My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2013 05 07 - PG 113 - ATTACHMENT #6
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2013 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2013 05 07 - PG 113 - ATTACHMENT #6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:08:05 PM
Creation date
7/10/2013 9:37:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
6D4
Record Series Code
45.010
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2013 05 07 - PG 113 - ATTACHMENT #6
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
-t,; . y CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION <br /> . ` : � AGENDA ITEM 8C <br /> SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 18, SERIES 2013—A RESOLUTION <br /> APPROVING THE 2012 UPDATE OF THE 2009 CITYWIDE <br /> COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — Public Hearing (advertised Daily <br /> Camera 4/5/13) <br /> DATE: APRIL 16, 2013 <br /> PRESENTED BY: GAVIN MCCMILLAN, AICP AND TROY RUSS, AICP <br /> PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT <br /> SUMMARY: <br /> At the April 2, 2013 City Council meeting staff introduced the draft of the 2012 <br /> Comprehensive Plan Update. This Council Communication along with the Council <br /> Communications from April 2, 2013; December 18, 2012; and June 19, 2012 present all <br /> of the components of the completed draft document for Council consideration. All <br /> previous staff reports are included as attachments to this communication. <br /> During the April 2 City Council meeting, Council asked some initial questions about the <br /> update and took public comment on the draft document. Based on the initial questions <br /> from City Council and the public comments heard during the session, staff asks Council <br /> to consider the following revisions to the document (attached). <br /> TRANSPORTATION SECTION <br /> Staff proposes additional language in the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the community <br /> character expectations and vehicle traffic level of service (LOS) assumptions used by <br /> staff in the analysis. <br /> Staff used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) generalized level of service <br /> (LOS) guidelines to document vehicle capacity concerns with the projected 20 year <br /> build out of the City. Vehicle LOS is most commonly used to analyze a roadway's <br /> performance by categorizing vehicle traffic flow throughout the day, or during the <br /> periods of heaviest use, typically the morning and evening commute. Vehicle LOS is <br /> measured using letters from A to F. <br /> Vehicle based LOS does not measure a pedestrian's, or bicyclist's quality of trip, nor <br /> does a vehicle LOS measure the quality of the built environment. The size and speed of <br /> a roadway impacts the quality of a pedestrian's and bicyclist's trip experience as well as <br /> the quality of the built environment. Generally, the larger and faster roadway <br /> corresponds with a higher vehicle LOS and lower pedestrian and bicyclist's experience. <br /> Conversely, the smaller and slower roadway corresponds generally with a higher <br /> pedestrian's and bicyclist's quality of experience and a generally lower vehicle LOS. <br /> In the transportation profession throughout Colorado and the nation, LOS A to LOS C is <br /> expected in rural areas, LOS C to D are expected in suburban areas, while LOS C to F <br /> CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.