HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAPLE HILL, PHASE ONE - PDP - 29-00A - CORRESPONDENCE - MEETING COMMUNICATIONto Mark Jackson in Transportation Planning. If Mark agrees with the analysis he
could take the proposed amendment of the Master Street Plan forward to the
Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation and to City Council for approval as
a City initiated amendment. It was agreed that the street along the south boundary is
appropriately defined as a collector street, however, with the forecasted volumes
indicated, parking would be allowed on the eastern two thirds of its length.
Similarly the street along the eastern boundary is appropriately classified as a
collector street, however, traffic volumes indicate that parking would be allowed
along its' entire length.
3. Collector Street Alignments
The alignment of the internal north/south connector street was discussed. The design
team suggested that if the street could be aligned directly north/south, it would ease
serious design constraints and make it easier to create a lotting plan consistent with
City standards. The City's Master Street Plan shows the curved alignment
presumably to coincide with the western boundary of the Poudre School District's
property to the south.
Staff agreed that a change in the alignment was appropriate. It was unclear whether
or not the alignment was something that warranted an amendment to the Master
Street Plan. Changing the alignment would create a need to amend the Gillespie
Farm ODP, however, Ted indicated that this amendment could be handled
administratively and nun concurrently with the PDP approval process.
The design team also suggested moving the collector that runs parallel with the
eastern property line along the ditch to the east approximately 100 feet to allow
double loading of the street. Staff had no objection to this change.
4. Trail Alignment
There is a proposed City bike/ped trail that runs diagonally through the Gillespie
Farm property. The proposed alignment roughly parallels an existing water line.
The design team asked staff if it was acceptable and /or preferable to have the trail
cross several streets versus eliminating some street connections in order to maintain
open space for the trail to go through Staff agreed this situation represented a
conflict in City policy goals and agreed that we should seek a response from
Transportation Planning (Mark Jackson) and Parks and Recreation (Craig Foreman).
MEMORANDUM
Date:
October 17, 2001
To:
Ted Shepard
From:
Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates
Subject:
Gillespie Farm
October 12, 2001- Meeting Minutes
In Attendance:
Ted Shepard
Dave Stringer
Eric Bracke
Mike Sollenberger
Tom Dougherty
Frazier Walsh
Matt Delich
Linda Ripley
Ted,
Our design team was very pleased with last Friday's meeting. This memo is our attempt at
documenting the issues discussed and the decisions reached at the meeting. We will assume
that you concur with these meeting minutes if we do not receive a reply to the contrary.
1. Access on to County Road 11 at 660-foot intervals.
The project design team asked if staff could be supportive of eliminating two access
points north and south of the center main entrance because of design difficulties
having to do with grading and neighborhood compatibility issues. City staff had no
objection to this stacking depth.
Staff outlined the procedure for requesting alternative compliance, but indicated they
would prefer to see the connections made. Eric Bracke indicated that stacking for
one car at these intersections would be sufficient, given the traffic counts presented
by Matt Delich in the meeting.
2. Collector Street Classifications
The City's Master Street Plan indicates four collectors in this quarter section. The
design team questioned the need for four collectors given the projected traffic
volumes. Matt Delich presented information regarding daily traffic forecasts for
each of the proposed collectors.
After reviewing Matt's data, City staff agreed that the two internal collectors streets
really serve more as connectors and suggested proposing the change in classification