The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTONERIDGE PUD, FIRST FILING FINAL - 21-92D - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - VARIANCE REQUEST (2)October 6, 1992 Mr. Ted Shepard Planning Department City of Fort Collins P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 VAUGHT FRYE architects Re: Variance Request to Courtyards @ Stone Ridge Dear Ted, OCT15� As you may recall we decided to withdraw discussion at the final hearing with the Planning & Zoning Board regarding street design and sidewalks on the private street at Stone Ridge. Staff suggested at the time that we pursue changes with an administrative change after final approval. We now wish staff to consider this request for the design of the private street serving the 26 patio home lots. Our request is divided into three areas of discussion • Function of the Street • Pedestrian Requirements • Pavement Edge FUNCTION Our philosophy is that residential streets should not be designed solely for the convenience of easy automobile movement, to do so overlooks the many overlapping uses of a residential street. A residential street's functions include not only its place in the transportation system but its role as part of the living environment. This concept is reflected in the following principles: • The street is an important component of overall residential community design. Properly scaled and designed streets can create more attractive communities and can contribute to a clearly defined sense of place. s Streets can service social functions such as meeting places and centers of activity. For example, children often use low -traffic streets as play areas. s In the interest of keeping housing affordable street costs should be minimized. s Different streets have different functions and need to be designed accordingly. Blanket standards are inappropriate. We argued in our original variance request that the City should consider a new classification of street as the lowest -order of street in the hierarchy. This classification would be and "access street" and could be called a place or a lane. Its function is to conduct traffic between dwelling units and higher -order streets and have no through traffic. It is our opinion that when properly designed without through traffic, with short distances to collector streets and minimum lane width, traffic speeds are reduced and minor delays due to pedestrians are inconsequential. On a street of this nature drivers and residents expect and accept both brief delays and the need to decrease speed. It becomes customary for individuals to drive carefully to avoid children and pets. land planning • architecture 1113 Slonev Hill Drive " Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • 303-224-1191 • FAX 303-224-1662 PEDESTRIAN REQUIREMENTS We have stated that in our opinion a sidewalk along the west side of the patio home area is unnecessary given the close proximity and connections provided to the 8' bike and pedestrian walk along Fieldstone Drive. We have provided an illustration to demonstrate that a sidewalk will not function properly on this type of street. The 20' setback provides room for cars to be parked in the driveway but would create a conflict with a continuous walk, forcing the pedestrian to weave on and off the sidewalk at driveway locations. We feel this is an undesirable condition and the pedestrian would be safer and more comfortable walking in the street. Good connections are being provided to the 8' bike/pedestrian path that allow pedestrians to move safely to other parts of the neighborhood once they have left the courtyard home area. On low traffic streets such as a place or cul-de-sac, the street itself can fulfill the functions of pedestrian circulation. When through traffic is not present and speeds are reduced the street can serve as a meeting place for neighbors and a play area for children. The cost of providing sidewalks must certainly be weighed against the benefits. Every unnecessary foot of street and sidewalk contribute to increased maintenance cost whether the street is public or private. We feel that careful evaluation would reveal that sidewalks on small access streets are unnecessary and provide insufficient benefit relative to cost. Furthermore additional pavement is at the expense of open green landscaped area and contributes to impervious surface and increase run-off. PAVEMENT EDGE Street curbing is used to control drainage protect the pavement edges and to define the street from adjacent lawns. In lower -density developments, curbs may not be necessary at all. On private streets and public streets that function as an access street or a place, barrier curbs (vertical) or rollover curbs are unnecessary. The required functions of the curb can be handled with a drain pan on each side of the pavement edge. This design will: • provide lateral support for the pavement edge • prevent water seepage under the pavement s contain the base material • control the drainage The proposed edge design therefore satisfies the functional requirements of a curb while providing an aesthetically pleasing streetscape on a small low impact street. In closing we wish to emphasize that residential streets should provide not only safe, efficient circulation for vehicles and pedestrians but should create positive aesthetic qualities for the users. These local streets should convey an image and scale appropriate to the neighborhood. We hope that our efforts in redefining a new level of street and the design concepts presented can result in a safer more cost- effective street that will create a more attractive, livable neighborhood. Sincerely, 5 Frank Vaug t VAUGHT*FRYE ARCHITECTS FV/rp Frzvlrl- eeTewk<K IGfCAW SW F-AC+4 61DE THE GOUFTYf'.FZDS AT 57oNE RID&F— - 5TR_ETSGhPF- VAUGHT FRY6 ARC141TECT5 to. 14. 92 1 I Li S E P Ple n Ti o r3 5TN N u N l'T $ 0 wrrr nun _ •ha RA 'A3 MOD ZoMNI3 OwlEIF6 CFATFICtFIF ATIOM OWB BgNATURE •y _ _-- r — - f_—--- 1 -- -1 pOAfO APOVAL ��'•�, 1'4."••°"2w"�'�..'LY".d FEW d i♦ i i I .____ ___ I �wa•roas>�as>� is r I I 11 I I ae ' ra / I^, \'` � .) _--`j ` I.' ra♦ it jl VICaYiY YAP I LAND uw lREA W" I yd • ' �, � .a \a aoeK a �.---'`Ir�l I , •1 ..rr.rr.� • II _ +ram ba r I, a 'r I i Ilk\ `�' / (� i 1 =�., �I 'I n j ra>n. Ir__— ____'•, \;\ `«"L•",..,. 17 1 a• m , _— •_____ : � ��-- __ � r------'.� .i/ir--: �__ it �'\�no. a• �', -� i' ' ' ' ' , 'r i + •, J iw,. t.r� �`.'r' � ,' ii III i II r �� I i b ,' �__ �____ i r r ♦ r r of i I .a♦ , „ ITM�*• ' � ' -- --"=� _______� ( I ; t___ ___ STONE RIDGE P.U.D. ,I ev. ,� ,: umxare •u•o �---' `---- err. vr.ex ao uc. • ,,.,a,• �r _ _ _ _ _ - _ I . FONT COLlNB COLONADO H o NORNETOOTN ROAD— a JUL 21 '92 11:06 VRUGHT*FRYE RRCHITEC P.2/4 VAUGHT F'RYE July 20, 1992 architects Mr. Ted Shepard Planning Department City of Fort Collins P. O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 805= Re: Courtyards at Stone Ridge Dear Ted, As you are'aware, it is our desire to create a unlque environment for the Courtyard Homes at Stone Fudge. Part of this environment is directly connected to the feel of the st wtsc ape 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-desac 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 Parldng" 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 Iristitute suggests thefollowing 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 parldng. land planning • arCni oMfe 1113 51"n"y 111111DAw • Fort (:ollicis, Colorado SOSZ$ . 303-229.2'1[N • FAX 3M-224-166.2 JUL 21 '92 11:97 VRUGHT*FRYE RRCHITEC P.3/4 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 sweets that could be classified, designed, and constructed according to the function they serve. The edge treatment of a street serves three basic purposes: to provide lateral support for the pavement edge. to prevent water seepage under the pavement, and to contain pavement base materials. Staffs suggestion to contain nuisance flows on each side of the street can be achieved by providing a concrete drain pan at each pavement edge that will control lawn watering and other minor water flows. Crowning the street may be unnecessary depending. on site. conditions..,,if_drainage_.can be accommodated In a single drain pan, then;.sheetAow_ across a street should be allowed given nuisance flows are taken care of. We desire the look of this street section in lieu of vertical or roll-over curbs for these reasons: a. smaller edge treatment reduces the visual size of the street and provides more greenscape b. smoother access to driveways than rollover curb C. easier snow removal without raised curb section d. curbs are a psychological as well as physical barrier G. better access for elderly and .the handicapped f, helps define street hierarchy. with' different look, thereby discouraging outsider traffic A part of the street edge design discussion Is tied to sidewalks. it is our opinion that sidewalks are necessary. on residential, streets' that serve as collectors of traffic from minor streets. The Urban Land Institute suggests that three .questions must be asked in designing sidewalks:. 1. Are they necessary for the safety of children playing an the block? 2. Are they necessary for. children ! to walk to and from school and recreational facilities?. 3. Are they necessary for adults to walk3o 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 trip every seiven. minutes), safety Is not being compromised with residents .walking in the street. to access the sidewalk connections to the network of sidewalks,and:bike paths id the'rielghborhood. Furthermore, wide streets Increase the potential traffic hazard between cars and people; therefore, the W JUL 21 '92 11:07 VRUGHT*FRYE RRCHITEC P.4/4 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 a meaningless question of semantics on whether this street should be private with appropriate public standards or public with varied normal standards. We.do, however, want the outcome to be a street that is classified, designed, and constructed according to the function it serves. Please consider our arguments, and let's d'iscuse them in more detail at our meeting on Tuesday. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Best regards rru ",� e'i.!=:;:,.::c _�___�._a w....._.•....._. Frank aught . VAUGH`1'*FRYE ARCHITECTS FV/sb cc: Les Kaplan Bill Albrecht