| Date |
Text |
| 2022-10-21 02:44:58 | TRAFFIC COMMENTS |
| | 1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A REVISED FULL TRAFFIC STUDY, |
| | WITHOUT THE TRAFFIC-CONCURRENCY-PURPOSES-ONLY |
| | ASSUMPTION/CONDITION. A SECOND METHODOLOGY MEETING TO |
| | DISCUSS MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE SETUP, IF |
| | POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND LOS DETERIORATION ARE |
| | IDENTIFIED OR PREDICTED |
| | 2) SATISFIED. PROVIDE COUNTY TPS LETTER, ONCE AVAILABLE |
| | 3) PLEASE NUMBER EACH TABLE IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY |
| | 4) IN THE TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLES |
| | PLEASE INSERT THE RESULTS FOR THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS: |
| | EXISTING, FUTURE NO-PROJECT, FUTURE-WITH-PROJECT |
| | 5) IN A SEPARATE TABLE SHOWCASE EACH OF THE VEHICULAR |
| | MOVEMENTS (I.E. LEFT, RIGHT, STRAIGHT) THAT RESULTS IN |
| | A LEVEL OF SERVICE E OR F |
| | 6) THE QUEUE ANALYSIS SEEMS TO FOCUS ON DROP-OFF |
| | OPERATIONS ONLY, WHILE IGNORING POTENTIAL INSTANCES OF |
| | CONCURRENT PICK-UP ONES, WHICH ARE CONDUCTED AT THE |
| | SAME LOCATIONS. PLEASE ADDRESS OR FURTHER ELABORATE |
| | SUCH CASES |
| | 7) IN APPENDIX C, PLEASE SHOW THE VALET PATHS ALONG THE |
| | SECOND FLOOR OF THE GARAGE |
| | 8) IN APPENDIX C OR SHEET A-102 CLEARLY MARK THE VALET |
| | STALLS |
| | |
| | SITE COMMENTS |
| | 9) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CLEAN TRANSPORTATION SPECIFIC |
| | SITE PLAN FOR THE GROUND FLOOR. SHOWCASING |
| | TRANSPORTATION RELATED FEATURES (E.G. ROADWAY WIDTHS, |
| | DRIVING AISLES, PARKING STALLS, SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, |
| | DRIVEWAY, GATES, CROSSWALKS, SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT |
| | MARKINGS ETC.) PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. SHEET |
| | C-400 IS A STARTING POINT. |
| | 10) SATISFIED. IN THE TRANSPORTATION SITE PLAN, PLEASE |
| | SHOWCASE BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, |
| | PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, ETC.) ON THE |
| | OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE BETTER ROADWAY DETAILS ON |
| | THE OPPOSITE SIDE ALONG PINE AND BUTLER |
| | 11) SATISFIED. PROVIDE STRIPING PLANS FOR EACH ROAD |
| | FRONTING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | BETTER ROADWAY DETAILS ALONG PINE AND BUTLER. |
| | 12) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PROVIDE AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR |
| | GARBAGE TRUCK AND/OR SERVICE VEHICLES DRIVING IN AND |
| | OUT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH VEHICLE DYNAMIC |
| | ENVELOPES AND WHEEL PATHS CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DEFINED. |
| | ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A SEPARATE FILE/DRAWING. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME AND SHEET NUMBER |
| | SHOWCASING THE ANALYSIS. ANALYSIS SUBMITTED ON 8/26 IS |
| | NOT PROPER; THE CITY CAN PROVIDE A SAMPLE REFERENCE |
| | ANALYSIS. SHOWCASE MANEUVERING OF A BOX TRUCK IN AND |
| | OUT OF EACH OF THE PROPOSED LOADING ZONES. SHEET C-901 |
| | SHOWS SEVERAL ENCROACHMENTS ALONG EACH OF THE DEPICTED |
| | PATHS; PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE VEHICLE |
| | MOVEMENT/POSITION BY THE GARAGE RAMP-UP LOCATION. |
| | 13) SATISFIED. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FIVE ACCESS |
| | POINTS/DRIVEWAYS. CITY CODE 94-312(1)(B)(1) ALLOWS A |
| | MAXIMUM TOTAL OF FOUR. PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | CONVERSATION WITH CITY STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE TRAFFIC |
| | ENGINEERING. |
| | 14) SATISFIED. THERE ARE THREE DRIVEWAYS ON BUTLER ST, |
| | PER CITY CODE 94-312(1)(A): MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESS |
| | POINTS ONTO EACH ROW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH |
| | 75+ UNITS IS TWO. PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | CONVERSATION WITH CITY STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE TRAFFIC |
| | ENGINEERING. |
| | 15) [OVERRULED] NOT SATISFIED. PER CITY CODE |
| | 94-312(4)(C): ACCESS TO ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN A |
| | PROPOSED SUBDIVISION SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE LOWEST |
| | FUNCTIONAL CLASS OF ROADWAY HAVING FRONTAGE ON THE LOT. |
| | GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY TO ACCESS THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT THROUGH TWO LOCAL ROADS (BUTLER AND PINE |
| | ST), THE N FLAGLER DRIVEWAY IS NOT WARRANTED, AS IT |
| | FRONTS AN URBAN COLLECTOR. PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | CONVERSATION WITH CITY STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE TRAFFIC |
| | ENGINEERING. |
| | 16) SATISFIED. INSTALL A HIGH-VISIBILITY PEDESTRIAN |
| | CROSSING CONNECTING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE |
| | EASTERN PROMENADE EITHER MID-BLOCK OR AT THE EXISTING |
| | EASTERN RAMPS (NORTH OF PINE AND SOUTH OF BUTLER. IN |
| | CASE OF THE FORMER, CONNECT THE EXISTING EASTERN RAMPS |
| | WITH STANDARD CROSSINGS. PROVIDE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS |
| | AND DETAILS FOR SUCH HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSING. ALSO |
| | INSTALL RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB) AT |
| | SUCH CROSSING, PROVIDE A DETAIL SHEET FOR SUCH SAFETY |
| | ENHANCEMENT |
| | 17) SATISFIED. PROPERLY DEPICT AND ANALYZE VALET |
| | LOCATIONS AND OPERATIONS. THE ANALYSIS MUST BE |
| | CORROBORATED WITH VEHICLE PATHS TO/FROM THE GARAGE. IN |
| | THE QUEUE ANALYSIS PROVIDE A DETAILED BREAKDOWN FOR |
| | EACH PROCESSING TIMESTEP (I.E. VEHICLE |
| | ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE, VALET PICK-UP/DROP-OFF, VALET WALK |
| | TO/FROM THE PODIUM OR GARAGE). THE BUTLER ST LOCATION |
| | WOULD NOT PROPERLY OPERATE WITH A SINGLE LANE, AS THE |
| | QUEUE OF DROP-OFF VEHICLES WAITING TO BE PARKED WOULD |
| | BLOCK THE ONES MEANT FOR PICK-UP. |
| | 18) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. A BY-PASS LANE MUST BE |
| | PROVIDED AT EACH VALET SERVICE LOCATION. PROVIDE A |
| | BY-PASS LANE AT THE BUTLER VALET STATION OR PROVIDE |
| | AUTOTURN ANALYSIS SHOWCASING THE U-TURN MANEUVER |
| | DEPICTED IN THE VALET OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS |
| | 19) IF APPROVED AND FEASIBLE, AND FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, |
| | THE BUTLER DROP-OFF LOCATION MUST BE A MINIMUM OF |
| | 15-FEET WIDE |
| | 20) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE AND CLEARLY MARK A |
| | TURN-AROUND SPACE AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGE. |
| | PROPOSED TURN-AROUND SPACES ARE NOT PROPER, THOSE CAN |
| | BE CONSIDERED BACK-OUT SPACES. ONE OF THE PARKING |
| | STALLS NEAR THE END WALLS MUST BE DESIGNATED, AND |
| | CORRESPONDING PAVEMENT MARKING & SIGNAGE PROVIDED. |
| | UNLESS AN AUTOTURN ANALYSIS FOR EACH OF THE DEAD-ENDS |
| | PROVING THAT A 3-POINT TURN IS FEASIBLE, THE LATEST |
| | PROPOSED TURN-AROUND AREAS ARE NOT SATISFACTORY |
| | 21) SATISFIED. CLEARLY MARK AND DIMENSION THE REQUIRED |
| | LOADING ZONE(S). PROVIDE DOCUMENT NAME AND SHEET NUMBER |
| | SHOWCASING SUCH FEATURE |
| | 22) SATISFIED. PROVIDE PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE |
| | NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES, |
| | INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES. PROVIDE DOCUMENT |
| | NAME AND SHEET NUMBER SHOWCASING SUCH ITEM. PER CITY |
| | CODE SECTION 94 TABLE XV-3 THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF ADA |
| | STALLS REQUIRED IS TWENTY (20). MOREOVER, THE NUMBER OF |
| | ADA STALLS SHOULD HAVE A MUCH HIGHER DISTRIBUTION ON |
| | THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE FIRST LEVEL OF THE GARAGE. |
| | PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY |
| | 23) SATISFIED. CLEARLY MARK AND DIMENSION EACH OF THE |
| | HANDICAP STALLS |
| | 24) NOT SATISFIED. PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND |
| | MANAGEMENT (TDM) STRATEGIES. CONVERSATION WITH CITY |
| | STAFF DID NOT INCLUDE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. CITY CODE |
| | FOR CMUD CORE I DOES ENCOURAGE IMPLEMENTATION OF TDM. |
| | MOREOVER, TDM WOULD BE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED IN THE CASE |
| | THE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOWS INTERSECTION LOS DEGRADATION |
| | DUE TO THE VEHICULAR VOLUMES GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT |
| | 25) ALLEY SHOULD BE DESIGNATED ONE-WAY. PLEASE |
| | COORDINATE WITH PUBLIC WORKS PERTAINING PREFERRED |
| | DIRECTIONALITY, IF ANY SANITATION VEHICLES WOULD BE |
| | TRAVERSING THE ALLEY, AS WELL AS REACH OUT TO EVERY |
| | AFFECTED PARCEL OWNER FOR NOTIFICATION AND APPROVAL |
| | PURPOSES |
| | 26) SHOWCASE THE FULL EXTENT OF THE ALLEY ON THE |
| | TRANSPORTATION SITE PLAN. NOTE: THE ACTUAL WIDTH OF THE |
| | ALLEY SHOULD BE SHOWN AND DIMENSIONED, INCLUSIVE OF |
| | BACKYARD LOTS, DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING STALLS OF THE |
| | ABUTTING PARCELS |
| | 27) PROVIDE AND SHOWCASE CORRESPONDING SIGNAGE AND |
| | PAVEMENT MARKINGS ALONG THE ALLEY. NOTE: ONE-WAY SIGNS |
| | SHOULD BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT ITS EXTENT AND ACCORDING |
| | TO ABUTTING PARCELS TRANSPORTATION CHARACTERISTICS |
| | 28) EXPLAIN THE USE OF THE PARKING AREA ALONG PINE |
| | STREET |
| | 29) RESTRIPE FLAGLER TO ACCOMMODATE A 11-FEET WIDE |
| | NORTHBOUND LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANE, BEGINNING JUST NORTH |
| | OF THE HIGH-VISIBILITY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING. TO |
| | ACCOMMODATE SUCH FEATURE, REMOVE ALL ON-STREET PARKING |
| | PAVEMENT MARKINGS ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF FLAGLER |
| | BETWEEN BUTLER AND PINE, AND INSTALL A 5-FEET WIDE BIKE |
| | LANE WITH A 2-FEET DOUBLE STRIPED BUFFER IN LIEU OF THE |
| | PARKING STALLS |
| | 30) DRIVEWAY ON FLAGLER SHOULD BE RIGHT-OUT ONLY. |
| | LEFT-TURN OUTBOUND MOVEMENTS SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN. |
| | INSTALL CORRESPONDING SIGNAGE, CORRECT DRIVEWAY |
| | GEOMETRY, EXTEND THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY MEDIAN ISLAND |
| | AND DESIGN ITS TERMINAL TO CHANNELIZE THE RIGHT-TURN |
| | OUTBOUND MOVEMENTS AND IMPEDE THE LEFT-TURN ONES |
| | 31) IF ANY DRIVEWAY GATES ARE PROPOSED, PLEASE SHOWCASE |
| | THE 20-FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE BACK OF THE |
| | SIDEWALK |
| | 32) INSTALL DIRECTIONAL (EAST-POINTING) NO-PARKING SIGN |
| | 40-FEET UPSTREAM FROM THE BUTLER AND FLAGLER |
| | INTERSECTION |
| | 33) BASED ON THE AUTOTURN ANALYSES, INSTALL NO-PARKING |
| | SIGNS ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE OF BUTLER IN ORDER TO |
| | FACILITATE LARGE VEHICLES TURNING MOVEMENTS |
| | 34) INSTALL NO-PARKING SIGNS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD |
| | ALONG THE SECTION OF PINE STREET FRONTING THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT |
| | 35) THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDEWALK |
| | NEARBY THE PINE ST DRIVEWAY SHOULD BE REDUCED, AS IT IS |
| | UNSAFELY HINDERING PEDESTRIAN FLOW IN THE PROXIMITY OF |
| | THE CROSSWALK |
| | 36) PROVIDE A PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS MENTIONED IN |
| | THE TRAFFIC STUDY. IF NOT ADDRESSED DURING PPRC REVIEW, |
| | THIS COMMENT WILL BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND MUST |
| | BE SATISFIED BEFORE ENGINEERING PERMITTING IS ISSUED |
| | 37) PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. PLEASE |
| | REFER TO CITY CODE SEC. 84-246 FOR DETAILS. IF NOT |
| | ADDRESSED DURING PPRC REVIEW, THIS COMMENT WILL BE A |
| | CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE |
| | ENGINEERING PERMITTING IS ISSUED |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
