HomeMy WebLinkAboutBELLA VIRA - PDP - 36-05A - CORRESPONDENCE - TRAFFIC STUDY (4)SteveQlt Re Bella Vira PDP Re subrr _ Page 4
> ranch style units we have tried to create.
> I would like to review with you the concept of a 20 foot wide flowline
> with
> no parking on the street and with 4 foot sidewalks on either side.
> There is
> an approximate 100 foot section of the street that would transition to
>a28
> foot flowline, allowing parking on one side only. We are dedicating one
> adiitional head in parking space per unit adjacent to the 20' x 20'
> driveways, in addition to a few other guest spaces we will dedicate to
> the
> multifamily tract. I want to review with you any concerns or obvious
> problems before we invest in any conceptual CAD work. Please contact me
> and
> let me know when I can meet with you. I have met with Ward Stanford,
> Dan
> DeLaughter and David Averill, and I am hoping to talk again with Ron
> Gonzales this afternoon. Please call me on my cell phone to let me know
> when
> you are available.
> John Minatta
> cell 690-2662
CC: Dan DeLaughter; Dana Lockwood; David Averill; Eric Bracke; Eric Skowron;
ronzales@poudre-fire.org
Steve Olt -Re. Bella Vira PDP Re subrr " _ , „ _ m _ __. _ Page 3
So Traffic does not support the 20' wide street being proposed for the multi -family area.
>>> "John Minatta" < iohnminattata7comcast.net > 3/6/2006 2:32:51 PM >>>
Steve
I have met I have met with Ward Stanford, Dan DeLaughter and David Averill
and I am meeting with Ron Gonzales at 3:OOpm today. If Tuesday afternoon is
the soonest you are available then I will be at your office tomorrow
afternoon. Let me know the time of day that works best for you..
John Minatta
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Olt" < SOLT a()fcgov.com >
To: < iohnminatta(@comcast.net >
Cc: "David Averill" < DAVERILL a(�fcgov.com >; "Dan DeLaughter"
<_DDeLauqhter(@fcqov.com >; "Ron Gonzales" < ROGONZALESCa)fcgov.com >; "Ward
Stanford" < WSTANFORD(a)fcgov.com >
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Bella Vira PDP Re -submit
> John,
> I am available tomorrow early afternoon (Tuesday), Wednesday afternoon,
> or anytime Thursday of this week. I will be out of my office from
> Friday, March 10th until Monday March 20th.
> Have you met individually with Ron, Dan, David and Ward; and, if so, is
> there a unified position on this issue that you and I will be talking
> about?
> Steve
»» "John Minatta" < iohnminattaacomcast.net > 03/06 12:22 PM >>>
> Hello Steve
> We have struggled with alternative solutions to the multifamily
> component of
> the Bella Vira PDP. Specifically within the small irregular shaped
> multifamily area the challenge to satisfy the following issues has
> required
> us to look at different solutions.
> a.. Fire departments emergency access criteria.
> b.. Accomodate guest parking
> c.. Provide suitable pedestrian accessability.
> d.. Comply with Urban Street Standards on a private drive.
> e.. Maintain building envelopes large enough to accomodate the
> spacious
<Steve Olt - Bella Vira PDP Re-subm:`_ Page 2>
flow or parking issues. This also does not preclude that we expect the HOA to be required to deal with
their onsite private drive problems first and foremost vs. defaulting to calling the City to deal with or fix on -
site inadequate design problems.
Traffic still does not support or agree with the use of a 20' roadway, or Fire Lane, as the primary roadway
to serve City residents. We continue to view this as substandard design and a poor practice. Such minimal
streets have demonstrated recurring problems for their residents, resulting in community resources
(Police, Fire, and Traffic) being repeatedly called out to deal with the reoccurring issues. Since we are
unable to find something in City codes or policies that we can use to preclude this design, we can only
disagree with the design but not refuse it.
LCUASS minimum for a roadway is the Rural Residential Local Street, which is a minimum of 28' in width.
But this standard is to be used for one acre minimum lot size developments, and that have traffic volumes
that are less than 300 vpd.
Next smallest is the Residential Local Street, with a street width of 30' and parking on both sides
Outside of this, I know of no policy that allows us to "absolutely deny" its use.
The problem we have is as you stated in your question, "as long as the required 20' wide unobstructed fire
lane is maintained?". Keeping it maintained is the problem. There is example and experience of routine
parking violations on these narrow roadways negating the ability to maintain the unobstructed lane, either
for emergency use or more frequently for the residents. The enforcement of which has also proven to be
inadequate or ultimately unenforceable due to the frequency of calls about parking violations. Per the calls
we, Police and Fire receive, the problem stems from the inadequate roadway design. Some view it as
inadequate parking, but a proper roadway design for residential needs would still provide mobility even
during inadequate parking periods.
No, no policy prohibiting the use of the 20' private drive (that I'm aware of). Just experience by those of us
called upon to mitigate the un-mitigatible, after its built.
Ward. _
>>> Steve Olt 3/7/2006 10:34:10 AM >>>
Ward,
I understand Traffic Operation's reason for not supporting John's request; however, is there criteria in the
City's Municipal or Land Use Codes that allow us to absolutely deny him the right to a 20' wide private
driveway, as long as the required 20' wide unobstructed fire lane is maintained?
Steve
>>> Ward Stanford 03106 3:55 PM >>>
Hi John,
I talked with Eric on the 20' wide private roadway sections you are proposing. Unfortunately Eric.does not
agree with it. He cited the Provincetowne development (far south Lemay) and a narrow private drive w/ no
parking they have. It apparantly has been an on -going problem enforcing the no parking aspect. The
residents, as well as their guests, are the violators. They state they have no choice as there is inadequate
parking and they must park in the no parking areas.
Eric can see no difference between that area and your area, and expects that if a street less than 28' feet
wide is allowed to be utilized on your project, it will create the same problems.
�Re:
From: Ward Stanford
To: John Minatta; Steve Olt
Date: 03/08/2006 2:35:32 PM
Subject: Re: Bella Vira PDP Re -submit
Currently I'm available except between 10:00am - 1:00pm.
On the 28' wide roadway possibility... Traffic is acceptable with that roadway cross section. It may be
meant for 1 acre and larger developments with less than 300 vpd, but lot size is not the relavant aspect to
us. The traffic volume is the important characteristic in this case and since your multi family component is
under 300 vpd, we're ok with the 28' section being used in this case. It provides for an unobstructed lane
width under most residential uses.
Ward.
>>> ".Inhn Minnttn" <inhnminattaRrnmrast net> 3/8/2006 12-58.49 PM >>>
Eric, Steve
It is my understanding (phone conversation this am with Eric Bracke) that a 20' wide street is not
supported by Traffic but that a 28' (parking one side only) may be supported and after discussing this with
Ward Stanford he will get back in touch with me. I have attached a copy of my appeal to PFA and their
response. I believe points I make in the appeal address the traffic departments concerns about nuisance
parking issues related to narrow streets and limited guest parking as they are uniquely related to the Bella
Vira multi family component.
My proposal to Dave Averill, Dan DeLaughter and Ward Stanford on 3/3 suggesting head -in parking
adjacent to driveways provides more guest parking than necessary and the amount of concrete in front of
each unit is impractical. I also made the assumption that I could count driveways 20' deep as guest
parking in addition to the garages, however Steve Olt pointed out that LUCASS gives parking credit for
one or the other but not both garage and driveway
I believe that I can possibly provide as many as 15 guest parking spaces evenly interspersed in bumpout
areas on both sides of a 20' street, which is more than I can achieve on a 28' street (parking one side
only) and the same amount as on a 34' side street with parking both sides. This is due to the 6' driveway
setback and 23' parallel parking restriction on the 34' street limits legitimate parking spaces down to what I
can achieve with bumpouts on a 20' street. I would like to meet with everyone involved, tomorrow if
possible, to present the idea.
John Minatta, 690-2662
Original Message ----
From: Ward Stanford
To: johnminatta@comcast.net ; Steve Olt
Cc: David Averill ; Dan DeLaughter ; Eric Bracke ; rgonzales@poudre-fire.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Bella Vira PDP Re -submit
Morning Steve, John,
After discussions with PFD, if the Bella Vira project is allowed to do the 20' private drive/Fire Lane
sections, PFD assumes responsibility for addressing the roadway clearance problems we believe will
develop on such minimally designed drive. This is not to be understood to preclude FCPD's rights and
jurisdiction in any fashion, just that the Traffic Department can not mitigate issues on that street. Due to its
narrow section there is nothing we can do, no additional room to restripe, no additional room to change to
allowed parking, etc. Just no additional room for use of our tools and techniques to mitigate clearance,