Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/11/2017

Home

March 30, 2017 Page 2 Alpine Dr at TH 10 3. Forecasted Traffic: • Page 3 — in the Site Traffic Forecasting section, the traffic distribution indicates 78% to/from east on Alpine Dr and Bunker Lake Blvd. Please provide the break down between the two roadways. • Page 3/4 — in the Non -site Traffic Forecasting section: o More detail on what was assumed in the previous studies should be provided. o The text indicates that the previous studies were for a Business Park however, the trip generation tables in the Appendix show Industrial Park uses. This should be clarified. o Was other approved or anticipated development in the area included with the analysis? The EAW in Table 10 shows other projects in the City. The projects in the area of the proposed development should be included as background traffic. o The text indicates that a background traffic growth was applied. Provide a discussion on how this was calculated and applied. • Page E2 and E3 - Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate 2018 volumes however all reference and analysis is for 2040. This should be clarified. 4. Analysis • Page 5 — the text indicates that the capacity and LOS analysis is included in the appendix. A summary should be included in the body of the report for each analysis scenario. • Page 5 - the capacity analysis did not show the results for the left and right turning traffic from mainline (Alpine Dr and Puma St). This should be provided to show if delays and queues are an issue turning into the site. • Page 5 — the text indicates that "vehicle queuing of five cars or more is considered unreasonable". How was this determined? • Page 7 — in the Vehicle Mitigation section it was concluded that with the existing posted speed limit of 40 mph no turn lanes would be required for capacity. However, safety at the intersections should also be considered. Additional analysis of the sight lines should be provided at each of the driveway accesses. • Page 8 — in the Vehicle Mitigation section it indicates that future improvements at Armstrong Blvd and Bunker Lake Blvd were not considered. Additional information should be provided. The current study does not include this intersection in the analysis, although it is recommended to include it. \\gvfiles01\projects\01973-350\Admin\Dots\1973-350 - Memo -Capstone Homes EAW Review-033017.doca