HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CANYON COMMUNITY PARK - PDP - 20-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - TRAFFIC STUDYSteve OIL- Re: Spring Canyon Park _ � � _._ _ _ _ Page 1„
From: Craig Foreman
To: Kathleen Benedict; Kathleen Bracke
Date: 06/29/2005 2:51:09 PM
Subject: Re: Spring Canyon Park
Kathleen: Thanks for the info. Sounds like we can make all the items work. Craig
>>> Kathleen Bracke 6/29/05 2:30:31 PM >>>
Craig & Kathleen,
Just wanted to get back to you with our comments after Matt's last TIS submittal for the Spring Canyon
Park - sorry its taken us a while to get everything ironed -out.
For the classification of Horsetooth, we're ok with the TIS recommendation of Horsetooth being
downgraded from an arterial to a Collector street but it needs to be a Collector with parking along the Park
frontage. Mark Jackson will incorporate this change to the City's Master Street Plan in a future MSP clean-
up process later in the year so your project will not be held up by that process. Please work directly with
Sheri and Katie in Development Review Engineering on the design details for the curb alignment and for
the cul-de-sac.
Regarding the TIS' findings for the Drake/Overland intersection, the current overall intersection functions
adequately with the stop sign control. Transportation will take Matt's information into consideration if/when
future improvements to that intersection are scheduled to be improved by the City as part of a larger
capital project. There are other intersection designs that could also work besides the "sweeping curve"
mentioned in the TIS. So, your project does not need to do any improvements to the intersection at this
time based on the TIS. In the future, Transportation and Parks can work together to determine what type
of intersection improvements should be constructed and if a financial partnership can be arranged
between the two departments (if any improvements are needed).
Regarding the TIS findings for the additional traffic projected to use the existing north/south residential
streets (Windon and Platte), the projections are greater than a 10% increase but are still within the
standard level of traffic volumes expected on local streets so no neighborhood traffic mitigation is required
per the TIS requirements. You may still want to work with these neighbors on some type of suitable
mitigation, but its not an "official" requirement based on the TIS findings.
Anyway, hope this helps clarify things and if you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks,
Kathleen
x6140
CC: Eric Bracke; Katie Moore; Mark Jackson; Matt Baker; Sheri Wamhoff
Steve Olt- Fwd: Re: Spring Canyon Par'
Page 1 '
From: Kathleen Bracke
To: David Averill
Date: 09/08/2005 12:14:38 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Spring Canyon Park
David,
Thanks s00000 much for being able to cover the hearing this evening for the Spring Canyon Park - I really
appreciate it.
Here are the findings from our review of the TIS - the only difference is that we all subsequently agreed
(TSA & Parks) that Horsetooth would be designed as a collector with a center left turn lane and bikelanes,
instead of with parking & bikelanes. If, in the future, on -street parking in front of the park is needed then
the street can be restriped as a collector with parking (roadway width would remain the same).
Transportation Planning will include this change to the MSP as part of the annual clean-up process.
Everything else is in the attached e-mail.
This should be pretty straightforward. Please let me know if you have any questions prior to tonight's
hearing. Thanks again for doing thisM
K
CC: Craig Foreman; Kathleen Benedict; Steve Olt