HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE G & IRRIGATION POND - BDR210013 - MONTAVA SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - VARIANCE REQUEST
November 16, 2022
Tim Dinger
Engineering Department Manager
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Mr. Dinger,
Variance Request: Alley Connections to Streets, 10’ x 10’ Corner Cuts
Issue Identification:
The Montava Phase G Site Plan includes a slight deviations from the 10’ x 10’ corner cuts at alley to street
connections as outlined in Chapter 7 - Street Design and Technical Criteria, figures 7-11F. A variance is
requested to allow for a deviation from the City of Fort Collins 10’ x 10’ corner cuts to accommodate specific
site conditions and local street layouts envisioned for the Montava project.
Proposed Alternate Design:
On behalf of the Montava developer the project is seeking a slight geometric variance to the 10’ x 10’ corner
cuts at alley to street connections by reducing to a 10’ x 6’ triangle (10 feet in length along the sidewalk and
6 feet in length along the alley).
Exhibit of the slight geometric corner cut deviation is attached to this letter in support of this variance
request.
Justification
Montava’s design implements key aspects of the subarea plan and the City’s mixed-use goals. In order to
accomplish these, the development will take the form of seamless neighborhoods and centers, supported by
calm, walkable streets unfrosted by active and human-centric buildings. This requires a greater diversity of
streets and a reduction of barriers and buffers between uses and neighborhoods.
The standard 10x10 visibility triangle is a shorthand means of achieving a clear line of sight between the
driver of a vehicle and a pedestrian. The purpose of the triangle is to avoid vehicle / pedestrian conflicts,
ensuring drivers can see pedestrians and pedestrians can see approaching vehicles. Because Montava will be
dense with buildings near to their property lines, the standard 10x10 visibility triangle severely restricts the
ability to construct our intended building models on common lot sizes. The conflict for Montava is not
simply fences but the actual footprint of our houses. We recognize the safety consideration of the visibility
triangle and intend to uphold its intent. We evaluated a solution which would have a minimum impact upon
P a g e 2 | 2
building footprints while retaining the safety intent of the visibility triangle, arriving at a modified triangle
which is 10 feet in length along the sidewalk and 6 feet in length along the alley.
To arrive at this dimension, we studied visibility from the point of view of the driver where they are located
in their vehicle, and also considered the visibility from the pedestrian’s standpoint. The driver is positioned
at the left side of the vehicle, which is towards the center of the alley. Conservatively we looked at a driver
position 8 feet from the edge of the alley right of way to address conditions where one vehicle may be
entering the alley while another is exiting. At a driver position of 14.5 feet back from the sidewalk, which
provides for sufficient stopping distance at slow speeds, the driver’s view of the sidewalk is controlled by the
location of the 10ft visibility triangle along the sidewalk while the 10ft along the alley is not coincident with
the line of sight. Similarly, a pedestrian will not be positioned exactly on the property line, rather they are
likely to be positioned 2 feet from the property line into the sidewalk. Extending a 10 feet line of sight to the
pedestrian location indicates that a distance of 6 feet along the alley property line is sufficient to provide
visibility from the driver to the pedestrian 10 feet down the sidewalk. For pedestrians, the front bumper of
the vehicle will be visible well in advance of the drive, in any scenario, and the 6 foot distance will still
provide pedestrians sufficient warning of an approaching vehicle. These considerations are for the most
constrained condition which is the driver’s view towards the passenger side of the vehicle with a nearby
building. The view condition in the opposite direction, to the left, is less encumbered due to their distance
away from the far property line. A 6x10 triangle on the opposite side of the alley provides equally sufficient
visibility as well. With the modified triangle, visibility down the sidewalk can be maintained without
impacting the location of buildings for most of our setback conditions.
There is no foreseen adverse impact to capital and maintenance costs relating to this variance request.
This variance is not foreseen to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare nor reduce the
design life of the improvement.
Sincerely,
Jeff White, PE
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Exhibit of 10’ x 6’ corner cut
21.9474
9.8000
14.5000
10.0000
7.4000
6.1667
7.0652
17.1053
28ft Alley ROW (Phase G T5)
13.0526
11.7700
14.5000
11.0000
9.0100
6.5290
6.2667
9.8947
24ft Alley ROW (Phase G T4)
November 16, 2022