Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHANSEN FARM - PDP170036 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY STAFF (7)Understanding the interest in getting the project to hearing, last week we identified the largest outstanding items that were missing, communicated those to the applicant as well as directly to the traffic engineer, and indicated our willingness to review a revised study within 24 hours to make the hearing deadline. We also provided traffic turning movement counts for the traffic engineer to use so those did not need to be collected. We received the study today. It does not address a number of items that were specifically listed as needed (see below). The study assumes two full movement access locations. We would like more information related to the second full movement access. It does not meet access spacing requirements, but could help operations. Please address this in the revised traffic study including recommended geometry changes related to each access location. — Not addressed in the revision Please include analysis of Trilby and Timberline, as well as Kechter and Timberline. Not addressed in the revision Please include some analysis on phasing, touching on the timing of this development as it relates to the City's widening project planned for 2021, and the resulting impacts to traffic if this development is built prior to the widening of Timberline Rd. — Not addressed in the revision Please include a theoretical signal warrant study for Zypher and Timberline. — Not addressed in the revision Bike and Pedestrian impact evaluations are a required component, and have not been included in this analysis. — A paragraph of text was added to the study relating to bicycle and pedestrian facilities but the impact evaluations were not included- these can be addressed at PDP. We are sensitive to the fact that ODP level studies can be higher level, and do not require the detailed level of analysis as a PDP submittal. We are happy to work with applicants on the appropriate level of review for an ODP. We have found that for developments with significant traffic concerns, and neighborhood opposition, it is important to have a general sense of required transportation improvements upon buildout of the project. The more detailed TISs done for PDP can determine when, where, and responsibility of the improvements. The study we currently have in hand does not provide enough information for us to speak to the 'general sense of required transportation improvements'. Please let us know what the next logical steps are. If the project goes to hearing with the current information, we won't be able to provide much staff response to traffic questions. If the applicant/traffic engineer would like to submit additional information, we'll review that as quickly as possible. If the hearing can be delayed, that would provide extra time. Or if the project is scheduled for October, then that would work as well. We look forward to getting this completed as quickly as possible. Let us know how you would like to proceed. m Martina Wilkinson, P.E. PTOE Assistant City Traffic Engineer City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations mwil kinson(ofcaov.com 970-221-6887 2 Pete Wray From: Pete Wray Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 6:07 PM To: Martina Wilkinson Cc: Nicole Hahn Subject: RE: Hansen Farm Comments I was informed meeting date is not changing. I am good for you to send this to Kristin and Jeff and CC me and Cameron. Did you already send it? From: Martina Wilkinson Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 3:48 PM To: Pete Wray Cc: Nicole Hahn Subject: RE: Hansen Farm Comments Pete — We're working hard to get the Hansen ODP ready for hearing. In terms of transportation and traffic related review, there are still a few outstanding items. Here's the basis we're using for this review: As you know, the Land Use Code Section 2.3.2(H) indicates that an ODP must demonstrate how the development conforms to the Transportation Level of Service requirements as detailed in section 3.6.4 through a Master Traffic Impact Study. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements points to LCUASS chapter 4. LCUASS Chapter 4, lists the key elements of a Master TIS, copied below: The key elements of the project impact assessment for a Master TIS shall include the following minimum evaluations: 1. Conformity with the adopted Transportation Master Plan including any adopted access control plans. 2. In Loveland (GMA and city limits), peak hour link volume and level of service (see Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 ); 3. Intersection analysis as identified during scoping (see peak hour level of service requirements in Table 4-3 ); 4. Adherence to relevant adopted planning documents (such as corridor plans); S. Functional classifications and anticipated typical sections for any new roadways. 6. Appropriateness of access locations; 7. Multi -modal and TDM opportunities; 8. Pedestrian/bike requirements and/or improvements; 9. Safety and accident analysis. 10. Other items as requested by the Local Entity Engineer and agreed to in the Scoping Meeting. 11. Neighborhood and public input issues. When we scope Mater TISs the information above is the basis we use. In this case, although the applicant's traffic engineer called our office to generally discuss the study, he didn't follow up by completing the scoping process as required that would have detailed all the needs for this study. Unfortunately, the study that was submitted didn't include the elements listed above from LCUASS (such as which intersections in #3), and didn't include the information we would have identified during scoping as important elements to #11— public issues.