HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEW PROSPECT - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2014-02-12DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering
2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034
n
March 4, 2013 11111 MAR 0 6. 2013
Marc Virata
Fort Collins Engineering
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Marc:
This variance letter pertains to the intersection corner sight distance at the
Prospect/Site Driveway intersection for the proposed New Prospect development in Fort
Collins. According to Section 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 Prospect Road for a
passenger car vehicle (arterial street design speed — 50 mph). This sight distance cannot
be achieved to the west.
Figure 7-16, LCUASS, was developed using A Policy on Geometric Design 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 slow down 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 by AASHTO, 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 6.5 seconds longer than that used in determining
the operational level of service in the Highway 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.
---��L—DELICH
771 rASSOCIATES
Since an update to Figure 7-16, LCUASS is not likely to occur prior to the
consideration/approval of the New Prospect 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 New Prospect development at the proposed driveway location, which is at the
same location as the existing driveway. The design vehicle is a passenger car. Plans of
the access and sight lines were provided by Aspen Engineering. According to Aspen
Engineering, a clear sight line will be achieved (all foliage removed) such that the driver of
the entering vehicle can see a vehicle in the right eastbound lane beyond 555 feet. The
evaluation indicated that, at the driver eye located 13 feet from the curb, this sight distance
(555 feet) would be met.
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 New Prospect development 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.
Sincerely,'��'
Matthew J. Delici,•E.,
e
6
8 �
File: 0932 VAR LT01�ap�
--/I L—DELICH
%/ r=ASSOCIATES
Letter of Intent for Sight Easement
I, SC; nC Crt ?. c .c.Cl with property address �'c Z if.
rc VT c. E ll,7r S ec GS ZS , am willing to allow dedication of the proposed
sight distance easement on my property, which is needed by the New Prospect Development, and as
shown on the attached exhibit. New Prospect, LLC (the developer) will provide the legal and exhibit for
the sight easement to the City of Fort Collins at no cost to me.
Property Owner
Developer of New Prospect
3 L
,3 - /.3 _10
Date
3-1.3 —zv/o
Date
Page 1 of 2
Sheri Langenberger - sight distance easement at the New Prospect site...
From: Sheri Langenberger
To: Helen Migchelbrink; Joe Olson
Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:03 AM
Subject: sight distance easement at the New Prospect site...
CC: Susan Joy; Ward Stanford
All
Unfortunately it appears that although the sidewalk on Prospect was widened onto the private property that no easement
was ever filed.
Therefore in accordance with our conversation the other day in which we determined that we would grant a variance to
needing this small triangle of sight distance easement, we will direct the consulting engineer to write a variance request for
our approval.
Please let me know if there are any concerns about this ASAP. Otherwise we will provide direction to the consultant this
afternoon to proceed with the variance request.
Thanks
Sheri
Sheri Langenberger, P.E.
Development Review Manager - Engineering
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
970-221-6573
>>> John Gooch <johng@apex-engineer.com> 4/26/2010 3:38 PM >>>
Susan,
Based on development agreement for the Pinnacle Townhomes Subdivision, we understand that there was an access
easement called for in the DA. This explains the asphalt paving on the south side of the sidewalk along the properties to the
west of the New Prospect project.
Dan Tweeton requested title work be pulled for the Lott Property to verify the access easement that was called for in the
Pinnacle Townhomes subdivision and the title search did not show this easement. However, we assume that because the
access easement was required by the City in the Pinnacle Townhomes DA, it does exist, or the asphalt would have never
been placed along the properties to the west and the Pinnacle Townhomes wouldn't have moved forward without meeting
the requirements of the DA.
If the access easement is in place by virtue of the DA, then I assume we do not need a letter of intent from the Lott property,
as our sight triangle is within the existing access easement, required by the Pinnacle Townhomes DA. Please let me know if
you agree with this? If not, please explain the process that will occur to correct the Pinnacle Townhomes DA and provide the
access easement that was called for and required by the City.
In visiting the New Prospect site and the adjacent properties to the west, it is apparent that there are no obstructions within
the site easement on the Lott Property and only a few small bushes that will be trimmed on the first adjacent neighbor to the
west.
It is important to note again that the sight easement we show along the Lott Property is within the existing asphalt paving
area and no obstructions exist within this area, all of which are within the access easement called for in the Pinnacle
Townhomes DA.
Please let me know how we proceed.
Thank you,
John Gooch, PE
Project Manager
APEX Engineering
238 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Office 970-797-2906
file://CADocuments and Settings\slangenberger\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BD69A38FC I CF... 7/16/2010
Page 1 of 2
Sheri Langenberger - Re: sight distance easement at the New Prospect site...
From: Ward Stanford
To: Sheri Langenberger
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: sight distance easement at the New Prospect site...
I'm fine with the variance request.
Ward.
>>> On 4/27/2010 at 8:03 AM, in message <4BD69A38.2293.006E.0@fcgov.com>, Sheri Langenberger wrote:
All
Unfortunately it appears that although the sidewalk on Prospect was widened onto the private property that no
easement was ever filed.
Therefore in accordance with our conversation the other day in which we determined that we would grant a
variance to needing this small triangle of sight distance easement, we will direct the consulting engineer to
write a variance request for our approval.
Please let me know if there are any concerns about this ASAP. Otherwise we will provide direction to the
consultant this afternoon to proceed with the variance request.
Thanks
Sheri
Sheri Langenberger, P.E.
Development Review Manager - Engineering
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
City of Fort Collins
970-221-6573
>>> John Gooch <johng@apex-engineer.com> 4/26/2010 3:38 PM >>>
Susan,
Based on development agreement for the Pinnacle Townhomes Subdivision, we understand that there was an
access easement called for in the DA. This explains the asphalt paving on the south side of the sidewalk along
the properties to the west of the New Prospect project.
Dan Tweeton requested title work be pulled for the Lott Property to verify the access easement that was called
for in the Pinnacle Townhomes subdivision and the title search did not show this easement. However, we
assume that because the access easement was required by the City in the Pinnacle Townhomes DA, it does
exist, or the asphalt would have never been placed along the properties to the west and the Pinnacle
Townhomes wouldn't have moved forward without meeting the requirements of the DA.
If the access easement is in place by virtue of the DA, then I assume we do not need a letter of intent from the
Lott property, as our sight triangle is within the existing access easement, required by the Pinnacle
Townhomes DA. Please let me know if you agree with this? If not, please explain the process that will occur
to correct the Pinnacle Townhomes DA and provide the access easement that was called for and required by
the City.
In visiting the New Prospect site and the adjacent properties to the west, it is apparent that there are no
obstructions within the site easement on the Lott Property and only a few small bushes that will be trimmed
on the first adjacent neighbor to the west.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\sangenberger\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BD7F4A6FC 1 CF... 7/16/2010
Page 2 of 2
It is important to note again that the sight easement we show along the Lott Property is within the existing
asphalt paving area and no obstructions exist within this area, all of which are within the access easement
called for in the Pinnacle Townhomes DA.
Please let me know how we proceed.
Thank you,
John Gooch, PE
Project Manager
APEX Engineering
238 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Office 970-797-2906
Mobile 970-420-5345
joking cr apex-engineer.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\slangenberger\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4BD7F4A6FC I CF... 7/16/2010