HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY RIDGE, 2ND FILING - PDP - 49-95F - CORRESPONDENCE - TRANSPORTATION ISSUE (8)Steve Olt - Re: Harmony R
>1
>should not expect to improve this section - right?
> * The street West of the center appears to have excellent asphalt
>which
>we need to build around or over. Would we need to provide any testing
>for
>you to determine how much work needs to be done?
>In looking at the report from the 1/12/04 Conceptual Review (CR), I
>note
>your direction of no site grading until PDP approval (final?). Can I
>access
>a permit before then to simply sort out rocks from the dirt piles? I
>can do
>quite a bit myself with a back hoe or skid steer, maybe a blade and a
>dump
>truck. I know Doug Moore may have a comment about this as well.
>I have asked Matt Baker to make a determination (if possible) on street
>oversizing costs before an application. He has the recently completed
>TIS
>and one was delivered to Steve Olt. In the CR it refers also to a $40K
>bill
>to reallign West Harmony road. This amount is for both Phase I and 11.
>1
>asked Matt to separate the costs and charge JD Padilla the Phase I
>cost.
>Paragraph 'u' of the Conceptual Review suggests a reimbursement from
>adjacent property owners (residential) may be possible. What incentive
>would they have or could be provided to encourage them to reimburse
>improvements on FPW?
>We plan to begin drawings and consolidate information for an
>application.
>Jim Sell Design through Kent Bruxvort and Bob Gowing will be
>engineering
>the project. We will probably have several questions like this in the
>process. We appreciate the ability to communicate by email. Hopefully
>it
>takes less time, provides for a more accurate application and a record
>which we can refer. The plat draft would be good to go over with you
>and
>look for additional concerns or suggestions. TKS - Appreciate your
>work. JIM
gproval by the City's Pavement Eng
CC: Doug Moore; jims@jimselldesign.com; Kathleen Reavis; kentb@jimselldesign.com;
Steve Olt
>City staff will be discussing the issue of the width of Fromme Prairie
>Way (FPW) this Thursday. As it appears you're intending to move forward
>with units directly fronting FPW and having full access, we know in
>reality that people will want to park along this street. As you're
>aware, the original intent of FPW was to only have bikelanes and travel
>lanes which makes your intention in the original configuration perhaps
>problematic. In advance of this meeting, I would really like to have
>your latest design proposal, otherwise it may be difficult for City
>Staff to accurately evaluate the situation.
>In response to your additional questions. You'll be required to
>improve your frontage to FPW with the exception of what was done with
>Seneca Center, the width again is an outstanding issue. You'll need to
>provide a pavement design report AFTER getting approvals and the
>pavement engineer will propose the pavement depth improvements needed at
>that time which will need approval by the City's Pavement Engineer.
>The City has an all -in -one construction/grading permit (DCP). The
>activity you're asking for cannot be done until the DCP, which requires
>having the entitlement process complete prior to.
>I'm not sure I can answer the question about getting neighboring
>properties to reimburse for FPW. You certainly have the right to file
>for reimbursement but this requires the neighboring properties to
>develop/redevelop in order to be reimbursed.
>In response to your last comment Jim, I personally don't necessarily
>believe that design review by email is effective. I'm concerned that
>this present method of review by email and then responding to specific
>questions can often results in specific answers which are only
>appropriate in specific situations. I would not be surprised if our
>"answers" to your questions become no longer appropriate as changes to
>the design are made either due to your design wishes or from the
>discovery that there are code issues that weren't anticipated that are
>discovered in the review process. As such, I don't believe it's
>appropriate to refer to these written responses as "a record" as these
>comments are only appropriate based upon the information presented and
>the design intended at the time.
>Thanks,
>Marc
> >>> Jim Newcomb <inewc(a)verinet.com> 03/15/04 10:21 PM >>>
>I received the forwarded email form "Craig" regarding the request to
>keep
>the street lighting down. This has been one of our goals as well and
>hope
>to impact the design in that direction.
>Can you give us the "built as" design for the two sections of Fromme
>Prairie Way (FPW)?
> ' In front of the Seneca Center it looks like a street design
>identical
>to my requirement for the frontage of HRII development. If this is true
From: Marc Virata
To: Jim Newcomb
Date: 3/18/04 2:52PM
Subject: Re: Harmony Ridge PUD, Filing 2 (HRII)
Jim,
City Transportation Staff discussed the question of Fromme Prairie Way adjacent to your property and
reached the following conclusions:
1) The placement of the dwellings fronting Fromme Prairie Way (FPW) necessitates the providing for
parking along FPW. The previously approved cross-section for FPW of 2-10' travel lanes and 2-5' bike
lanes (30' lane width) with the 6' attached sidewalk is still appropriate. Thus, you will need to widen out
FPW adjacent to your development in order to provide onstreet parking past the 30' lane width (and still
provide the sidewalk).
2) The requirement to improve the entire length of FPW will be enforced as required per Code. We will
not consider improving FPW only to the public street connection that you're proposing. The continuation
of the sidewalk helps provide that trail connection.
Let me know of questions or clarifications.
Thanks,
Marc -
>>> Jim Newcomb <jnewc@verinet.com> 03/16/04 04:13PM >>>
Today, I delivered a copy of the design proposal from the Thursday evening
neighborhood meeting to the Current Planning window. Primarily it was for
D_ oug about a question in the buffer zone. I left two extra copies so you
would have one. Please check with him. If not, I can deliver another.
Since the width of the improved FPW is an outstanding and identifiable
issue you are discussing, I am hoping you will find the answer or know a
range of options. Like 30' with gutter and curb plus one or maybe two
sidewalks. This helps narrow down our planning costs. Doug mentioned this
morning he would like a trail extent ion from the full access or street
improvement end to the trailhead parking along the S side of FPW. I concur.
Sounds good.
What about the length of the improved FPW? Can you discuss in your meeting
if it might work to stop the improving of FPW at the full access. TRhis
would leave the present road as is for the balance of the 200' along Phase
2 with the above trail extention? Steve talked about this possibility when
we were all together. The balance of the road might be sufficient for
trailhead purpose.
I concur about trying to gain approval through email. I used the wrong
word. The record idea is for me to remember what was said or decided at the
time. I am fully aware you are giving your best advice and any of us can
run into unknown areas or requirements by surprise. This correspondence
however should lead to a more on -target application. This is my goal and
you are helping a lot. TKS JIM
At 03:12 PM 3/16/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Jim,