Laserfiche WebLink
March 30, 2017 <br /> Page 2 <br /> o Alpine Drat TH 10 <br /> 3. Forecasted Traffic: <br /> • Page 3— in the Site Traffic Forecasting section, the traffic distribution indicates 78% to/from east <br /> on Alpine Dr and Bunker Lake Blvd. Please provide the break down between the two roadways. <br /> • Page 3/4— in the Non-site Traffic Forecasting section: <br /> o More detail on what was assumed in the previous studies should be provided. <br /> o The text indicates that the previous studies were for a Business Park however, the <br /> trip generation tables in the Appendix show Industrial Park uses. This should be <br /> clarified. <br /> o Was other approved or anticipated development in the area included with the <br /> analysis? The EAW in Table 10 shows other projects in the City. The projects in the <br /> area of the proposed development should be included as background traffic. <br /> o The text indicates that a background traffic growth was applied. Provide a <br /> discussion on how this was calculated and applied. <br /> • Page E2 and E3 - Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate 2018 volumes however all reference and <br /> analysis is for 2040. This should be clarified. <br /> 4. Analysis <br /> • Page 5—the text indicates that the capacity and LOS analysis is included in the appendix. A <br /> summary should be included in the body of the report for each analysis scenario. <br /> • Page 5 -the capacity analysis did not show the results for the left and right turning traffic from <br /> mainline (Alpine Dr and Puma St). This should be provided to show if delays and queues are an <br /> issue turning into the site. <br /> • Page 5—the text indicates that"vehicle queuing of five cars or more is considered <br /> unreasonable". How was this determined? <br /> • Page 7— in the Vehicle Mitigation section it was concluded that with the existing posted <br /> speed limit of 40 mph no turn lanes would be required for capacity. However, safety at the <br /> intersections should also be considered. Additional analysis of the sight lines should be <br /> provided at each of the driveway accesses. <br /> • Page 8— in the Vehicle Mitigation section it indicates that future improvements at Armstrong Blvd <br /> and Bunker Lake Blvd were not considered. Additional information should be provided. The <br /> current study does not include this intersection in the analysis, although it is recommended to <br /> include it. <br /> \\gvf I es01\projects\01973-350\Admi n\Docs\1973-350-Memo-Capstone Homes EAW Review-033017.docx <br />