Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGILLESPIE FARM FEBRUARY 2001 - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-08-04Dave Stringer - Gillespie Farm Page 1 From: Ted Shepard To: Dave Stringer, Eric Bracket Date: Fri, Oct 12, 2001 10:16 AM Subject: Gillespie Farm Mark Jackson, Ted S... We met with the Gillespie Farm developers and consultants this morning and here is what we resolved: 1. Both the east -west and north -south collectors can be down graded to connectors based on projected traffic volumes ranging from 1,000 to 2,500. 2. This will require an amendment to the Master Street Plan. 3. The north -south connector can continue in a straight alignment and intersect with Country Club Road (extended) rather than swing west to the P.S.D. west property line. The offset is sufficient. This will likely require an Amendment to the O.D.P. Staff will check to see if this could be a Minor Amend. 4_ Connectors can have driveway access and on -street parking. 5. Connectors will have on -street bike lanes. 6. There will be two local street connections to C.R. 11. With low volumes, there is not a stacking issue for left -turning vehicles stacking to go south on C.R.11. 7 There will be a trail following the Elco water line which will cut diagonally across the grid. This will require frequent local street crossings, some at mid -block. This is seen as less than desirable but necessary due to the grid layout. Mark, Linda Ripley will contact you to set up a meeting to go over these issues. Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me and present and discuss these issues. Please feel free to contact me at (970) 416-2029 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark A. Jackson, AI City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Cc: Ted Shepard, Current Planning Dave Stringer, Engineering Development Review Randy Hensley, Transportation Planning Manager Selected Issues Report Ci of Fort Collins 4/15/2008 GILLESPIE FARM- ODP- #29-00 (MAPLE HILL) SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All ISSUES: Department: Traffic Operations Topic: traffic Number: 1 Traffic Operations has no issues with the Maple Hill Number: 2 Traffic issues are resolved Date: Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Created:5/14/2003 Pending PDP, Final Compliance project. Created:7/15/2003 Pending Page 1 Selected Issues Report Ci of Fort Collins 4/15/2008 GILLESPIE FARM- ODP- #29-00 (MAPLE HILL) SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All ISSUES: Department: Traffic Operations Topic: traffic Number: 1 Traffic Operations has no issues with the Maple Hill Number: 2 Traffic issues are resolved Date: Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Created:5/14/2003 Pending PDP, Final Compliance project. Created:7/15/2003 Pending Page 1 MEMORANDUM Date: October 17, 2001 To: Ted Shepard From: Linda Ripley, VF Ripley Associates Subject: Gillespie Farm October 12, 2001 - Meeting Minutes In Attendance: Ted Shepard Dave Stringer Eric Bracke Mike Sollenberger Tom Dougherty Frazier Walsh Matt Delich Linda Ripley Tcd. Our design team was very pleased with last Friday's meeting. This memo is our attempt at documenting the issues discussed and the decisions reached at the meeting. We will assume that you concur with these meeting minutes if we do not receive a reply to the contrary. Access on to County Road 11 at 660-foot intervals. The project design team asked if staff could be supportive of eliminating two access points north and south of the center main entrance because of design difficulties having to do with grading and neighborhood compatibility issues. City staff had no objection to this slacking depth. Staff outlined the procedure for requesting alternative compliance, but indicated they would prefer to see the connections made. Eric Bracke indicated that stacking for one car at these intersections would be sufficient, given the traffic counts presented by Matt Delich in the meeting. 2. Collector Street Classifications The City's Master Street Plan indicates four collectors in this quarter section. The design team questioned One need for four collectors given the projected traffic volumes. Matt Delich presented information regarding daily traffic forecasts for each of the proposed collectors. After reviewing Matt's data, City staff agreed that the two internal collectors streets really serve more as connectors and suggested proposing the change in classification to Mark Jackson in Transportation Planning. If Mark agrees with the analysis he could take the proposed amendment of the Master Street Plan forward to the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation and to City Council for approval as a City initiated amendment. It was agreed that the street along the south boundary is appropriately defined as a collector street, however, with the forecasted volumes indicated, parking would be allowed on the eastern two thirds of its length. Similarly the street along the eastern boundary is appropriately classified as a collector street, however, traffic volumes indicate that parking would be allowed along its' entire length. Collector Street Alignments The alignment of the internal north/south connector street was discussed. The design team suggested that if the street could be aligned directly north/south, it would ease serious design constraints and make it easier to create a lotting plan consistent with City standards. The City's Master Street Plan shows the curved alignment presumably to coincide with the western boundary of the Poudre School District's property to the south. Staff agreed that a change in the alignment was appropriate. It was unclear whether or not the alignment was something that warranted an amendment to the Master Street Plan. Changing the alignment would create a need to amend the Gillespie Farm ODP, however, Ted indicated that this amendment could be handled administratively and run concurrently with the PDP approval process. The design team also suggested moving the collector that runs parallel with the eastern property line along the ditch to the east approximately 100 feet to allow double loading of the street. Staff had no objection to this change. 4. Trail Alignment There is a proposed City bike/ped trail that runs diagonally through the Gillespie Farm property. The proposed alignment roughly parallels an existing water line. The design team asked staff if it was acceptable and /or preferable to have the trail cross several streets versus eliminating some street connections in order to maintain open space for the trail to go through. Staff agreed this situation represented a conflict in City policy goals and agreed that we should seek a response from Transportation Planning (Mark Jackson) and Parks and Recreation (Craig Foreman). &j rn .,-*— w *,, p,.` --3,-N- MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Services Development Review Staff FROM: Mark Jackson. Transportation Planning RE: Gillespie Farm Transportation Issues DATE: October 24, 2001 The development team for the Gillespie Farm project met with Ted Shepard, Dave Stringier and me on October 18"' to lobby for changes to the Master Street Plan they felt were necessary and appropriate to their project. They also requested direction from City Staff regarding trail issues and roadway crossings of the ditch. I am interested in your leedhack on the following items: They wish to downgrade two Collector -level roadways from the MSP in the area of their project. Their project engineer has reflected in his TIS that these roadways will carry no more than 1,000 vehicles per day. The standard threshold for Collectors is 2,500 VPD. They also argue that the Mountain Vista Subarea is overplanned by showing Collector roadways on the MSP. They propose these roadways be designed as Connectors with on -street bikelanes. My Take: The north south Collector they wish to downgrade is a key collector that Connects from Douglas Road at Hearthfire all the way south to the Mountain Vista area. The importance of this connection outweighs the local impacts reflected by the Matt Delich TIS. I don't support downgrade of this road. I'm open to discussion regarding the east west Collector. ? They wish to straighten the relative alignment of the north south Collector proposed to be downgraded. This could potentially create an offset T intersection if the proposed school site south of their development ever comes to be. Eric Bracke has stated he has no problem with creating a T offset intersection in this area. My Take: 1 don't necessarily have a problem with straightening this roadway. However, it they, do straighten the alignment, it will become more attractive as a result and should definitely not he downgraded. We need to discuss issues re: the potential future school site, future connections south of this site, and hike/ped issues. 3. Thev wish to move the north south Collector roadway shown on their site's eastern boundary approximately 100' to the west. This would also allow the developer to double load lots on the roadway. They want their lots to back to the ditch and not to the proposed trail. They have been in contact with the Lind Property development just north oftheir site and report that Lind is willing to move the collector similarly. TrCoord 1001 memo.doc 1 10/24/01 Ili, Take: The AI,SP reflects only conceptual -level alignment so I don't have an issue With this from a MSP perspective. 4. The developer perceives a conflict in City Policy between a connected trail system and the push for grid system of roadways and street connectivity. The proposed trail shown running through their site would have numerous crossing of roadways if li)rccd to design as per the MSP. They would rather align the trail along natural areas and use cul-de-sacs to minimize the trail crossings. They say they have spoken to Craig Foreman on the issue. My Take: This is a thinly veiled ploy, by the developer to have its design their project for them and to allow for the use of cul de sacs in their design to maximi_e salability o/ their lots. 1 think they ecru come up with some ideas that accommodate both the conceptual spirit of the MSP and the proposed trail connection in a safe, usable manner that does not compromise City Plan ideals. 5. The developer would like to minimize the number of roadway connections over the ditch east of their site. Dave Stringer has responded that since no modification was requested at the ODP stage. they should be required to do at least three crossings of the ditch (5 would be required by standards). He added that we might support (with modified standards a reduction in the number of crossings (similar to what we have done for Lind or Harvest Park). The developer proposes road connections over the ditch at the north and south ends of their project, with the center connection over the ditch being a bike/ped. bridge. My Take: Jam open to discussion as to the number of roadway crossings in the development. but Dave is correct: they did not request any modification in the ODP and they should he held somewhat to the design they initially sold the City. TrCoord 1001 memo.doc 2 10/24/01 Transportation Services Transportation Plannl�ag` City of Fort Collins Linda Ripley VF Ripley & Associates 410 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 November 1, 2001 U CA Dear p ey: 9 d Mark A. Jackson, AICP City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580 Transportation Planning Staff met with members of the City's Transportation, Parks Planning, Advance and Current Planning development review staff to discuss issues raised by the applicant at the October 18u' meeting. In response to your inquiries and request for direction regarding transportation issues related to the Gillespie Farm PDP: Downgrade two key roadways from Collector to Connector with on street bike lanes Forecast model results support the findings of Matt Delich. 2020 forecast volumes on the links in question did not show average daily volumes warranting a Collector -level facility. Recent Transportation Impact Studies from proximate development projects show similar results in their peak hour volume forecasts. Transportation Planning is prepared to support downgrading the north south Collector and the middle east -west Collector roadways to a Connector -level facility with on -street bike lanes. Amendments to the Master Street Plan will need to be made concurrent with your project approval process. This includes not only Planning & Zoning Board Approval but Council approval as well. 2. Straighten the relative alignment of the north -south roadway in question The City Traffic Engineer has stated that he would accept an offset T intersection created as a result of straightening the alignment of the center north south roadway in the Gillespie development site. Traffic forecast modeling shows acceptable levels of average daily traffic even with the offset. Transportation Planning has other concerns however. Straightening this alignment will cause an offset roadway alignment, posing safety issues particularly for bicyclists. Given that the site directly south of Gillespie is a potential school site, there could be significant amounts of bicycle and pedestrian traffic in this area in the future. The alignment currently shown on the Master Street Plan was designed to accommodate the future school site and avoid many of these issues. While Traffic Engineering may agree to this proposed realignment, Transportation Planning does not support the realignment of 215 North Mason • First Floor • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) =4-6058 • FAX (970) 2=1-6239 the north south roadway, creating a T intersection. Regardless of the applicant's design decision, they are required to follow City design standards that maximize safety for motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 3. Move Collector roadway on eastern site boundary approximately 100' to the west Transportation Planning has no issue with this proposed change from a Master Street Plan perspective. The MSP alignments are conceptual and this change follows the spirit of the MSP. Please coordinate this alignment change with the Lind development project to the north. Transportation Development Review Staff asks that the Gillespie !?DP taper this alignment back to the east as it moves southward so as to avoid future potential offsets with roads planned for the property south of your site. 4. Conflict with trail crossings of internal roadways Transportation, Parks Planning, Current and Advance Planning Staff met to discuss this issue. Staff agreed that the applicant needs to design the regional trail/parkway corridor through the site consistent with the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan (adopted element of City Plan). At -grade street crossings should be minimized or avoided. A creative overall site plan design should design the parkway first, and then look at street and lot layout and other elements. Staff anticipates only 2 at -grade street crossings where the connector streets intersect. Local streets can incorporate loop ways and cull -de -sacs or other alignments to avoid crossing the parkway. The trail should take advantage of the proposed neighborhood park and stormwater detention areas to maximize the off-street parkway. Surface drainage from the overall site should be directed to this greenway leading to the detention area. Staff agrees that a minimum width for the trail/landscape parkway should be 30 feet, preferable 50 or greater. Attached is a copy of your site plan with staff comments. 5. Number of connections across the ditch to the east Transportation Development Review Staff was in agreement that there should be at minimum three roadway connections across the ditch to the east; north, center and south of the site. In addition, two separate bike/pedestrian crossings need to made across the ditch at appropriate 660' spacing intervals. This modification is similar to agreements reached with other projects such as Lind and Harvest Park. Funds may be escrowed for these connections. If the applicant does not wish to provide these connections, it will be necessary to go before the Planning & Zoning Board to request a modification. Transportation Staff will not support such a request. 2 Growth Management Lead Team 281 Conference Room Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:30 — 3:30 p.m. Attendees: Greg Byrne Troy Jones Dave Stringer Ron Phillips Steve Roy Joe Frank Randy Hensley Tom Vosburg Doug Moore Susan Joy Cameron Gloss Mark Jackson Agenda: 1. Six Month Planning Calendar 2. Lead Team Planning Calendar 3. Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Study 4. Gillespie Farm Transportation Conflicts 5. Young's Pasture Michelle Pawar Ted Shepard Patty Storm Minutes: 1. Six Month Planning Calendar The Council Growth Management Committee Meeting on December 10`h has definitely been cancelled. 2. Lead Team Planning Calendar November 27, 2001 Level of Service —APF 3. Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Project Mark Jackson was on hand to give an update on the Northern Colorado Truck Mobility Project. There is a Study Session scheduled for December 111h and it goes before full Council on December 18`n Staff is now finalizing the final document. This was an emotionally -charged project to work on. A good result was the opportunity to work with the trucking community again. This was a Citizen's Ballot initiative. Staff accomplished the three mandates, but there are conflicts between CDOT, Larimer County and the ballot language. All in all, good work resulted from the project and the Triangle Project from a few years back laid a good foundation. 4. Gillespie Farm Transportation Conflicts The Gillespie Farm Project consists of 160 acres. The ODP was approved in February. The discussion today is about the street system that will serve the development. Anheiser Busch is the neighbor to the east of the development, and the East Larimer/Weld County #8 Ditch lies between Gillespie Farm and Anheiser Busch. Transportation staff advocates bridge structures over the ditch, and that alternative modes need to be considered. There was also some discussion on the street layout of the planned development. One of the current design has an offset "T". Eric foresees no problems with this configuration. C:\TEMP\november20 min 01.doc To summarize the discussion: ❑ Bridge structures; will be required on 2 collector streets. ❑ One vehicular structure at the connector street. u 1 pedestrian connection at the northern most local street. 5. Young's Pasture There was a brief discussion regarding new development at Young's Pasture. There are a lot of engineering standards that aren't being met in the developer's design work. An added problem is that of the historic Sheeley neighborhood. Staff is meeting with the applicant on Monday. The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. C: \TEMP\novembe r20_m in_01. d oc