Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA - PHASE G & IRRIGATION POND - BDR210013 - DOCUMENT MARKUPS - 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