| Date |
Text |
| 2023-02-22 21:48:28 | TRAFFIC COMMENTS |
| | 1) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY. A |
| | METHODOLOGY MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED PRIOR TO |
| | DRAFTING THE ANALYSIS. |
| | 2) SATISFIED. PLEASE INSERT PERTINENT SUMMARY TABLES |
| | AND FIGURES WITHIN THE MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT, SUCH AS |
| | DRIVEWAY VOLUMES, SITE LOCATION, TRIP GENERATION, LOS |
| | SUMMARY, ETC. APPENDIX SHOULD BE USED AND REFERENCED |
| | FOR LARGE TABLES AND FIGURES SUCH AS SYNCHRO OUTPUTS, |
| | SIGNAL PLANS, BACKGROUND VOLUMES, ETC. SEVERAL SAMPLE |
| | TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. PLEASE REFER TO |
| | THOSE STUDIES FOR PROPER FORMATTING AND REFERENCING |
| | 3) SATISFIED. PLEASE NAME AND/OR NUMBER EACH TABLE, |
| | FIGURE AND REFERENCED DOCUMENT |
| | 4) SATISFIED. PLEASE INSERT PAGE NUMBERING THROUGHOUT |
| | THE REPORT, INCLUDING THE APPENDIX, AND UPDATE THE |
| | TABLE OF CONTENT ACCORDINGLY |
| | 5) SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 2. PERCENTAGES |
| | SHOULD BE PLACED MID-BLOCK AND PROPERLY ADD-UP. IT |
| | SEEMS ONLY 50% OF THE TRAFFIC IS COMING IN/OUT OF THE |
| | SITE |
| | 6) SATISFIED. PLEASE REVISE FIGURE 3. TURNING MOVEMENTS |
| | WITH NO VOLUMES SHOULD BE REMOVED, DAILY TRAFFIC |
| | VOLUMES PROVIDED |
| | 7) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A CONCLUSION |
| | PARAGRAPH IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY, SUMMARIZING ALL |
| | FINDINGS AND HIGHLIGHTING ALL DEFICIENCIES AND |
| | SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, TOGETHER WITH PROPOSED/POTENTIAL |
| | MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY. |
| | |
| | SITE COMMENTS |
| | 8) 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, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, |
| | CORNER & DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES, SLOPES, ETC.) |
| | PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED. THE SITE PLAN SHOULD |
| | BE NAMED T-1.0. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN AS |
| | REQUESTED. SHEET A1 AND C5 DO NOT PROPERLY DEPICT NOR |
| | PROVIDE ALL THE REQUESTED ITEMS. MOREOVER, ITEMS |
| | IMPACTING PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT SUCH AS PLANTERS AND |
| | TRAFFIC/UTILITY POLES ALONG THE SIDEWALK AREAS MUST BE |
| | SHOWN; BASED ON THOSE ITEMS AND ALONG CHOKE POINTS, THE |
| | EFFECTIVE SIDEWALK WIDTH SHOULD BE PROPERLY SHOWN AND |
| | DIMENSIONED |
| | 9) SATISFIED. IN THE T-1.0 SITE PLAN, PLEASE SHOWCASE |
| | BASIC CURB DETAILS (E.G. DRIVEWAY, CURB CUTS, PAVEMENT |
| | MARKINGS, PARKING STALLS, GARAGE ENTRANCES, ETC.) ON |
| | THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION |
| | SITE PLAN AS REQUESTED |
| | 10) SATISFIED. THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGNAGE PLAN IS |
| | INCOMPLETE. PLEASE PROVIDE ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED |
| | FEATURES WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL |
| | THE ROADS FRONTING THE SITE. THIS SITE PLAN CAN BE |
| | CONSIDERED PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND COULD |
| | BE EITHER INCLUDED IN THE T-1 SITE PLAN OR NAMED T-1.2. |
| | RESPONSE LETTER INDICATES SHEET C-7, CORRECT SHEET |
| | WOULD BE C-8. NONETHELESS, INSTALL A ONE-WAY SIGN ON |
| | THE EAST LEG OF THE ROSEMARY & 4TH ST INTERSECTION, |
| | STOP SIGN AND STOP BARS SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT EACH |
| | GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY EXITS, SERVICE DRIVEWAYS SHOULD BE |
| | INDICATED AD SIGNED AS SUCH, DEAD-END DRIVEWAYS SHOULD |
| | BE SIGNED AS SUCH. |
| | 11) NOT 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 |
| | IN DIFFERENT COLORS. SITE PLAN(S) CONTAINING THE |
| | ANALYSIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE |
| | TRANSPORTATION REVIEW AND NAMED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. T1.2, |
| | T-3). ENGINEERING SERVICES CAN PROVIDE SAMPLE AUTOTURN |
| | ANALYSES. LATEST AUTOTURN DOES NOT PROVIDE THE |
| | REQUESTED FEATURES. RESPONSE AND MATERIAL PROVIDED IS |
| | COMPLETELY UNSATISFACTORY. ENGINEERING HAS OFFERED TO |
| | PROVIDE SAMPLE PROPER AUTOTURN ANALYSES, WHICH WERE NOT |
| | REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT. MOREOVER, THERE ARE |
| | SIGNIFICANT MAJOR ENCROACHMENTS SHOWN; THUS, THE |
| | PROPOSED LOADING ZONES ARE NOT FEASIBLE, NOR THE |
| | PROPOSED SITE PLAN COULD BE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED |
| | UNTIL THIS ITEM IS FULLY AND PROPERLY ADDRESSED |
| | 12) SATISFIED. IDENTIFY AND DESIGNATE AN EASILY |
| | ACCESSIBLE MICRO-MOBILITY STATION AREA (MINIMUM 8 X 20 |
| | FEET) AND PROVIDE BASIC ELECTRIFICATION READINESS WITH |
| | THE FOLLOWING SPECS: A CONDUIT (2-INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC) |
| | TO THE POWER SOURCE WITH AN ELECTRICAL PULL BOX (240V - |
| | 10,000W CIRCUIT). PLEASE INSERT THIS ITEM IN THE T-1 OR |
| | T-2 SITE PLAN |
| | 13) PARTIALLY SATISFIED. DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME OF |
| | THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND |
| | MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES. PLEASE PROVIDE A NUMBERED |
| | AND SPECIFIC LIST OF POTENTIAL TDMS IN THE TRAFFIC |
| | STUDY. PLEASE PROVIDE PAGE NUMBER WHERE THIS ITEM IS |
| | ADDRESSED. NO NUMBERED LIST, NOR DETAILED TDM WERE |
| | PROVIDED IN THE LATEST RESUBMISSION, JUST GENERAL |
| | OBSERVATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF EXISTING TRANSIT |
| | OPERATIONS. THE MULTI-MODAL PARAGRAPH SEEMED A RUSHED |
| | EFFORT, AS IT SHOULD BE MORE DETAILED AND EXHAUSTIVE: |
| | HAVE AN IMAGE DEPICTING LOCATION AND DISTANCES TO |
| | EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES/FACILITIES, PROVIDE EXACT |
| | NUMBER OF BOTH SHORT AND LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING (NOT |
| | PARING) STALLS, PROPOSE ACTUAL MITIGATION MEASURES SUCH |
| | AS TRANSIT DISCOUNTS OR SUBSIDIES FOR RESIDENTS AND |
| | EMPLOYEES, INCENTIVES FOR CAR-POOLING AND SO ON |
| | 14) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE |
| | NUMBER OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES, |
| | INCLUSIVE OF ADA AND BICYCLE ONES |
| | 15) SATISFIED. IN THE PAVEMENT, MARKING & SIGN PLAN, |
| | PROVIDE A TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF EXISTING AND |
| | PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE THE NUMBER |
| | OF METERED STALLS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED OR RELOCATED, |
| | IF ANY |
| | 16) SATISFIED. ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? IF SO, |
| | CLEARLY SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK DISTANCE |
| | FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK |
| | 17) SATISFIED. IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED? IF SO, |
| | PROVIDE AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS. DETAILS OF THE |
| | ANALYSIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED DURING THE METHODOLOGY |
| | MEETING |
| | 18) SATISFIED. PROVIDE AND PROPERLY MARK A TURN-AROUND |
| | SPACE/STALL AT EACH DEAD-END OF THE GARAGE. FROM SHEET |
| | A2.1 IT IS NOT CLEAR WHERE AND IF THE LOADING ZONE IS |
| | CONNECTED TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE NORTHERN GARAGE. |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY, AS A TURN-AROUND SPACE MAY BE NEEDED AT |
| | THAT LOCATION OTHERWISE. SEVERAL DEAD-ENDS ARE MISSING |
| | OR THE TURN-AROUND SPACES ARE NOT PROPERLY MARKED |
| | 19) SATISFIED. IN THE GARAGE PLANS, ALL THE DRIVE |
| | AISLES, RAMPS AND AT LEAST A SET OF PARKING SPACES IN |
| | EACH FLOOR SHOULD BE DIMENSIONED |
| | 20) SATISFIED. PER CITY CODE SEC94-111(C)(1): ???IN |
| | THOSE CASES WHERE THE SIDE OF ANY STALL IS ADJACENT TO |
| | A WALL, FENCE, BUILDING, OR OTHER PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION, |
| | THE STALL WIDTHS SHALL BE INCREASED BY A MINIMUM OF ONE |
| | FOOT. WHERE THERE IS AN OBSTRUCTION ON BOTH SIDES OF |
| | THE STALL, THE STALL WIDTHS SHALL BE INCREASED BY A |
| | MINIMUM OF TWO FEET.??? |
| | 21) SATISFIED. HOW MANY GARAGE FLOORS ARE THERE? SHEET |
| | A2.3 SHOWS TWO UP-RAMPS FROM THE THIRD FLOOR, IS THERE |
| | A FOURTH? PLEASE CLARIFY OR CORRECT THE TEXT/ARROWS. |
| | AWAITING NEXT ROUND OF PLANS TO CLEAR THIS COMMENT |
| | 22) SATISFIED. INSTALL CROSSWALKS ON THE NORTHERN AND |
| | EASTERN LEG OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH ST INTERSECTION. |
| | THERE IS A PORTION OF THE ONE-WAY DRIVE WITHIN PUBLIC |
| | ROW; THUS, A CROSSWALK AND CORRESPONDING RAMPS ARE |
| | WARRANTED. DRAWINGS CAN BE REVISED AT ENGINEERING |
| | PERMITTING. HOWEVER, AGREEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE |
| | CROSSWALKS IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT THIS |
| | STAGE |
| | 23) SATISFIED. SHEET C-8 POINTS AT GATE(S) AT THE |
| | EASTERN LEG OF THE ROSEMARY AND 4TH INTERSECTION. ARE |
| | THOSE PEDESTRIAN AND/OR VEHICULAR GATES? IF SO, THEY |
| | MAY NEED TO BE MOVED FURTHER EAST TO ACCOMMODATE THE |
| | PEDESTRIAN CROSSING |
| | 24) SATISFIED. PROVIDE BIKE RACKS WITHIN OR NEARBY THE |
| | PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREA |
| | 25) SATISFIED. PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. |
| | PLEASE REFER TO CITY CODE 86-246 FOR DETAILS |
| | 26) NOT SATISFIED. DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE |
| | INTERSECTION AND THE ROAD CONFIGURATION, THE DRIVEWAY |
| | ON 3RD ST SHOULD BE RIGHT-IN ONLY, NO LEFT-TURNING |
| | INBOUND MOVEMENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. PLEASE INSTALL AN |
| | ISLAND AT THE DRIVEWAY DESIGNED TO ENFORCE SUCH |
| | VEHICULAR MOVEMENT PROHIBITION. NOTE: THE ONLY MOVEMENT |
| | PROHIBITED IS THE LEFT-IN, AS VEHICLES DRIVING |
| | EASTBOUND ON 3RD ST WANTING TO TURN LEFT INTO THE |
| | GARAGE AND AWAITING FOR A GAP MAY CAUSE MAJOR |
| | CONGESTION AND UNSAFE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. AS A |
| | COMPROMISE, THE LEFT-OUT TURNING MOVEMENT WOULD BE |
| | ALLOWED, AS ANY QUEUE BACKUP WOULD BE CONTAINED WITHIN |
| | THE GARAGE |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
