HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAVEN VIEW - PDP - 12-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - TRAFFIC STUDYAnne Aspen - Re: Raven View Page 2
the site's pedestrian level of service requirements. Traffic Engineering has not entered their comments on
the TIS to date and it is not known at this time whether or not the single point of access off Taft Hill Road
is sufficient for this development.
Having said that, Transportation Coordination looked at the property to the immediate south of Raven
View and it was Gear that the only street access that property would have is from your development. The
property to the south does have frontage along Taft Hill but we would not allow another public street
immediately adjacent to the one that you are proposing for your site.
This project will have to design and construct a public street to the south meeting minimum spacing
requirements and the location must be placed in such a manner that the future cul-de-sac in that property
will not exceed 660' in any direction. Any future exhibits submitted to the city must show the property to
the south in its entirety so that we can fairly discuss and determine the impacts caused by your
development.
This project must design and construct a public street to the north. Whether or not that street must
connect to Mulberry is unknown at this time given the limited information presented in the traffic study. At
the very least, we will require a street stub to your property line (that would meet spacing requirements
along Mulberry) and an emergency access road from the property line to Mulberry IF acceptable to PFA.
That road must be placed a distance equal to % the closest building's height away from that structure. It
appears from the aerial photo that the proposed emergency access road is placed immediately next to an
existing building and this is not acceptable to PFA.
If it is determined that the road does not have to be built out to Mulberry, then a public access easement
must be provided so that the bike/ped LOS requirements are met. An interim sidewalk to serve the
bike/ped traffic must be designed and constructed with this project, the width to be determined pending an
updated TIS.
If it is determined that the road must be built out to Mulberry, than the emergency access and ped/bike
LOS requirements will be taken care of with the public street.
Given that these comments reiterating what was first discussed in Conceptual Review will significantly
change the site's layout, the utility coordination meeting scheduled for next week will be canceled until the
new horizontal layout has been submitted and deemed acceptable to the City.
Thank you,
Susan Joy
CC: Anne Aspen; Eric Bracke; Kathleen Bracke; Ron Gonzales <ronzales@poudre-
fire.org>; Sheri Wamhoff
Anne Aspen - Re: Raven View Page 1
From: Ward Stanford
To: Susan Joy
Date: 04/04/2005 9:39:18 AM
Subject: Re: Raven View
Well, I was wrong in that we did receive the submittal. Eric reviewed it and is ok with the submittal. He
would prefer not to see another full access to Mulberry (emergency is ok) and the AM/PM entry and exit
volumes are acceptable on Taft.
Susan, you commented that the current plan is different from the plan the TIS was based on. If the single
family and Multi -family unit numbers do not change much then the TIS volumes would still be acceptable.
The TIS states 19 SF DU and 38 MF DU's. I'm unable to find any plans to verify current plan number of
dwelling units. Please let us know the current number of expected DU's.
Sony for the confusion
>>> Susan Joy 4/4/2005 7:57:13 AM >>>
Thanks for letting me know Ward. I've copied your email to Anne Aspen, the planner on the project, so
that she knows that Traffic has not received the project's first round submittal and TIS.
Susan
>>> Ward Stanford 4/4/2005 7:26:22 AM >>>
Hi Susan,
The comments have an error in that I have not seen a TIS for this project. I'm going to assume Eric has
not either since you stated that you have not received comments from us yet. As far as I know we have
not received any documents concerning this project. I also failed to understand/realize that the plan you
brought was from an actual submittal. That plan is all I've seen and due to the apparent lack of information
(at least known by us) I thought they were just prelim plans to gather our input prior to a future submittal.
Also, Peterson called late Friday to talk about traffic issues but I was not able to talk to him then. He first
called Eric and Eric passed it to me. When Eric let me know of Peterson's call, his conversation regarding
the call gave me a sense that he did not know of the project (again, why I believe he did not receive a TIS
either). So I'll be talking with Tom this morning, but until we receive some documents my current input
about the single access, etc. will be the same.
Ward.
>>> Susan Joy 4/1 /2005 9:30:36 AM >>>
How does this sound? (This is to the engineer Nick) Please let me know if you have any suggestions - I
wanted to get this right because I know this is going to create quite a stink.
Nick,
As promised, I took Raven View to Transportation Coordination yesterday to discuss the pedestrian level
of service and street connectivity requirements for this development. We looked at the surrounding
properties for both development and redevelopment potential.
First some background. This project first came to Conceptual Review on May 10, 2004. In that meeting,
the applicant was told that this project would need to provide a street stubs to any adjacent developable or
redevelopable property to the north and south in accordance with City code and that off -site improvements
may be required depending on the traffic impacts of the site. The traffic study would provide more
information and that a TIS would be required with the first submittal.
The traffic study submitted with this project reflected a different layout than submitted and did not address