HomeMy WebLinkAbout981652.tiff A FELSBURG
(II HOLT &
ULLEVIG
engineering paths to transportation solutions
August 21, 1998
Mr. Frank Hempen, Jr.
Director, Weld County Public Works Department
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758
RE: Elms at Meadow Vale Traffic Review
FHU Reference No. 98-169
Dear Mr. Hempen:
We have completed our traffic engineering review of the proposed Elms at Meadow Vale
PUD site plan and traffic study for the development to be located on the southwest corner
of WCR 5.5 and WCR 26, north of the Meadow Vale Farm development, east of Longmont.
This letter provides our comments on both the traffic study (prepared by Matthew J.
Delich, P.E., in May 1998) and the plan.
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
In general, the traffic study prepared for the Elms at Meadow Vale is complete and was
prepared using the most recent trip generation and intersection capacity techniques. We
do offer the following comments:
• No trip distribution was assigned to the north of the site; all of the traffic was
assumed to utilize SH 119/WCR 5.5 to access the site. It is likely that some of the
site generated traffic would access the site to/from the north. Both WCR 5 and
WCR 7 are unpaved and provide a connection to SH 66, which extends east/west
between 1-25 and northern Longmont.
• The intersections of WCR 5.5/WCR 26, and WCR 5.5/site access were not analyzed
in the study; the study focused on the intersection of SH 119/WCR 5.5. Currently,
the intersection of WCR 5.5/WCR 26 does not have any traffic control. As
mentioned above, it is likely that some of the site traffic would access the site
to/from the north, therefore using this intersection. A STOP sign should be installed
on the WCR 5.5 approach of this intersection. Additionally, the site access on WCR
5.5 should be STOP-sign controlled for traffic exiting the site access.
303.721.1440
fax 303.721.0832
fhu@fhueng.com
Greenwood Corporate Plea
7951 E. Maplewood Ave.Ste. 200
981652 Englewood.CO 80111
t
August 21 , 1998
Mr. Frank Hampen, Jr.
Page 2
• The intersections of SH 119/WCR 5.5 and SH 119/WCR 3.5 are both identified as
locations for potential signal installations in the future on Map 2.2, titled "Structural
Transportation Network", of the Weld County Mixed Use Development Plan
Standards (Ordinance 191 , February 1997) (WCMUD). It is our opinion that only
one of these signals will be warranted, even in the long range future. As traffic
volumes increase, both locations should be monitored to determine which should be
signalized.
SITE PLAN
The site plan was also reviewed for meeting general traffic engineering principles, and a
field trip was made to verify physical characteristics of the site. Following is a list of
concerns based upon the plan and/or the field trip:
• It is recommended that a second site access be considered. At build out, the site is
expected to generate approximately 1900 vehicles per day (vpd). This volume
suggests at least a collector is needed (arterial according to County Standards) as
the entry road and that home frontage not be allowed. The plan proposed home
frontage along the entry roadway and a second access (perhaps to WCR 26) would
relieve this concentrated demand. A second site access may also be beneficial for
emergency service reasons. Providing the second access onto WCR 26 may also
better serve the site if the WCR 3.5 intersection with SH 119 is signalized and the
WCR 5.5 intersection is left unsignalized.
• The WCMUD Standards state that a two-lane, collector roadway should have a
ROW of 80 feet, including two 12-foot driving lanes, a painted median turn lane,
and two six-foot bike lanes. From field measurement, the existing ROW appears to
be approximately 50 feet on WCR 5.5. and 56 feet on WCR 26. The plan identifies
WCR 5.5 and WCR 26 to each have a cross section of 60 feet with two 14-foot
travel lanes and 16 feet of shoulder/ditch on each side.
• The WCMUD Standards indicate local, residential streets should have 60 feet of
ROW, including two 12-foot travel lanes, two 8-foot parking lanes and 10 feet of
curb and gutter, sidewalk, etc. on each side. For the local roads proposed for within
the site, the plan identifies the following:
• Boulevard - 112 feet of ROW with two, separated 12-foot travel lanes and
eight feet of parking on each side, a fifty foot landscaped median and two
eleven-foot shoulders/ditches.
• Local Street - 60 feet of ROW with two 14-foot travel lanes, no on-street
911 A
August 21, 1998
Mr. Frank Hampen, Jr.
Page 3
parking, and 16 feet of shoulder/ditch on each side.
• Private Drive - 32 feet of ROW with two 10-foot travel lanes and six feet of
shoulder/ditch on each side.
Neither the local street nor the private drive described in the plan meet the Weld
County Standards for local, residential streets. The largest concern is that there is
no on-street parking for the majority of the proposed development. Additionally,
there is concern that emergency vehicles may not be able to maneuver in the
planned Private Drive areas.
• ft is understood that the elementary school was included in the previous study and
plan completed in March 1995 for Meadow Vale Farms. Planning for the school
should incorporate pedestrian and vehicle access from within the neighborhood.
Vehicle access to the school should also be provided from WCR 5.5 if the school is
not to be served by a collector road within the already approved Meadow Vale
Farms development.
• The plan identifies planned landscaping, including trees and bushes, along the
roadway within the site. The location of the landscaping should be carefully
determined to ensure proper site distance is provided at intersections.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG
F
Debra L. Zer len, E.I. Christopher J. Fasching, P.E.
Transportation Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer
cc: Mr. Don Carroll
9Y/t'5
Hello