| Date |
Text |
| 2022-11-11 20:50:52 | |
| | TRAFFIC COMMENTS |
| | 1) A METHODOLOGY MEETING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED. |
| | PLEASE DO SO. |
| | 2) PROVIDE AN UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY BASED ON MORE |
| | RECENT OR EXISTING COUNTS, AS THE 2018 COUNTS ARE |
| | OUTDATED, AS RECOMMENDED IN THE ANALYSIS AS WELL |
| | 3) AN AERIAL SATELLITE MAP SHOWCASING PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT WITH RESPECT TO NEIGHBORING AREA SHOULD BE |
| | PROVIDED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY |
| | 4) SHOULD TABLE 1 THROUGH 3 MAIN CAPTIONS BE TOTAL |
| | MAXIMUM DRI OR MAXIMUM VESTED TRIP GENERATION? |
| | 5) BELOW EACH TABLE PLEASE PROVIDE REFERENCES FOR EACH |
| | PARAMETER (I.E. RATE/EQUATION, INTERNALIZATION AND |
| | PASS-BY PERCENTAGES) |
| | 6) PROVIDE TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION TABLE(S) |
| | SPECIFIC TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (I.E. ONLY TRIPS |
| | GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT). TABLE 7-9 SHOW |
| | AGGREGATE OF EXISTING/APPROVED AND CURRENTLY PROPOSED, |
| | MAIN CAPTION SHOULD BE CORRECTED ACCORDINGLY (E.G. |
| | APPROVED/BUILT PLUS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS) |
| | 7) TABLE 10 NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED, AS VESTED |
| | DEVELOPMENT SHOULD REFER TO THE TOTAL MAXIMUM DRI, |
| | WHILE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD REFER TO |
| | EXISTING/APPROVED AND CURRENTLY PROPOSED. PLEASE |
| | CORRECT |
| | 8) IN TABLE 10. DO DRIVEWAY TRIPS REFER TO TOTAL TRIPS |
| | MINUS INTERNALIZATION? (I.E. PASS-BY TRIPS ARE NOT |
| | DEDUCTED). IF SO, PLEASE INSERT A FOOTNOTE SPECIFYING |
| | THAT. |
| | 9) SYNCHRO OUTPUTS AND LOS SUMMARY TABLES SHOULD |
| | INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS: EXISTING, FUTURE |
| | NO-BUILD AND FUTURE BUILD XXX (INSERT BUILD-OUT YEAR |
| | AND APPLY GROWTH FACTORS ACCORDINGLY). RESULTS FOR EACH |
| | SCENARIO SHOULD BE SUMMARIZED AND COMPARED IN A TABLE. |
| | CURRENT SYNCHRO OUTPUTS INDICATE 2022 BUILD-OUT YEAR, |
| | IS THAT EXISTING OR AN OUTDATED BUILD-OUT ANALYSIS? |
| | 10) PROVIDE MORE DETAILS PERTAINING THE CENTREPARK DRI |
| | EXTENT AND TRIP ALLOCATION. SPECIFICALLY: MAP |
| | SHOWCASING THE EXTENT OF THE DRI AND EACH OF THE SITES; |
| | A COMPREHENSIVE SPREADSHEET/TABLE SHOWCASING MAXIMUM |
| | ALLOWED SF/ROOMS/DU ALLOCATION FOR LAND-USE TYPE VERSUS |
| | EXISTING-BUILT, APPROVED-IN-CONSTRUCTION, |
| | PLANNED-PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS AND LEFT OVER BALANCES, |
| | FOR EACH SITES AND OVERALL |
| | 11) THE TPS LETTER WAS ISSUED WITH AN ANTICIPATED |
| | BUILD-OUT YEAR IN 2024, WHILE THE TRAFFIC STUDY ASSUMES |
| | BUILD-OUT IN 2026. PLEASE EXPLAIN AND, IF NEEDED, |
| | REVISE THE TRAFFIC STUDY OR PROVIDE AN UPDATED TPS |
| | LETTER |
| | 12) PROVIDE EXPLANATION OR HISTORICAL REFERENCE WITH |
| | RESPECT TO THE CHANGE IN MAXIMUM PARCEL AND DRI OVERALL |
| | ALLOCATIONS, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT B. WHAT METHODOLOGY OR |
| | REASONING WAS APPLIED TO REDUCE/INCREASE ORIGINAL DRI |
| | ALLOCATIONS? |
| | 13) THE ORIGINAL INTERNALIZATION CALCULATION TABLE IS |
| | DATED 2005. BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN OVERALL DRI |
| | ALLOCATION, LAND USE TYPE, AND THE USE OF THE LATEST |
| | ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT |
| | TRAFFIC STUDY, IT WOULD BE LOGICAL AND NECESSARY TO |
| | RE-CALCULATE INTERNALIZATION PARAMETERS AND RATES BASED |
| | ON LATEST DRI ALLOCATION AND ITE/COUNTY RATES AND |
| | METHODOLOGY. PLEASE DO SO AND PROVIDE THE WORKING |
| | SPREADSHEET AS PART OF NEXT RESUBMISSION |
| | SITE COMMENTS |
| | 14) PROVIDE A HORIZONTAL CONTROL 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 |
| | 15) IN THE HORIZONTAL CONTROL 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 |
| | 16) PROVIDE A SIGNAGE AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN. |
| | INCLUSIVE OF ALL FEATURES WITHIN THE PROPOSED |
| | DEVELOPMENT AND ALONG ALL ROADS FRONTING THE SITE. SUCH |
| | SITE PLAN CAN BE SEPARATE OR INTEGRATED IN THE |
| | HORIZONTAL CONTROL ONE |
| | 17) ALL TRANSPORTATION RELATED ITEMS (I.E. PARKING |
| | STALL, DRIVE AISLES, RAMP) WITHIN THE GARAGE PLANS NEED |
| | TO BE PROPERLY LABELED AND DIMENSIONED (I.E. LENGTH, |
| | WIDTH, SLOPE PERCENTAGES) |
| | 18) 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.??? PLEASE APPLY AND SHOWCASE SUCH |
| | REQUIREMENT IN THE GARAGE PLANS |
| | 19) TURN-AROUND SPACES SHOULD BE PROVIDED, AND CLEARLY |
| | MARKED AS SUCH AT EACH DEAD-END(S) OF THE GARAGE. |
| | PLEASE REVISE THE SITE PLANS ACCORDINGLY. |
| | 20) PROPOSED LOADING ZONE(S) ARE NOT CLEARLY DEPICTED |
| | NOR DIMENSIONED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. PLEASE |
| | REVISE AND PROVIDE CODE REFERENCE TO MINIMUM REQUIRED |
| | AND PROVIDED DIMENSIONS. |
| | 21) 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 |
| | 22) PROVIDE ENGINEERING REFERENCE AND SPECS SHEETS FOR |
| | EACH OF THE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEATURES (E.G. |
| | CURB, RAMP, GATE, SIGNAGE, PAVEMENT MARKING, SIGNAL, |
| | ETC.) |
| | 23) 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) |
| | 24) PROVIDE A PARKING TABLE SHOWCASING THE NUMBER OF |
| | REQUIRED AND PROVIDED PARKING SPACES, INCLUSIVE OF ADA |
| | AND BICYCLE ONES |
| | 25) ARE THERE ANY GATES PROPOSED? IF SO, CLEARLY |
| | SHOWCASE THE REQUIRED 20 FEET SETBACK DISTANCE FROM THE |
| | BACK OF THE SIDEWALK OR CURB |
| | 26) IS VALET SERVICE PROPOSED? IF SO, PROVIDE A |
| | THOROUGH OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS AND/OR PARKING MANAGEMENT |
| | PLAN |
| | 27) ARE THERE ANY BUS STOPS BEING IMPACTED? |
| | 28) IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ANY EXISTING |
| | OR PLANNED BICYCLE FACILITY? |
| | 29) PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. PLEASE |
| | REFER TO CITY CODE 86-246 FOR DETAILS |
| | |
| | VALERIO ORICCHIO |
| | CITY TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER |
| | 561-494-1092 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
