing - Comment Questions
Susan and Ward -
We received comments yesterday for the project and I wanted to go through a few of them. that would change
the site layout. Please review and let me know if you would reconsider your comments on these items:
Traffic Ops Comment 81-5 — Line up drives on Avondale — We have reviewed the Code and LCUASS and
Avondale is a Minor Collector with Parking and all drives are low volume (based on a conversation with Matt
Delich). If I am reading Table 7-3 correctly, the required driveway spacing is 30' edge to edge. As you can see on
the attached exhibit, we have 75' edge to edge and generally have the north drive centered between the 2
south drives. This meets the spacing for a major collector, so we do not proposed to realign either drive.
The 30' criteria pertains to the distance between driveway edges along the same curb line, not opposing
driveways. I know it's not worded that way but that's its intent. To have opposing driveways separated by no more
than 30' feet is just problematic.
We also see the center access of Tracts A/B as meeting the definition of a high volume access since its double
loaded (buildings on both sides) and therefore serves 50% of the trips from the Tracts. The other two access
points onto Avondale are not high volume since they are single loaded and therefore serve only 25% of the Tracts
trips. (3 closely spaced accesses from one development to a Collector street was also an issue, but we
recognized it has benefits for the neighboring residents)
Talking it over with Joe Olson, he is uncomfortable with the access from Tract C not being the 175' from the
center access of Tracts A/B, and wanted to see that issue improved. His take would be that the Tract C access be
moved to line up with the eastern most Tract A/B access. That eliminates any separation issue with any of the
accesses. Thru further discussions about that decision and recognizing the difficulties of moving the access (lost
2/9/2011