Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAKEVIEW - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2014-06-27Andrew S. Gingerich From: Sarah Burnett Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:49 PM To: Andrew S. Gingerich Subject: FW: Lakeview Fort Collins Attachments: CCCC dvwyjpg From: Mark Kenning [mailto:mkenning@kenningfilter com] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: Ted Shepard; Sarah Burnett; David Niquette; mikec(d)centurycommunities com Subject: Lakeview Fort Collins HI Ted, Sarah, David and Mike. At the neighborhood meeting a few months ago, the neighbors along the south border (of the church) expressed concern -- based on their observations of patterns of the Sunday morning traffic exiting the Church lot -- that the existing southern access and drive would become the defacto choice for Lakeview drivers wanting to go south. From the Traffic study, page 21 Comment 7: Our preference is that you keep your traffic off the church's south access drive or mitigate the impacts. Response: The casement between the site and S. Lemay Avenue is only via the northern driveway. It is possible a small amount of site traffic could use the southern drive- way to turn south oil S. Lemay Avenue. Comment b: For the south access, how about installing a gate that would be closed six days per week but open only on Sunday's? Response: This was not considered in the traffic study because of the low volume of site traffic expected to use the southern driveway. Comment 10: Access to Lemay via the church's southern driveway is impactful. Using this driveway should be discouraged by making the route circuitous. Response: The easement between the site and S. Lemay Avenue is only via the northern driveway. It is possible a small amount of site traffic could use the southern drive- way to travel to/from the south on S. Lemay Avenue. Also from the Traffic study: �c) "'ci i"<ft Il'•oilt =1 % 3 t Illicit' -dips t>II [lie il"i'i'kda !WC, iiLl(tile Site dttt'M— ,1 - ••"hold' period. [Xi Ing [lieniorllillo pej � s-- our i oUr b M oCii 6:')O and 8:_�O a<lli . (ll?ou( 10 Vc llieles would ell? `r �? ,I CI , C�yi1 the site. 1_)[1111i? Hie :ift:erllooii peak--11OLir, wincl�l g�rl�rG�fly tt Klioiir hct�%cell 4:15 and 6:15 p,m.. �iN)Ui 30 vehicles wo ull epic,- d nd (io�it I8 tl0"Ll : exit t1le sitc: LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303)333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 E-mail: lsc@Iscdenver.com I RANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. November 25, 2013 Mr. Ward Stanford Traffic Systems Engineer City of Fort Collins 626 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Lakeview Fort Collins, CO LSC # 130490 Dear Mr. Stanford: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared this letter to confirm the attached current Lakeview site plan has the same access plan, land use, and number of lots as analyzed in our October 28, 2013 Lakeview traffic memorandum. The previous study is applicable as is to the attached plan. We trust our findings will assist you in your review of the proposed Lakeview development. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further assistance. Sincerely, LSC TRANSPOWTION CONSULTANTS, INC. �0 S. McGranahan, PE, PTOE Princi Z: \ LSC \ Projects \ 2013 \ 130490-Lakeview\ November 2013 \ Lakeview-112513.wpd Y Cl/(Z/II ltlll1nB115 Ntlld ltlNld I :MHIA3Id'I paw RYL a sYP c sa Nulsuaa u x � 6 i 9 0 O z Z W am w w� W O F UI �o� o 3359� i a 0x zo <Ca9O5LL z9 ?I .'.s ® o asW �� 3oz� � ~o r �Www �z� i11 J ro Om 'oao !� , jet {e jet z a o i a 00 w i a W� lt 7!! a a N~ a 0> H 3 LLOJo V Cn ZOW �LL CL a oN� ilt �T a ��Ca- o�y 3toZN m WWa 0y , cl:: 1`M 1� C S 3fill1iF a O aOw a0 Qw~o L-L�I>�yu l^ LL az 4+. I ii ^� Fi7 F3 O aW 0 NO =2z0 p I� .�... w Z Z oVS Om W N W of Z O aLLO W O LL W2 m vm �'i 0' W I W �0 aZ � mw— o0 OHO 'x ~ �o�A6 ¢w On(W7 �¢ �d2m= o O zap m0 0 W•-� Zw ZZO~ Z J maZ m NF > Woa a= a—"� a m y�U a ��• Rf?=AAR 8= OR LU w~2 NO IL00J F J ONO Z 4-0 LL N d W J oho ' y W m x:•.55 0� ¢ OWE Z�z Z�gO W Mo" 8 C9 N££ { dAi: am O >m oDw Owa J i N W p ~ E Z ry w S 5 Y• Y_ Y O Z 0 5 Z a LL F U W J o O LLJ W>> o z � o >Q 3 �WW ooO c�MW03 �u U ON 2`v mm 8 R 2 O 0 QaJ tLW2N O W r W ��E..N [aaLQ O O12¢ O��ii OOig z o 5 O Z E�^` LL dam imo f��a a 2 W _a'-'ik © H vyi S E w W Z O S J W ga H a� 0 W X yeb a M J W 4 n a m Z N N N I I � >. ------ ---- ----- __ uses rae�a�.00s � lam_/ §i '4 -•f i9 g 9G Ee ` Coy � y I s, -- - - - - g J= g �1LT.atu 3.feaz.oaN l i Sjo i E \`�, - - -_,bt S8131tl84.00N ;MILL., ead - SCYYl 3.B4 CZ OON F'" __zre�e m.s�z,N+oow� w �$oa ng�8 ti��. HE; Mike at Century Properties pointed out that the only LEGAL easement granted to Lakeview residents across the churcli property is the north access road. Technically, any use of the southern access would be trespassing. He also suggested that reminders could be added to the new HOA's covenants stating as much. At the meeting, it was suggested that one way to reduce temptation to use the southern access road along all of their properties would be to install curbing shortly to the east of the south entrance point, which would force incoming traffic back to the north access road. Similarly, anyone exiting via the south access point would use the north access road nearly to Lemay before turning south. I've attached a sketch showing what was suggested. This would not reduce the number of parking spots available for the church, as the existing south drive could become new parking spots. This would be an inexpensive modification to the overall plan, especially if done at the same time as other paving and concrete curb work was being done. Who can say if this could or for sure will not be added to the plan? Or, since it is totally on church property, is it totally a church decision? I will forward your response to our email group, as I know there will be a lot of interest. Thank you, Mark Mark Kenning / Kenning Inc, dba FilterSource PO Box 271213 Fort Collins, Colorado 800.701.8038 or 970.204.4758 phone 970.204.4764 fax g1 41 t-er.com E Andrew S. Ginrich From: . Sarah Burnett Sent Tuesday, October 20l33��27P�� To ' ' . Ward Stanford; Andrew S. G/ngerich C.. Ted Shepard; Joe Olson Subject: , RE: Lakeview Fort Collins | think the concern isthat residents ofthe new development who want tuQosouth onLennaywill use the south ki �ovewaKwh/chvvou|dbringtnaf�ca|ongthehackv�ndsofhomesonthenorthendsofE tb h par n� mn K4idd|esbonouBh,and Fauboruu8hCt . '- as onou8 ' | understand that the estimate for the amount ofthis traffic islow, and that hisnot intended toserve asanacce emergency access point tothe neiQhborhood But ifitishighe thanaccess or City tohelp address the pnnb|enoafter the fac It |a�sunnetherem/ou|dbenowayforthe thedeve)opmentasweU� `� n o� nthe mtensstofthe church tolimit cutting through /s there some way that agate could berequired asapart ofthe development review process? |fso isth vvhythe City might not want torequire it? |fitcouldn't berequired (because the church ovvnsthe ' ki ere any reason not pa�ofthe pDPt/sthere another way toencourage/ask for ins1aUationofagate? par n�|otanditis From: Ward Stanford Sent Uctober15, 2013 12:51 PM To: AndrewS. Gingerich; Sarah Burnett Cc: Ted Shepard; Joe Olson Subject: RE: Lakeview Fort Collins | don't see anything for Traffic toaddress, | see Mr. Kenning iscommenting about closing oraltering the south [h h parmnglot access Vvhichisanissue between the Chunhand the deve|oprnent, Church Lecmeknowihuu8hifthereissomethinQspechDcyouwou|dUkemetVcommentonthou&h. Best regards, Traffic SyetenlsEng|near City ofFort Collins 870-221-0630 From: Andrew S.Gingehch '---- ------- -- -- Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:57AM To: Sarah Burnett Cc/ Ward Stanford; Ted Shepard Subject: RE: Lakeview Fort Collins Sarah, From what |chave seen onsome ofthe previous church docunnen1s�does not appear that the most southern access has a..v p"v.iac cess ccsseasement, This means that this access is private along with the parking lot in this area as well and 1 potentially could have a gate added that the church would maintain and operate. This would need to be a dISCUSSiOrl ,with the applicant and the church as to who constructs, location, maintenance, operation, etc. Engineering would request that the gate not be constructed within the public right of way. The remainder of the questions below seem to be more appropriate for Ward Stanford in traffic to respond to. Has he been provided this email from the adjacent neighbors? shank you, Andrew S. GGingerieli, P.E. Phi w: 970.221.6603 agingerich �i�fcov.com From: Sarah Burnett Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:49 PM To: Andrew S. Gingerich Subject: FW: Lakeview Fort Collins From: Mark Kenning [mailto:mkenning@kenningfilter com] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: Ted Shepard; Sarah Burnett; David Niquette; mikec(&centurycommunities com Subject: Lakeview Fort Collins HI Ted, Sarah, David and Mike. At the neighborhood meeting a few months ago, the neighbors along the south border (of the church) expressed concern -- based on their observations of patterns of the Sunday morning traffic exiting the Church lot -- that the existing Southern access and drive would become the defacto choice for Lakeview drivers wanting to go south. From, the Traffic study, page 21 Comment 7: Our preference is that you keep your traffic off the church's south access drive or mitigate the impacts. Response: The easement between the site and S. Lemay Avenue is only via the northern driveway. It is possible a small amount of site traffic could use the southern drive- way to turn south on S. Lemay Avenue. Comment 8: For the south access, how about installing a gate that would be closed six days per week but open only on Sunday's? Response: This was not considered in the traffic study because of the low volume of site traffic expected to use the southern driveway. Comment 10: Access to Lemay via the church's southern driveway is impactful. Using this driveway should be discouraged by making the route circuitous. Response: The easement between the site and S. Lemay Avenue is only via the northern driveway. It is possible a small amount of site traffic could use the southern drive- way to travel to/from the south on S. Lemay Avenue. 2 Also from the Traffic study: �' s ; rojee ecl t:c generate about 473 vehicle -trips ol3 the average \r- clticl t , with al orit l afl (''n" .ri, '7 and hall exiting the site during -24- i ` l=ic G e �eraliti% Decor f 3 one 17t�ur bct`vecaT�tS: i and l; l�)d. luring; the niornino peak-hoi.zr, �. t.�� .. about I() �el�ic le NNor1ld el�rter ��l ttht3t•i; ') t ellicle.s V��ould exit the, site. 1)uring the aflen Don peak -hour. which sy 10t, one hm} r between 4:15 and ti:1 p.rn., about 30 vehicles \.Nolcl enter arld abc)t�li�1 OU10 e ii the site. Mike at Century Properties pointed out that the only LEGAL easement granted to Lakeview residents across the church property is the north access road. Technically, any use of the southern access would be trespassing. He also suggested that reminders could be added to the new HOA's covenants stating as much. At the meeting, it was suggested that one way to reduce temptation to use the southern access road along all of their properties would be to install curbing shortly to the east of the south entrance point, which would force incoming traffic back to the north access road. Similarly, anyone exiting via the south access point would use the north access road nearly to Lemay before turning south. I've attached a sketch showing what was suggested. This would not reduce the number of parking spots available for the church, as the existing south drive could become new parking spots. This would be an inexpensive modification to the overall plan, especially if done at the same time as other paving and concrete curb work was being done. Who can say if this could or for sure will not be added to the plan? Or, since it is totally on church property, is it totally a church decision? I will forward your response to our email group, as I know there will be a lot of interest. Thank you, Mark Mark Kenning / Kenning Inc, dba FilterSource PO Box 271213 Fort Collins, Colorado 800.701.8038 or 970.204.4758 phone 970.204.4764 fax n ,' LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 E-mail: Isc@lscdenver.com TRANSPORTATIO CONSULTANTS, I October 1, 2013 Mr. Ward Stanford Traffic Systems Engineer City of Fort Collins 626 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 Re: Lakeview Fort Collins, CO LSC # 130490 Dear Mr. Stanford: This letter serves as a Variance Request for the proposed Lakeview development in Fort Collins, Colorado per Section 1.9.4.A of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) for the existing site access intersection with E. Drake Road. A previous land use proposal on this site requested a similar variance that was approved. The previous variance request letter from June, 2012 is attached. The existing posted speed limit on E. Drake Road is 40 mph approaching the existing site access from the east. Figure 7-16 of the LCUASS requires a corner sight distance of 660 feet for a design speed of 40 mph, 830 feet for a design speed of 45 mph, and 1,030 feet for a design speed of 50 mph. The previous variance request assumed a design speed of 50 mph. One - thousand -thirty feet relates to a gap of 14 seconds at 50 mph which seems unreasonable. The previous request acknowledges this point and suggests the 1,030-foot requirement is based on outdated methodology. We agree with the prior request that an acceptable gap of 7.5 seconds per the current AASHTO design standards is more appropriate and would reduce the accep- table minimum entering sight distance to 555 feet. While an occasional large truck could use this access to/from the site, the design vehicle for residential areas is typically a passenger vehicle. The occasional large vehicle would have the option of turning right from the existing site access on S. Lemay Avenue to generally travel in the same direction. The only movement from the existing site access that is affected by this sight distance is the left -turn movement onto E. Drake Road. The available sight distance to the east was field - measured as 560 feet. This distance would be up to 100 feet longer if either the turning or approaching vehicle is taller than a typical passenger vehicle (i.e., a pickup truck or sport utility vehicle). Mr. Ward Stanford Page 2 October 1, 2013 Lakeview Variance Request Left -turning vehicles onto E. Drake Road have a two-way left -turn lane (TWLTL) as a receiving lane which results in better operations for those comfortable using the TWLTL as a left -turn acceleration lane. A vehicle using the TWLTL for acceleration would only need to see far enough east to see a westbound vehicle that is turning left into the site - most likely at an average speed closer to 25-30 mph. It is also worth noting that the site -generated traffic making a left -turn movement onto S. Drake Road will be very low because there is the option of turning right from the existing site access on S. Lemay Avenue to generally travel in the same direction. Considering all of the above, we request a variance from LCUASS to reduce the acceptable minimum sight distance to the east on E. Drake Road from 1,030 feet to 555 feet consistent with what was previously approved. This variance will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; will not reduce the design life of improvements; and will not cause the City of Fort Collins additional maintenance costs. Sincerely, , NUO I�<< LSC TRANSPORT ION CONSULTANT,R S d'��•.c1 �9 39018 By . ci Christ er S. cGran an, PE, PT 4 Princl CSM/wc Enclosure: Variance Request, Delich & Associates, June 8, 2012 Z: \LSC\Projects\2013 \ 130490-Lakeview\Sept-2013\Lakeview-Variance Request- 100 1 13.wpd DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering �••/ ® 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 ' /''� June 8, 2012 Marc Virata/Ward Stanford Fort Collins Engineering 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Marc and Ward: This variance letter pertains to the intersection corner sight distance at the Drake/Site Driveway intersection for the proposed Regency Lakeview Apartments in Fort Collins. According to Sectidn 7.4.1.C.4. Corner Sight Distance and Figure 7-16 in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), the intersection corner sight distance for this access is 1030 feet to the east and west along Drake Road for a passenger car vehicle. This sight distance cannot be achieved to the east. To the west, this sight distance is beyond the Drake/Lemay inter section. Figure 7-16, LCUASS, was developed using A Policy on Geometric DesicLn of Highways and Streets, 1990 (AASHTO). The basis of this distance (1030 feet) is: if the driver of a vehicle entering the major street sees an approaching vehicle at this specific location (1030 feet away); and the approaching vehicle is at the design speed; and the entering vehicle accelerates at a normal rate to the design speed; then the approaching vehicle will not be required to slowdown at all before overtaking the entering vehicle on the major street. According to one of the engineers on the committee that prepared the LCUASS document, this basis was selected to keep traffic moving on the major street at a constant rate with no slow down due to side street traffic. It assumes that the driver entering the major street will only enter the major street when the approaching vehicle is at or beyond 1030 feet from the access location. This is not practical, since the driver entering the major street cannot possibly determine a distance of 1030 feet. Also, based upon experience, the driver of the vehicle entering the major street will likely select a gap at less than 1030 feet. This was recognized byAASHTO, and in the current (2011) edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO has eliminated the basis of intersection sight distance described above. The time gap for 1030 feet is 14.0 seconds at the 50 mph design speed. This gap is more than 7 seconds longer than that used in determining the operational level of service in the Hiahwav Capacity Manual. The gap used for sight distance determination should be similar to that used in the operations analyses. It is recommended that Figure 7-16, LCUASS be updated to reflect the most recent AASHTO design standards. --/11 L-_—_DELICH T e ,[--ASSOCIATES Since an update to Figure 7-16, LCUASS is not likely to occur prior to the consideration/approval of the Regency Lakeview Apartments development proposal, this variance to the intersection sight distance standard is submitted. Based upon the 2011 AASHTO design standards, please consider the following: Passenger Car Vehicle: Driver eye height - 3.5 feet Object height - 3.5 feet Design speed, - 50 mph Time gap - 7.5 seconds Intersection sight distance - 555 feet The above intersection corner sight distance criterion was evaluated at the access to the Proposed Regency Lakeview Apartments development. While there may be an occasional truck at this access, the design vehicle is a passenger car. The evaluation indicated that there was adequate sight distance to the east and west from the proposed access location. In light of the above information and analyses, it is respectfully requested that the intersection corner sight distance variance from the sight distance reflected in Figure 7-16, LCUASS be granted for the proposed Regency Lakeview Apartments access. This variance will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety; will not reduce the design life of improvements; and will not cause the City of Fort Collins additional maintenance costs. Thank you. p0 RE Sincerely,Zvi J Matthew J. D ia_trL P. File: 1140 VAR LT01 J� L-DELICH %1 (—ASSOCIATES