The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTONERIDGE PUD, FIRST FILING FINAL - 21-92D - CORRESPONDENCE - APPLICANT COMMUNICATIONVAUGHT FRYE July 20, 1992 architects Mr. Ted Shepard Planning Department City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Re: Courtyards at Stone Ridge Dear Ted, As you are aware, it is our desire to create a unique environment for the Courtyard Homes at Stone Ridge. Part of this environment is directly connected to the feel of the streetscape from the standpoint of width and edge treatment. It is our opinion that the automobile should not dominate the design of a minor residential street. The width of a street should be based on probable peak traffic volume, parking needs and controls, probable vehicle speeds and limitations imposed by sight distances. The Fort Collins Design Criteria and Standards for Streets allows 28-foot wide streets in a PUD when the following criteria is met: a. Be a loop street or cul-de-sac which connects only one public street b. Have less than 750 ADT C. Are not accessed from an arterial street d. Are not used in a single family area where single family homes face each other across the street e. One side shall be signed "No Parking" on standard city signs. The proposed street servicing the Courtyard Homes meets this criteria. In fact, the 26 lots will only generate around 150-200 average daily trips, much lower than the 750 ADT's allowed. Under these circumstances, we feel the 28' width is more than adequate to safely accommodate traffic needs for these residents. It is our opinion that the City should consider a new classification of street, possibly a "minor local" or "mini local'. The Urban Land Institute suggests the following classification: Place: A short street, cul-de-sac, or court whose primary purpose is to conduct traffic to and from dwelling units. Usually a place is a dead-end street with limited available parking. land planning • architecture 1113 Stonev Hill Drive • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • 303-224-1191 • FAX 303-224-1662 Shephard Page 2 Given that street functions differ according to purpose, traffic volume, and development density, a new category such as a "place" would give developers the option to create a hierarchy of streets that could be classified, designed, and constructed according to the function they serve. The edge treatment of a street serves thr a ba is purposes: to provide lateral support for the pavement edge, to prevent waterXseage under the pavement, and to contain pavement base materials. Staffs suggescontain nuisance flows on each side of the street can be achieved by providingcrete drain pan at each pavement edge that will control lawn watering and otherr water flows. Crowning the street may be unnecessary depending on site conditions. If drainage can be accommodated in a single drain pan, then sheet flow across a street should be allowed given nuisance flows are taken care of. We desire the look of street section in lieu of vertical or roll-over curbs for these reasons: d 1 a. smaller edge treatment 1r more greenscape b. smoother access to drive C. easier snow removal witlY d. curbs are a psychological e. better access for elderly s f. helps define street hierar outsider traffic. the visual size of the street and provides s than rollover curb raised curb section well as physical barrier the handicapped \with different look, thereby discouraging A part of the street edge design discussio is tied to sidewalks. It is our opinion that sidewalks are necessary on residential freets that serve as collectors of traffic from minor streets. The Urban Land Institute uggests that three questions must be asked in designing sidewalks: 1. Are they necessary for t e safety of children playing on the block? 2. Are they necessary f r children to walk to and from school and recreational facilities? 3. Are they necessary fo f adults to walk to neighborhood centers? Our proposed "minor local" street does not function according to these three questions; however, it does provide access to sidewalks and bike paths that do provide these functions. We therefore conclude that a sidewalk in this case is not necessary and feel that, given the low traffic activity (one trio every sev_en__minutes).,_safetX..is-=._being . Eornprornia vy residents walking in the street to access the sidewalk connections the network o_si�ewaLks and bike paths in the neighborhood. Furt ermore, wide streets increase the potential traffic hazard between cars and people; therefore, the 28' Shepard Page 3 section is wide enough to accommodate the required traffic movement with parking on one side and provide a safe environment for pedestrians. We do not wish to get embroiled in eaningless question of semantics on whether this street should be private with a tpriate public standards or public with varied normal standards. We do, howeve`r�went the outcome to be a street that is classified, designed, and constructed according tb the function it serves. Please consider our arguments, and let's discuss them in more detail at our meeting on Tuesday. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Best regards, Frank aught VAUGHT*FRYE ARCHITECTS FV/sb cc: Les Kaplan Bill Albrecht