The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSTONE RIDGE PUD SECOND - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2005-07-15Develoc -nt Services r Cib" of Fort Collins May 18, 1993 Engineering Department Mr. Daniel C. Herlihey RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Stoneridge P.U.D., Second Filing - Creekstone Drive alignment Dear Dan: This letter is in response to your letter dated May 12, 1993, regarding the Creekstone Drive alignment. You are correct that the 240 foot radius curve along centerline does meet published City standards. I would also point out that those published standards include a statement that they are considered minimum standards and do not meet the needs to fit all situations. This may be one of those situations or it may not. If you are okay with the design having the 240 foot radius, use it. I am not in favor of making a design change of this type in the field when the plans show something else. The plans should show what gets built for street alignments. If you have any further questions let me know. Sincerely,_,,, Mike Herzig �! Development Engineering Manager 1 J!, _, ennq T'Onsdtans£ Mike Herzig Community Planning and Environmental Services City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80524 May 12, 1993 Re: Creekstone Drive alignment - Stone Ridge P.U.D., Second Filing Project No: 503-002 Dear Mike; You contacted me last week to discuss your desire to have the arc length increased for a small delta curve that is located along Creekstone Drive (formerly known as Greystone Drive) as being proposed with Stone Ridge Second Filing. You had indicated tha- based on RASH 0 and City of Los Angles guidelines, you would li'•ce to see a minimum arc length of 150 feet achieved for this location. As we discussed, the design which we have proposed, which includes a 240 foot radius curve along centerline, does meet published City standards. I have since reviewed your request to determine the net effect to our plat and plans. I have attached a 20 scale plot which shows both our current design and your requested design which includes a 150' arc length. You will note that the maximum difference between the two designs along the centerline is about 1.3 feet. Mike, I would like to point out that this requested change will cause a substantial amount of reworking of the plat and plans, at this late stage in the process. While I don't disagree with your concerns, I quite honestly don't have the budget to absorb the revisions necessary on paper. What I would like to suggest is to approve the plan as it currently exists, and make the desired adjustment / :shift in the field at the time of construction. The net result would be a portion of Greenstone Drive that would be off -set within the right-of-way by no more than 1.3 feet (to the west). Mike, I believe this to be a reasonable solution to this matter. Please let me know if you agree. Thank you for your further consideration of this. Respectfully, Daniel C. Herlihey RBD Engineering Oiher Offices: Denier 303.4. gB 5526 • Vail 303!476-6340 o FebruartFi1e; 9309LT0,) W O o Mi MiKe Herzig , N 7;`or Co -m t f1ns Deve1 op`nt Engineet.. 0 o a P.�2. B!o `130 O 0 Q Dear Mike' w O ore Ri e Villatre pr'.,_)p;DS4r1T to build 28 toot wade public w a w si :' a ;r v_bra 1 f Q Q he r P x-t S 0 rI 53 t Cs 11 _ "'_g: 1 rn. P,'.-]. n!f 1v;:l_. '.t_'.:-].ranee _ e.. 1_s'ed m rip I n T*!z- "i'e Pt liT OIriOSeC t:J-E 28 feet wide, ..3 1. P.3.'3 c- l.r=. ti _ F C. p.i E. cf C!s _ Lt. L i>. c �-:inn ! ., 4'1-.-F-t-ne !_mil+ r ..- '.i.0 60 ADT The e Si?ec, >-i,._ -I_.. attu`Ci-._- t _ <� �.��lt4S+,?S.r .-hH ;_ C _. 6ti n. Y: .._`. tics bre +.-,ne Drive or ,.54 _i..Cc !,!-_1e saes.._ Lc'i.t S.°'S are L3„y L }. ,�1 _�'iie ffd rdt5- .li r De -y f-.V B,>_pr na 1' r_!i-! pa— .i,- - Th ''. rce _ -` y',_ are Fin J-:io-ed_ �._ bte 26 5e e+ -. -_ la-?,i- - - de- 'g.gcg5 Z - 'f'rR,'- :'ul-de-!. acss do -t ac es-, an arte-rial !q1:1-pe , l _ _ - .'fit level i_M - 5�.. . Toe _le'n i tY w e, * Z;. ! , _ _ f d- el l i_ici units per _ S:_'. !..i�-Ji, T .. ...;Y 't -i_ Res ij.'nic-n ed, t i jc_ t t-i.0 1' T_ TJ' sod Y2 1 i ;= F' ...L_� i -_'- 'eB"!�'(ie r, .; _„ 1'..p#. 1Ti._8'F (� tr' T7 r?e.. �t __[ii_=1t .J_k idi•I �i.t _,.".e'er i.`;:V'..1? IP:i'_H LU 2 t. --;-d a- i r. rjser j3 ;rs a .- tra r I, a_ t me4 !.,is. a -.r; j et-aa - number t _ ,t ti es, �'- � y i. .';I _i. <"�1 <, i :C��..t si;-___ - _C' � 1 i-!:-ta, C7 S. • ' 1 d` v e e i t re 3 W 4t re-5,c IJ1 T-'F 1� C C :_ _�f- 1 c 1d.-y -., T..i.T. 712 .:;1.-. ._ < ._._ .. B t:r 1C3� tt ._ :?r pirk_ f-r or— e s C 1 ; ie D1• =Pt a ._. -_ ._ 1 - T 47 `ill i j t3 r't her recommend that parking be allowed on both sides of the streets. if at least four off-street parking spaces are provided per dwelling unit. Specific concern was expressed about Jewelstone Court, in the 100- feet north of Fieldstone Drive. This area has additional off-street parking ava labie in the "open space" frontage north of lots c:l and -8, and on Fieldstone Drive south of lots 6o and 79, Fieldstone Drive is a 36 foot wide street. While it remains unlikely that these areas will be ?ssed for parking on a regular basis, they are available should it be necessary. If you have any questions or desire additional information, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Matthew J. Delich, P.E. February 16, 1993 Mr. Mike Herzig Fort Collins Development Engineer P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Dear Mike: (File: 9309LT01) Stone Ridge Village is proposing to build 28 foot wide public streets on a number of cul-de-sac streets in the development. These cul-de-sacs are named Jadestone Court, Jewelstone Court, and Rosest.one Court. According to the Fort Collins Design Criteria and Standards for Streets, this street width will require a variance by the City of Fort Collins. The reasons for requesting/granting this variance are listed below: - The streets proposed to be 28 feet wide will have less than 750 ADT on them. These cul-de-sacs would generate the following daily traffic: Jadestone Court (8 d.u.) - 80 ADT; Jewelstone Court (20 d.u.) - 200 ADT; and Rosestone Court (6 d.u.) - 60 ADT. The respective generated traffic volumes would be at the point where the cul-de-sacs intersect with either Greystone Drive or Fieldstone Drive. These volumes are far below the threshold level in the "Fort Collins Standards." There is not likely to be any external traffic passing through these cul-de-sacs. Therefore, the aforementioned traffic volumes will be a worst case level for each cul-de-sac. - The streets that are proposed to be 28 feet are all cul- de-sacs. - The cul-de-sacs do not access an arterial street. - This is primarily a large lot development. The density is considered to be medium (2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre). Based upon criteria in "Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets, A Recommended Practice," Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1984, the pavement width should be 28-34 feet. The proposed 28 feet meets this recommended practice. - Typical developments with large lot sizes provide more than four off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. A comparable development is the First Filing of Clarendon Hills. Based upon observation at various times on a number of days, the average number of vehicles parked on Hinsdale Drive in Clarendon Hills was 3 in a length of 1300 feet. This observation was conducted where there were dwelling units on both sides of the street. The number of parked, on -street vehicles would enable Hinsdale Drive to have been a 28 foot wide street with no traffic or parking problems. I recommend that these cul-de-sac streets in Stone Ridge Village be 28 feet wide (curb to curb). I would further recommend that parking be allowed on both sides of the streets, if at least four off-street parking spaces are provided per dwelling unit. Specific concern was expressed about Jewelstone Court, in the 100+ feet north of Fieldstone Drive. This area has additional on -street parking available in the "open space" frontage north of lots 61 and 78, and on Fieldstone Drive south of lots 60 and 79. Fieldstone Drive is a 36 foot wide street. While it remains unlikely that these areas will be used for parking on a regular basis, they are available should it be necessary. If you have any questions or desire additional information, do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Matthew J. Delich, P.E. t PROJECT st c4 OMMENT SHEET `s City of Fort Collins DATE: . March, '. , • ITEM: 21-92E Stoneridge PUD 2nd -P!F Planner: Ted Shepard Please respond to this project by Friday, March 12, 1993. No Problems 4 Problems or Concerns (see below) �kS 'TNis sou-i-HL1Ij(T ot= tttz �S(AJ'�c� tGT(oti1 2�j l�- � TErLmil��p � �l L-) 14AVt4(�F J SrnALL EXISTIhJC� (� is NZ o 47 LrJ Zvi ��r N VACA--F n d 2 I '\J Tt{� (Zoc.Ess nor Z�cln�, �ati Date: Signature: CHECK IF REVISIONS REQUIRED:El PLAT ❑ SITE ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑ UTII,TTY DEV ELt WNIENTSERVICES 2SI NORTH COLLEGEP.O.ROS 590 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580(303)221-6750 PLANNING DEPAR'I'MEN'T