Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPENNY FLATS (BLOCK 33) - PDP - 32-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - TRAFFIC STUDY (5)No Text Number 134: Pre -Hearing: Please include the ADT's on Figure 2, in the amended TIS. A revised Figure 2 is attached. Number 135: Final: Request by Eric Bracke: This development is adding traffic to Cherry St which is al- ready at greater daily volumes than the street classification allows. Since this is a City pro- ject, Traffic Operations is recommending that the City and the developer for the project part- ner with the neighborhood to make some good faith efforts in solving the excessive tragic problem on Cherry Street. Discussions have been on -going about the amount of traffic using Cherry Street from the on -set of this study. It was determined that this development will not significantly impact Cherry Street traffic. The City recognizes this as an area -wide problem and plans on work- ing with the neighborhood to identify and evaluate potential traffic reduction measures. This effort will commence within the next 2 - 3 months. I trust the above responses will adequately address staff comments on the Penny Flats TIS. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ESTEH C•Ao�v 4Ene G. Coppola P.E.�'D 15945 W�� o ONA OQ-F cc: Anne Aspen Dan Rotner This rate was supplied by the City and is consistent with historical growth. It was agreed upon at the scoping session for the TIS. Number 127: question entered on behalf of Kathleen Bracke: Is an assumption of 10% reduction in ve- hicular traffic due to the likely use of alternative modes acceptable? I believe it is, given the availability of transit, an established pedestrian system, bicycle lanes and the proximity of area attractions. If anything, it might prove conservative (low) when considering the site location. This reduction was also agreed upon at the scoping session. Number 128: comment entered on behalf of Kathleen Bracke: some of the intersection diagrams illustrat- ing turning movents are in error - there will be no northbound left turns from College to Cherry St in the long term. Please revise. This turn restriction and others -were identified in our recent meeting. At that time it was stated that restrictions will probably not be implemented until after the long-term given a number of implementation problems. Consequently, it was decided that no additional inves- tigations or modifications are necessary. Number 129: question entered on behalf of Kathleen Bracke: where will school children be picked up by PSD bus -service? The exact pick-up location will be determined in the future according to PSD. Number 133: Transportation would like the TIS updated or appended prior to hearing to factor in no northbound lefts from College to Cherry in the long term - this will impact the Mason/Maple intersection and whether or not the intersection of Cherry/Mason will meet signal warrants in the future. They would also like to see a revised plan for both the pedestrian and bike lane railroad crossing at the northeast corner of the site prior to hearing. Any other comments can be addressed in Final Plan review. Future turn restrictions are addressed in Number 128, above. Tel: 303-792-2450 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E. Fax: 303-792-5990 January 20, 2006 Eric Bracke Fort Collins Traffic Engineer P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Response to Staff Comments Penny Flats Transportation Impact Study Dear Mr. Bracke: P.O. Box 260027 Littleton, CO 80163-0027 I am responding to staff comments on the Penny Flats Transportation Impact Study (TIS) dated October 3, 2005. Each comment is stated below followed by a response. Only com- ments related to the TIS are addressed. Number 54: The Maple Street and Mason Street accesses do not meet the Sight Distance at Intersection standards per figure 7-16 of the LCUASS. The drive locations proximity to the acyacent street corners create a safety issue between turning traffic and underground drive aisle traf- fic. The Tragic Department has concerns about the relationship of these drive aisles and the street corners. The TIS recognizes potential sight distance deficiencies and recommends investigation of sight distance issues during preliminary design. Number 61: Additional discussion and documentation in the TIS about Cherry St conditions, ADT's, and Pedestrian LOS is requested. These items have been discussed with the Developer's Traffic Engineer. These issues were fully discussed in the TIS. Number 126: question entered on behalf of Kathleen Bracke: Is an assumption of 1 % annual growth rate in traffic volumes adequate?