HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/19/2004 - CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE AUGUST 26, 2004 ITEM NUMBER: 23
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: October 19, 2004
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Cameron Gloss
SUBJECT
Consideration of the Appeal of the August 26, 2004, Determination of the Planning and Zoning
Board to Disapprove the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Site Plan Advisory Review.
RECOMMENDATION
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter,and after consideration, either: (1)remand the matter to the Planning and Zoning Board or
(2) uphold, overturn, or modify the Planning and Zoning Board's decision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 26,2004,the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied the CDOT Poudre River
Rest Area Site Plan Advisory Review request to construct a 3,300 gross square foot rest area
immediately south of the Colorado Welcome Center,near the intersection of Prospect Road and the
I-25 frontage road, 1/4 mile west of the I-25/Prospect interchange.
The property lies within two zone districts:RC—River Conservation and POL—Public Open Lands.
BACKGROUND
The Planning and Zoning Board considered the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area pursuant to Section
31-23-209 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Under the statutory provision, it is the duty of the
Planning and Zoning Board to review the proposed CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Site Plan within
sixty(60) days after receiving the Plan. Accordingly,the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the
Plan based upon its "location, character, and extent" as described within the statute.
Under the statute,the Planning and Zoning Board must communicate its reasons for disapproval to
the Colorado Transportation Commission, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a
recorded vote of not less than two-thirds. The issues were communicated to the Transportation
Commission through a letter from the Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Board (Director of
Current Planning Cameron Gloss) dated August 31, 2004.
Alternatively, Colorado Department of Transportation has elected to appeal the Board's denial to
City Council as provided under Section 2-47 of the City Code.
October 19, 2004 -2- Item No. 23
On September 9, 2004, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's office regarding the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In the Notice of Appeal from the Appellant Karla
Harding, CDOT Region 4 Transportation Director, it is alleged that:
"The Planning and Zoning Board(the"Board")failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant law and failed to conduct a fair hearing."
The grounds for the appeal,as stated in CDOT's appeal notice,are included below. To differentiate
the text taken from the appeal notice, it is shown in a different font.
The purpose of the Board's review was to evaluate the Poudre Rest Area project based upon its
"location, character, and extent' pursuant to C.R.S. 31-23-209. CDOT believes the Board has
misapplied the criteria in the evaluation of the project merits. CDOT believes that critical data was
not taken into consideration in the Board's decision to disapprove the project. CDOT presented
traffic data and analysis that was prepared by a Professional Engineer utilizing accepted methods.
This study was reviewed and validated by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. By failing to
thoroughly review and accept this data, CDOT contends that the Board's recommendation is not
an accurate representation of the merits of this project.
The Board also erroneously concluded that floodplain issues would not allow the buildings to be
located at this site even though the City Stormwater Department reviewed and approved the plans.
On August 31,2004,the Planning and Zoning Board submitted a letter to the Colorado Department
of Transportation that listed several concerns that led to its decision to disapprove the project. The
following italicized bullets list the Board's comments and CDOT's response follows immediately
after each bullet.
• Increased truck traffic at the Prospect and 1-25 interchange will increase
congestion and create conflicts with vehicular movements, particularly during
peak hours.
Existing Conditions
The current congestion at the Prospect Road interchange is substantial. The northbound off ramp
at Prospect in the AM peak is a Level of Service(LOS)"F"with the off ramp queues extending more
than 500 ft from the intersection. This is impacting main line 1-25 traffic,with stopped ramp terminal
traffic directly adjacent to high-speed interstate traffic. The intersection meets multiple signal
warrants.
The current Western Frontage Road intersection has a southbound approach leg with LOS "F" in
the PM peak hour. The average vehicle waits more than 1 minute to find a gap to enter Prospect
Road. The intersection meets multiple signal warrants.
Amount of rest area traffic at the interchange
Adding rest area traffic to the interchange will add 2-3% to the volumes in the AM peak, and 7-8%
to the volumes in the PM peak (a relatively low percentage). The peak hour of usage for the rest
area is 11 am and 3 pm, and does not coincide with peak interchange hours (7 am and 5 pm).
In the peak hours, it is estimated that a truck bound for the rest area will arrive on an average of
one every 4 minutes in the AM peak, and one every 6 minutes in the PM peak. Specific numbers
of trucks were calculated for each turning movement and the volumes (and lengths) are included
and accounted for in the analysis.
October 19, 2004 -3- Item No. 23
Resultant Improvements
With the rest area relocation complete and proposed signals in place, the LOS of the northbound
ramp terminal is improved from an LOS"F"to an LOS"B". The western frontage road intersection
will now have a southbound approach LOS "B" instead of"F".
The ramp terminal intersections will accommodate large tractor-trailer trucks. The current design
vehicle is a WB-67.
In all cases,the proposed signals provide an importantand substantial capacity,function and safety
enhancement to the intersections. The current"congestion"is greatly improved with the installation
of the signals. The improvements from the signals far outweigh the minor additional traffic that the
rest area presents.
• Travel lanes on the East Prospect and 1-25 overpass are of an insufficient width
to accommodate large trucks simultaneously crossing the overpass;
It is a very remote possibility that two oversize loads would meet on the Prospect Road bridge and
there are no cases documented where this has been an issue to date. The existing Prospect Road
bridge over the interstate is 28 feet wide. Most of the trucks on public roadways are of standard
size, that is, 8'-6" wide. The bridge will easily accommodate two standard size trucks passing
across it at the same time.
East Prospect is a city street and as such, an over width permit is required by the City of Fort
Collins for vehicles over 10'wide to legally access Prospect. The bridge will easily accommodate
two "City Legal" 10'wide trucks.
In the rare event an oversize load exits from 1-25 onto Prospect illegally, that is, without a City
permit,we offer the following discussion. A State of Colorado over-width permit is required for all
vehicles over 8'-6"wide. Permits may be issued for one time trips or they may be annual permits.
At the time a permit is issued, the trucker is informed of the conditions of the permit for travel on
state highways, and he (she) is advised about the need for city permits off of the State system.
The State of Colorado permit for any truck over 17'wide requires the use of a pilot car in the front
of the wide load. Before a load this width or wider would enter the Prospect Roadway,the pilot car
would hold oncoming traffic to allow the truck to cross the bridge, thus avoiding conflicts.
Discussions with the Colorado Port of Entry indicate that in August, about 3 to 4 % of trucks (50—
60 vehicles) are extralegal (predominantly wide loads). According to the POE, because of permit
restrictions such as daylight limitations, most of these will make few stops in order to deliver their
load during the required daylight hours. It is unlikely that these trucks would exit to use the rest
area, and most rest time occurs at truck stops. Although it is possible some trucks will leave the
highway illegally, the chances are extremely remote that two illegal oversize loads will encounter
each other on the bridge.
• The 20% projected increase in traffic from the month of April to the month of
August cited in the Traffic Impact Study was too low relative to the higher traffic
volumes perceived by some members of the Board.
Actual counts completed:
All counts were completed by WL Contractors (now All Traffic Data). This is a company that
specializes in traffic data collection and is a pre-qualified consultant for CDOT. They have collected
October 19, 2004 -4- Item No. 23
traffic data throughout Colorado for hundreds of projects,including all the interstate and interchange
data collection for the current 1-25 north EIS project. Eric Bracke, the City of Fort Collins Traffic
Engineer also reviewed the raw data, and fully accepted its legitimacy. Raw data taken at the
existing interchange was compared with other counts completed for neighboring proposed
developments—and all are very similar. The Board improperly considered anecdotal information
provided by Board members while disregarding actual traffic data.
Truck percentages:
Discussions with the on-site caretaker at the rest area indicated that there is no substantial
difference in truck traffic at the rest area throughout the year. Car traffic is slower in the winter,
picks up in March and lasts through October. Heaviest car traffic months appear to be June -
August.
The CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer has stated that the peak day of the week for rest area traffic
is Friday and that the number of trucks remains constant throughout week and year.
CDOT's consultant in addition to providing the traffic analysis for CDOT, performed on for another
rest area project for the Wyoming DOT along 1-80. The conclusion for the WyDOT traffic analysis
was that truck percentages along 1-80 vary substantially not because the number of trucks vary,
but rather because the number of cars vary. The number of trucks remains constant throughout
the year.
All three of these sources concurred with the conclusion that the number of trucks remains constant
throughout the year,and that the number of trucks counted at the existing Poudre Rest Area on that
Friday in April (the day of the week with highest truck volumes) would be reflective of the truck
volumes any other time during the year.
Why 20% increase in car volumes?
The rest area traffic counts were completed in April. The rest area traffic is reflective of the current
volumes along the interstate—i.e. higher interstate usage becomes higher rest area usage as well.
There is an automatic traffic recorder(ATR) located along 1-25 at milepost 229, near SH 7. This
was the closest functioning ATR information available at the time. All traffic was downloaded for
the previous 12 months, and completing a review, the following conclusions were drawn:
■ The peak day of the week is Friday, which is typically more than 20% higher
than average days. By counting existing rest area traffic on Fridays, we were
encompassing the peak day of the week.
■ The peak month is August. Our counts were completed in April, and by using
the data from the ATR, the actual volume factor from April to August is 1.17
northbound, and 1.18 souhbound. We utilized a factor 1.2 (20% higher)for all
rest area car volumes. Most traffic studies do not take seasonal peaks into
account. The Rest Area caretaker,Tim Tweedy,thought that April car volumes
did not reflect the highest possible volumes using the interstate. Our analysis
takes this observation of increasing traffic volumes from April to August into
account.
October 19, 2004 -5- Item No. 23
• The proposed design violates the City's adopted stormwater regulations
affecting the Boxe/derfloodway. In particular,a portion of the proposed building
and parking area will be located within the floodway boundary. The impacts of
the building and the floatab/e materials, such as trucks and vehicles within the
parking areas, may cause negative impacts downstream from the site:
The proposed improvements do not violate the City'adopted stormwater regulations. As published
by the City of Fort Collins, fill within the floodway is allowed as stated, "New non-residential
development allowed as long as applicant can show no-rise. and must meet freeboard
requirements".
From the beginning of the project the CDOT design team has been aware of both the City of Fort
Collins floodplain and floodway and the FEMA mapped floodplain. The CDOT design team has met
with the City stormwater staff on numerous occasions throughout the project to obtain clarification
and direction from the stormwater department to ensure that the proposed building and fill shown
within floodway and floodplain limits meet City and FEMA requirements.
The City is about to embark on a review process with FEMA termed the "Map Modernization
Program"which allows the City of Fort Collins to update its floodplain and floodway mapping within
the City for FEMA review. As a result of the map modernization program the existing
floodplain and floodway through the project limits have been established. FEMA will allow CDOT
to submit a CLOMR(Conditional Letter of Map Revision)based upon the City of Fort Collin's newly
designated existing floodplain and floodway. A CLOMR is a pre-construction submittal to FEMA
showing the proposed conditions and grading and how their mapped floodplain and floodway will
change as a result.
Development is allowed within the floodplain fringe (the area between the limits of the floodplain
and floodway)and although it is common practice to avoid building within the floodway, FEMA as
well as the City of Fort Collins allows development within the floodway. To build within the
floodway, no rise is in water surface elevation is allowed upstream or downstream of the
developer's property where the development will be taking place. This condition is met by doing
one or both of the following:
a. by allowing the floodplain to increase only on the developer's property
b. if fill is placed, the flow area lost due to the fill is compensated for on an
elevation/volume basis
By meeting the above conditions, building within the floodway is considered acceptable by FEMA
and the City of Fort Collins.
As part of the CLOMR submittal,the City staff will review the proposed project and its effect on the
floodplain and floodway prior to submittal to FEMA. Once the CLOMR is accepted construction
would be allowed to commence. After construction CDOT will submit a LOMR (Letter of Map
Revision) to the City and FEMA to show that what was built actually meets the same criteria
discussed above.
If a non-residential developer,in this case CDOT,were to build within the floodplain fringe/floodway
it is a requirement to have 18" between the 100-year water surface elevation and the lowest
opening (windows, doors, vents).
The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department has reviewed the proposal and concurs with
CDOT's proposed site layout and conditions.
October 19, 2004 -6- Item No. 23
• The State is not providing its fair share of financial contribution to needed
improvements at the 1-25/Prospect interchange.
This comment is outside the scope of the review considerations. The State is providing more than
$500,000 in interchange improvements for a development(rest area)that will only increase traffic
volumes by 2-8% in the peak hours. (In the City of Fort Collins, developments whose impacts are
2%or less are not required to complete any improvements, regardless of how badly an intersection
is failing). The estimated traffic due to the rest area is 5-10 times less than other developments
proposed in the area. For a minor increase in traffic, these are substantial and significant
improvements from which the entire community will benefit.
As far as planned improvements for the interchange, CDOT is presently conducting an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on 1-25 in which all interchanges are evaluated for safety,
capacity and mobility. When the final EIS is complete, it will make specific recommendations for
interchange improvements, including the interchange at Prospect Road. Presently there is no
Federal or State funding available for any improvements north of SH 66. With the completion of
the EIS in 2006, Prospect Road will be then ranked in importance by various transportation
agencies. Funding for all these projects, including the Prospect Interchange, will be eligible for
federal funding, as they become a priority according to their ranking.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Notice of Appeal, received September 9, 2004.
2. Staff Report, with recommendation and attached plans, to the Planning and Zoning Board
for the public hearing.
3. Planning and Zoning Board letter dated August 31,2004 summarizing its Conclusions and
Decision.
4. Verbatim Minutes of the August 26, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing.
ATTACHMENT
City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
NOTICE
The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado,on Tuesday, October 19,2004,at 6:00 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall
at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board made on August 26,2004 regarding the relocation of the Poudre River
Rest Area filed by the Colorado State Department of Transportation. You may have received
previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Planning and Zoning Board.
If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's
Office (970-221-6515) or the Planning Department (970-221-6750).
Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may
identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by October 12,2004. Agenda materials
provided to the City Council, including City staffs response to the Notice of Appeal, and any
additional issues identified by City Councilmembers, will be available to the public on Thursday,
October 14, after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 970-221-6515(TDD 970-224-6001)for assistance.
Wanda M. Krajicek
City Clerk
Date Notice Mailed:
October 4, 2004
cc: City Attorney
Planning Department
Planning and Zoning Board Chair
Appellant/Applicant
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6515 • FAX(970)221-6295
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Region Four 0
1420 2nO Street
Greeley,CO 80631
(970)350-2103 Fax(970)350-2177 DWARTMUN r OF TRANSPORTATION
September 9,2004
Fort Collins City Council SEP 9
City Hall West
300 LaPorte Avenue
P.O.Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80521
Attention: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
RE: Appeal of August 26, 2004 Planning&Zoning Board Decision
Dear City Council Members:
The Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),pursuant to Fort Collins Municipal Code
Section 2-47,is appealing the Planning and Zoning Board's August 26,2004 decision that
disapproved a CDOT proposal for the relocation of the"Poudre River Rest Area"to a location
adjacent to the existing Colorado Welcome Center. CDOT's appeal of the Board's decision is based
on Fort Collins Municipal Code Section 2-48(b)(1)and(2). CDOT's appeal asserts that the Planning
and Zoning Board(the"board") failed to properly interpret and apply relevant law and failed to
conduct a fair hearing. The grounds for CDOT's appeal follow.
The purpose of the board's review was to evaluate the Poudre Rest Area project based upon its
"location, character,and extent"pursuant to C.R.S. 31-23-209. CDOT believes the board has
misapplied the criteria in the evaluation of the project merits. CDOT believes that critical data was
not taken into consideration in the board's decision to disapprove the project. CDOT presented traffic
data and analysis that was prepared by a Professional Engineer utilizing accepted methods. This
study was reviewed and validated by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer. By failing to
thoroughly review and accept this data, CDOT contends that the board's recommendation is not an
accurate representation of the merits of this project.
The board also erroneously concluded that floodplain issues would not allow the buildings to be
located at this site even though the City Stormwater Department reviewed and approved the plans.
On August 31, 2004,the Planning and Zoning Board submitted a letter to the Colorado Department of
Transportation that listed several concerns that led to its decision to disapprove the project. The
following italicized bullets list the board's comments and CDOT's response follows immediately
after each bullet.
o Increased truck traffic at the Prospect and I-25 interchange will increase congestion and
create conflicts with vehicular movements,particularly during peak hours.
6t. "Taking Care To Get You There"
PQ• Page 1 of 6
Existing Conditions
The current congestion at the Prospect Road interchange is substantial. The northbound off ramp at
Prospect in the AM peak is a Level of Service(LOS)"F"with the off ramp queues extending more
than 500 ft from the intersection. This is impacting main line I-25 traffic,with stopped ramp terminal
traffic directly adjacent to high-speed interstate traffic. The intersection meets multiple signal
warrants.
The current Western Frontage Road intersection has a southbound approach leg with LOS "F"in the
PM peak hour. The average vehicle waits more than 1 minute to find a gap to enter Prospect Road.
The intersection meets multiple signal warrants.
Amount of rest area traffic at the interchange
Adding rest area traffic to the interchange will add 2-3%to the volumes in the AM peak, and 7-8%to
the volumes in the PM peak(a relatively low percentage). The peak hour of usage for the rest area is
11 am and 3 pm, and does not coincide with peak interchange hours(7 am and 5 pm).
In the peak hours,it is estimated that a truck bound for the rest area will arrive on an average of one
every 4 minutes in the AM peak,and one every 6 minutes in the PM peak. Specific numbers of
trucks were calculated for each turning movement and the volumes(and lengths)are included and
accounted for in the analysis.
Resultant Improvements
With the rest area relocation complete and proposed signals in place,the LOS of the northbound ramp
terminal is improved from an LOS "F"to an LOS `B". The western frontage road intersection will
now have a southbound approach LOS "B"instead of"F".
The ramp terminal intersections will accommodate large tractor-trailer trucks. The current design
vehicle is a WB-67.
In all cases,the proposed signals provide an important and substantial capacity, function and safety
enhancement to the intersections. The current"congestion"is greatly improved with the installation
of the signals. The improvements from the signals far outweigh the minor additional traffic that the
rest area presents.
o Travel lanes on the East Prospect and I-25 overpass are of an insufficient width to
accommodate large trucks simultaneously crossing the overpass;
It is a very remote possibility that two oversize loads would meet on the Prospect bridge and there are
no cases documented where this has been an issue to date. The existing Prospect bridge over the
interstate is 28 feet wide. Most of the trucks on public roadways are of standard size, that is, 8'-6"
wide. The bridge will easily accommodate two standard size trucks passing across it at the same
time.
"Taking Care To Get You There"
Page 2 of 6
East Prospect is a city street and as such, an over width permit is required by the City of Fort Collins
for vehicles over 10' wide to legally access Prospect. The bridge will easily accommodate two
"City Legal" 10' wide trucks.
In the rare event an oversize load exits from I-25 onto Prospect illegally,that is,without a City
permit,we offer the following discussion. A State of Colorado over-width permit is required for all
vehicles over 8'-6"wide. Permits may be issued for one time trips or they may be annual permits.
At the time a permit is issued,the trucker is informed of the conditions of the permit for travel on
state highways, and he(she) is advised about the need for city permits off of the State system.
The State of Colorado permit for any truck over 17' wide requires the use of a pilot car in the front of
the wide load. Before a load this width or wider would enter the Prospect Roadway,the pilot car
would hold oncoming traffic to allow the truck to cross the bridge,thus avoiding conflicts.
Discussions with the Colorado Port of Entry indicate that in August, about 3 to 4%of trucks (50—60
vehicles)are extralegal(predominantly wide loads). According to the POE,because of permit
restrictions such as daylight limitations,most of these will make few stops in order to deliver their
load during the required daylight hours. It is unlikely that these trucks would exit to use the rest area,
and most rest time occurs at truck stops. Although it is possible some trucks will leave the highway
illegally,the chances are extremely remote that two illegal oversize loads will encounter each other
on the bridge.
o The 20%projected increase in traffic from the month of April to the month of August cited
in the Traffic Impact Study was too low relative to the higher traffic volumes perceived by some
members of the Board
Actual counts completed:
All counts were completed by WL Contractors(now All Traffic Data). This is a company that
specializes in traffic data collection and is a pre-qualified consultant for CDOT. They have collected
traffic data throughout Colorado for hundreds of projects,including all the interstate and interchange
data collection for the current I-25 north EIS project. Eric Bracke,the City of Fort Collins traffic
engineer also reviewed the raw data,and fully accepted its legitimacy. Raw data taken at the existing
interchange was compared with other counts completed for neighboring proposed developments—
and all are very similar. The board improperly considered anecdotal information provided by board
members while disregarding actual traffic data.
Truck percentages :
Discussions with the on-site caretaker at the rest area indicated that there is no substantial difference
in truck traffic at the rest area throughout the year. Car traffic is slower in the winter,picks up in
March and lasts through October. Heaviest car traffic months appear to be June-August.
The CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer has stated that the peak day of the week for rest area traffic is
Friday and that the number of trucks remains constant throughout week and year.
"Taking Care To Get You There"
Page 3 of 6
CDOT's consultant in addition to providing the traffic analysis for CDOT,performed on for another
rest area project for the Wyoming DOT along I-80. The conclusion for the WyDOT traffic analysis
was that truck percentages along I-80 vary substantially not because the number of trucks vary,but
rather because the number of cars vary. The number of trucks remains constant throughout the year.
All three of these sources concurred with the conclusion that the number of trucks remains constant
throughout the year,and that the number of trucks counted at the existing Poudre Rest Area on that
Friday in April(the day of the week with highest truck volumes)would be reflective of the truck
volumes any other time during the year.
Why 20%increase in car volumes?
The rest area traffic counts were completed in April. The rest area traffic is reflective of the current
volumes along the interstate—i.e.higher interstate usage becomes higher rest area usage as well.
There is an automatic traffic recorder(ATR)located along I-25 at milepost 229,near SH 7. This was
the closest functioning ATR information available at the time. All traffic was downloaded for the
previous 12 months,and completing a review,the following conclusions were drawn:
❑ The peak day of the week is Friday,which is typically more than 20%higher than average
days. By counting existing rest area traffic on Fridays,we were encompassing the peak day
of the week.
❑ The peak month is August. Our counts were completed in April, and by using the data from
the ATR,the actual volume factor from April to August is 1.17 northbound, and 1.18
southbound. We utilized a factor 1.2 (20%higher) for all rest area car volumes. Most traffic
studies do not take seasonal peaks into account. The Rest Area caretaker,Tim Tweedy,
thought that April car volumes did not reflect the highest possible volumes using the
interstate. Our analysis takes this observation of increasing traffic volumes from April to
August into account.
o The proposed design violates the City's adopted stormwater regulations affecting the Boxelder
floodway. In particular, a portion of the proposed building and parking area will be located
within the floodway boundary. The impacts of the building and the floatable materials,such
as trucks and vehicles within the parking areas,may cause negative impacts downstream from
the site:
The proposed improvements do not violate the City' adopted stormwater regulations. As published
by the City of Fort Collins fill within the floodway is allowed as stated, "New non-residential
development allowed as lone as applicant can show no-rise and must meet freeboard requirements".
From the beginning of the project the CDOT design team has been aware of both the City of Fort
Collins floodplain and floodway and the FEMA mapped floodplain. The CDOT design team has met
with the City stormwater staff on numerous occasions throughout the project to obtain clarification
and direction from the stormwater department to ensure that the proposed building and fill shown
within floodway and floodplain limits meet City and FEMA requirements.
The City is about to embark on a review process with FEMA termed the"Map Modernization
Program"which allows the City of Fort Collins to update their floodplain and floodway mapping
within the City for FEMA review. As a result of the map modernization program the existing
"Taking Care To Get You There"
Page 4 of 6
floodplain and floodway through the project limits have been established. FEMA will allow CDOT
to submit a CLOMR(Conditional Letter of Map Revision)based upon the City of Fort Collin's newly
designated existing floodplain and floodway. A CLOMR is a pre-construction submittal to FEMA
showing the proposed conditions and grading and how their mapped floodplain and floodway will
change as a result.
Development is allowed within the floodplain fringe(the area between the limits of the floodplain and
floodway)and although it is common practice to avoid building within the floodway,FEMA as well
as the City of Fort Collins allows development within the floodway. To build within the floodway,
no rise is in water surface elevation is allowed upstream or downstream of the developer's property
where.the development will be taking place. This condition is met by doing one or both of the
following:
a. by allowing the floodplain to increase only on the developer's property
b. if fill is placed,the flow area lost due to the fill is compensated for on an
elevation/volume basis
By meeting the above conditions,building within the floodway is considered acceptable by FEMA
and the City of Fort Collins.
As part of the CLOMR submittal the City staff will review the proposed project and its effect on the
floodplain and floodway prior to submittal to FEMA. Once the CLOMR is accepted construction
would be allowed to commence. After construction CDOT will submit a LOMR(Letter of Map
Revision)to the City and FEMA to show that what was built actually meets the same criteria
discussed above.
If a non-residential developer, in this case CDOT,were to build within the floodplain fringe/floodway
it is a requirement to have 18"between the 100-year water surface elevation and the lowest opening
(windows, doors, vents).
The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department has reviewed the proposal and concurs with
CDOT's proposed site layout and conditions.
o The State is not providing its fair share of financial contribution to needed improvements
at the I-25/Prospect interchange.
This comment is outside the scope of the review considerations. The State is providing more than
$500,000 in interchange improvements for a development(rest area)that will only increase traffic
volumes by 2-8%in the peak hours. (In the City of Fort Collins, developments whose impacts are
2% or less are not required to complete any improvements,regardless of how badly an intersection is
failing). The estimated traffic due to the rest area is 5 - 10 times less than other developments
proposed in the area. For a minor increase in traffic,these are substantial and significant
improvements from which the entire community will benefit.
"Taking Care To Get You There"
Page 5 of 6
As far as planned improvements for the interchange,CDOT is presently conducting an Environmental
Impact Study(EIS) on I-25 in which all interchanges are evaluated for safety, capacity and mobility.
When the final EIS is complete,it will make specific recommendations for interchange
improvements, including the interchange at Prospect Road. Presently there is no Federal or State
funding available for any improvements north of SH 66. With the completion of the EIS in 2006,
Prospect Road will be then ranked in importance by various transportation agencies. Funding for all
these projects, including the Prospect Interchange,will be eligible for federal funding, as they become
a priority according to their ranking.
Respectfully submitted,
r
Karla Harding
Region 4 Transportation Director
cc: Rick Gabel
Dave Martinez
Pete Graham
Harry Morrow,Attorney General
Dale Stein, Stantec
File
"Taking Care To Get You There"
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM NO. 3
(A MEETING DATE 8/26/04
AMIft STAFF Cameron Gloss
011MM
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Site Plan Advisory Review,
#27-04
OWNER: Colorado Department of Transportation
c/o Rick Gabel
1420 2nd Street
Greeley, CO 80631
APPLICANT: Stantec Consulting
c/o Dale Stein
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Site Plan Advisory Review is a request to construct a
3,300 gross sq.ft. rest area south of Prospect Road near the intersection of Prospect Road
and the 1-25 frontage road, '/< mile west of the 1-25/Prospect interchange. The proposed
rest area will be located directly south the existing Colorado Welcome Center/State Parks
offices facility. The facility will replace two existing rest areas located on the east and west
sides of 1-25, just south of Horsetooth Road. The site is part of a reclaimed mining
operation and lies within two zone districts: River Conservation (R-C)and Parks and Open
Lands (POL).
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This request for review from Colorado Department of Transportation is submitted to the
Planning and Zoning Board as a Site Plan Advisory Review pursuant to State Statute
Section 31-23-209,which limits the City's review to the location, character and extent of the
improvements.
Staff has concluded that of the proposed facility location, character and extent of impacts
are appropriate.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. PO.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CDOT Poudre River Rest Area — Site Plan Advisory Review, #27-04
August 26, 2004
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: POL, C, E- Welcome Center/State Parks Offices, vacant
S: RC, E- City Natural Area
E: C- Boxelder Creek, 1-25 and frontage road
W: RC, CSU- City Natural Area, CSU Environmental Learning Center
CDOT is transferring ownership of the original 1-25 rest area property located on the west
side of 1-25 to the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas program, in exchange for City-owned
property to be transferred to the State of Colorado. Proposed uses and the conceptual site
plan have been approved by the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
Proposed development includes a rest area served by a 3,300 sq. ft. building that includes
restrooms, visitor information kiosks and vending machines. Parking will be provided
through surface lots including spaces for 53 automobiles, 9 recreational vehicles and 25
trucks. Additional structures within the site include a maintenance building with a garage
and five picnic shelters.
The rest area will be enclosed to the west and south by a rail fence. The purpose of the
fence is to restrict access from the site to adjacent wildlife habitat and City of Fort Collins
Natural Areas.
Several off-site transportation improvements will be made in conjunction with this facility:
• Ramp Terminal Signalization. The northbound and southbound ramp terminals will
be signalized.
• Frontage Road Signalization. The intersection of the (western) frontage road and
Prospect Road will be signalized.
• Ramp Terminal Geometrics. The northbound approach of the ramp terminal should
be restriped to provide channelization to allow for a left turn.
• Westbound approach at the (western)frontage road. The volume meets warrants
for an additional left turn lane.
• Pavement Improvement along Prospect Road and the frontage road. The frontage
road will be improved to collector roadway standards, including bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
CDOT Poudre River Rest Area — Site Plan Advisory Review, #27-04
August 26, 2004
Page 3
2. Process
Colorado Department of Transportation has agreed with the City to process this review
under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., which states:
"When the commission (Planning and Zoning Board) has adopted the master plan
of the municipality or of one or more major sections or districts thereof, no street,
square, park, or other public way, ground or open space, public building or
structure, or publicly or privately owned public utility shall be constructed or
authorized in the municipality or in such planned section and district until the
location, character and extent thereof has been submitted for approval by the
commission."
Under the statute, if the Planning and Zoning Board disapproves the site plan such
disapproval may be overturned by a two-thirds vote of the State Transportation
Commission.
No City-sponsored neighborhood meeting was held as part of this application; however,
CDOT and its consulting engineers and planners conducted a design charrette.
2. Location. Character and Extent:
A. Location
The CDOT Poudre River Rest area is located within the 1-25 Subarea, which is an
element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, City Plan, and became a formally
adopted Plan in 2003 after a lengthy public process. In conjunction with the 1-25
Subarea Plan adoption, the City's Land Use Code was amended to include design
standards for properties within the 1-25 corridor. Both the 1-25 Subarea Plan policies
and Land Use Code standards call for building placement that will create an
attractive gateway into Fort Collins and will protect important view corridors for
vistas to the mountains. This has largely been achieved by commercial building
placement standards, which restrict the amount of building frontage for buildings
close to 1-25. In this case, the building is setback approximately 2,000 feet Gust
over 1/3 mile) from 1-25 and has a narrow building facade width of 65 feet.
CDOT Poudre River Rest Area — Site Plan Advisory Review, #27-04
August 26, 2004
Page 4
B. Character
The proposed architectural style and building materials are effectively differentiated
from the adjacent Colorado Visitor Center, yet it is compatible in relation to its size,
scale and style. The existing Visitor Center is clad in metal and stucco and includes
large expanses of glazing. The cantilevered roof element of the proposed rest area
effectively ties the design of the two buildings together. One key differentiating
element of the two buildings is the use of rustic materials, i.e.- wood, stone, rusty
metal siding, that tend to visually "soften" the rest area building and better
incorporate it into the natural landscape.
Landscape for the site will consist of shade trees and ornamental plantings. This
proposed landscape design successfully blends the facility into the native
landscape. Two major planting types were used:
1. Native Dryland areas dominated by shortgrass prairie species and native shrubs,
except for natural depressions that allow for more riparian species; and
2. High traffic areas near the building where a more formal landscape helps to
define spaces and add seasonal color.
The proposed building materials and landscaping comply with the 1-25 development
standards found in Article 3 of the Land Use Code.
C. Extent
Primary access to the rest area will be through a box culvert crossing of Box Elder
Creek from the frontage Road. As part of the development, off-site improvements
will be made to the Prospect/frontage road intersection, including a traffic light, lane
widening to accommodate trucks and RV's, and turn lanes as required. Both
Prospect Road and the frontage road will be improved to collector standards,
providing for ease of bicycle and pedestrian movements as well as motorized
vehicles. RV's and cars will also have the option of existing the site via the existing
visitor center access road at Prospect Road; however, this movement is
discouraged by the design of the road system on the site.
A full traffic report has been submitted which indicates that traffic signals and other
improvements built in conjunction with this project will result in adequate site
access. The lengthy delays and safety issues related to limited sight distance at the
northbound ramp terminal will be significantly reduced. Not only will access be
improved to the site, the improvements will benefit current users of the roadway.
CDOT Poudre River Rest Area — Site Plan Advisory Review, #27-04
August 26, 2004
Page 5
These signal improvements, however, should be viewed as an interim measure.
Most of the problems associated with this interchange are due to regional growth.
The inability to provide for auxiliary turn lanes from Prospect Road onto the 1-25
ramps of the bridge, as well as the need for a double left turn lane northbound is the
limiting factor. This constraint will be present with or without the rest area.
The proposed drainage design proposes to transfer flows from the Poudre Basin to
the Boxelder Basin. Due to this site being at the downstream end of the basins and
the area in the Poudre Basin having no defined outfall, this design will be
acceptable if proven that no negative impacts are created downstream in the
Boxelder Creek Basin.
Based on conversations between CDOT, City staff and FEMA, there is agreement
that hydraulic analysis of the site would be submitted to FEMA along with the City's
mapping for the FEMA Map Modernization process. This would assure CDOT that
their proposed changes to the floodplain are acceptable to FEMA and will be
incorporated into the map upon completion of the project.
Wetland resources will be protected through a 100 foot-wide buffer from the
Boxelder Creek. This area will be augmented with additional native plantings; any
disturbed areas or degraded areas will be reseeded.
Proposed site lighting meeting the City's design standards will be provided for
parking areas, drives and pedestrian plazas. Pole heights within the site will not
exceed 30 feet and will have cut-off fixtures that prevent light from spilling onto
adjacent properties. Street lighting will be provided at the Prospect and frontage
road intersection, and the frontage road will have additional street lighting leading to
the rest area entrance.
CONCLUSIONS:
After reviewing the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Site Plan Advisory Review, File#27-04,
staff offers the following conclusions:
1. The location of the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area is appropriate given its
orientation toward highway users and its operating characteristics.
2. The character of the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area is compatible with the
building forms, materials, and landscaping found in the adjacent Colorado
Visitors Center building and within the immediate area.
CDOT Poudre River Rest Area — Site Plan Advisory Review, #27-04
August 26, 2004
Page 6
3. The extent of the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area, is adequately addressed
through the proposed transportation, stormwater, landscape, and lighting design.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the CDOT Poudre River
Rest Area Site Plan Advisory Review, File #27-04.
List of Attachments:
A- Site Vicinity Map
B- Excerpt from Transportation Impact Study
C- Development Plans
FT-
UE
E
BUCKEYE ST
Z
u.
9
•C
OUT CCR
Z �
CId
O
H
T W FR N
L_
(SI
LV
re
RC POL LW
ElL
CSU
#27-04 CDOT Poudre River Rest Area PDP 7/15/04
Site Plan Advisory Review
1 inch : 600 fee
r
f Traffic impact Study _'
Relocation of the
Colorado Department of Transportation
Poudre River Rest Area
t h`�
Ile
5
k
E
July 9, 2004
Completed for:
1 ,or Colorado Department of Transportation
a
Submitted to:
t City of Fort Collins
1
Sear-Brown Projects 813-005, 813-007
' Stantec Projects 181700038
L� Stantec Consulting, Inc.
209 S. Meldrum
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
970-482-5922 tel 970-482-6368 fx
StarftC
EgK50T TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE CDOT
POUORE RIVER REST ARE
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. LAND USE
The project site is located just south of the existing Colorado Welcome Center. The 15-acre piece of
property is undeveloped. A portion of the site was mined by LaFarge, and final grading of extensively
disturbed ground has only recently taken place.
In the area around the site,there is currently limited development, and the area appears quite rural. The
immediate area surrounding the interchange is predominantly zoned for commercial uses. There has been
substantial discussion about growth in the area, including the potential for:
• The redevelopment of the Resource Recovery Farm (south west comer of the interchange),
• A new high school east of 1-25 and north of Prospect,
• Larger retail center(s) east of the interchange
• Continued regional growth of close-by communities such as Windsor and Timnath. While
these communities typically use neighboring interchanges, their growth will likely add some
traffic to the interchange at Prospect Road
2. AREA ROADWAYS
The site is adjacent to the Western Frontage Road of 1-25. This roadway is an existing two-lane facility
with narrow shoulders. It is quite rural in nature with limited improvements (no curb and gutter or
sidewalks).
Prospect Road is within the City of Fort Collins city limits when it intersects with the Frontage Road and is
designated as a four-lane arterial from the west to the northbound ramp terminal of 1-25. Its current
configuration is as a two-lane facility with limited improvements (no curb and gutter or sidewalks). From
the northbound ramp terminal to the east, Prospect Road is designated as a minor 2-lane arterial.
The interchange at 1-25 and Prospect Road is at Milepost 268.5. The interchange is a typical diamond with
stop controlled ramp terminals on either side of the Prospect Road overpass. The ramp terminals are 550
ft apart with both east and west-side frontage roads 1050 ft on either side of the ramp terminal
intersections.
9 ![
S S
y y.
Prospect Road Interchange Page s
(source:City of Fort Collins GIS)
Stantec
or TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE CDOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
G iD G
The travelway over the bridge is a narrow 26 ft. The only existing auxiliary turn lane is a free right from the
southbound off ramp to westbound Prospect (see aerial above). There is limited sight distance for vehicles
at the northbound off ramp.
All intersections in the study area are stop controlled.
3. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CONDITIONS
Traffic Volumes at Existina Rest Area
Contacts were made to the Region 4 traffic engineer, Region 4 Maintenance Personnel, and the
Poudre River Rest Area Caretaker to discuss current rest area traffic. The caretaker identified Friday—
Sunday as the peak traffic time (both cars and trucks)at the rest areas. Since weekday traffic is of
greatest interest to the potential relocation (as the Prospect Road Interchange peaks are on
weekdays), 72-hour classification tube counts at the entrance and exits of the facilities were completed
April 4-6 2002. This determined how many vehicles are currently accessing the facilities, and what the
anticipated trip generation would likely be when the rest area is moved. In addition, a 24- hour
occupancy study was also completed on Friday, April 5th. This identified how many vehicles are at the
facilities at a time and will help determine the amount of parking needed at the new facility. Raw data
is included in Appendix C.,
Figure 2 shows the existing traffic entering the rest areas. It is important to note that peak incoming
traffic hours at the rest area are 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon and 3:00—4:00 p.m. These do not coincide
with the peak travel hours at the Prospect Road Interchange, (which occur at 7:15—8:15 a.m. and 4:45
—5:45 p.m.).
Existing Traffic Entering Rest Area
(sum of northbound and southbound)
April 2002
Prospect Road
100 Peak Time
90 -
s0 -
e 70 -
60 -
- 50 - ■trucks
®car
40 -
° 30 -
20 -
10
0 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1:00 4:00 7:00 10:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00
Time --�
Figure 2-64sting Rest Area Traffic
{� Page 4
E\i Staatet .
oT TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE CDOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
Information from the CDOT traffic database was obtained to determine the seasonal variation of traffic
along 1-25,and the appropriate factors to apply to both cars and trucks to estimate peak month travel.
Truck traffic remains steady throughout the year, and the numbers obtained in April can be used in the
analysis. Car traffic peaks in August and the adjustment factor between our April data and August data
is 1.2.
Using the above information, existing rest area traffic likely to occur in August during the peak travel
time is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
2002 Peak Hour Rest Area Traffic
(Adjusted to August)
Southbound Northbound
Cars I Trucks Cars I Trucks
AM Peak Hour 5 8 6 8
7:15—8:15 a.m.
PM Peak Hour 29 6 36 6
4:45—5:45 .m.
Accident Data at the Existing Rest Area
Accident data for the existing rest area location was obtained from CDOT's Accident Data
Management Team within the State's Safety office. The raw data is included in Appendix I and
contains three years of accident data from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001. There were 33
accidents related to the rest area site, of which 22 were northbound accidents and 11 were southbound
accidents. 40%of the accidents were sideswipes or rear-ends while 33%involved some sort of fixed
object. There is no specific type of accident highlighted as an area of concern. The higher rate of
northbound accidents may be attributed to the uphill acceleration required as trucks enter the freeway
from the rest area.
Traffic Volumes at Existing Prospect Road Interchange
Two sets of existing traffic counts were completed in the interchange area for this study. 24-hour tube
counts in 14 locations were done to determine directional ADTs (Average Daily Traffic)on the ramps
(four counts),frontage roads north and south of Prospect(8 counts), and Prospect Road (2 counts).
The tube counts provided hourly volumes that were used in the signal warrant analysis. A summary of
the average daily traffic in the study area is shown in figure 3.
ADT-Avenge Doty Trask
zlDo a it
§ 4
veNdry { 2.aao 1,SW 350
E veNCay/ veNtlay vaNtlq W
3 2,200
vaNtlev
g 10,e00
39 4 vaWmy
5 250 6,700 gso
88 1°"r°ay veNtlay gveniaev verveav
Page 5 `
Figure 3—Existing Average Dalty Traffic(ADTs)
Stantec
6�d2h&QTJ TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE CDOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
The other set of traffic counts completed were peak hour tuming movement counts at the ramp
terminals, and the east and west frontage roads. Counts were completed over a two-hour period in
both the morning and evening (7:00—9:00 a.m, and 4:00—6:00 p.m.). The peak hour was determined
to be 7:15—8:15 a.m. and 4:45—5:45 p.m, and the data was minimally balanced between
intersections since the counts were not all completed on the same day. These two time frames will be
used for all analysis. The existing traffic is shown in Figure 4.
4. EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATIONS
Current Traffic Operations
Traffic analysis is based upon a Level of Service analysis as outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM 2000) published by the Transportation Research Board(TRB). This type of analysis assigns a
letter value to an intersection, approach or movement based on average delay experienced by vehicles
utilizing that intersection, approach or movement. The letter values assigned range from A (the best)
to F (the worst). Table 2 summarizes the definition of different LOS for signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
Table 2—Summary of Level of Service Information
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Definition
Intersection
LOS Delay sectveh LOS Dela sec/veh
A 510.0 A 510.0 Favorable progression
B >10.0 and 5 20.0 B >10.0 and 5 15.0 [Fair
ood progression
C >20.0 and 535.0 C >15.0 and 5 25.0 rogression
D >35.0 and 5 55.0 D >25.0 and 5 35.0oticeable congestion
E >55.0 and 5 80.0 E >35.0 and 5 50.0 Limit of acceptable delay
F 80 F >50 Approaching Unacceptable
Source: 7;gwav CaoadN Manual.Trenaoortetlon Rests mw.o-e.n 9M0
The acceptable delays between signalized and unsignalized intersections are different for like levels of
service because drivers generally have a different expectation of delay at the two intersections.
Drivers approaching a red light expect to be delayed. Drivers approaching a stop sign expect to stop
and then move on.
In larger urban areas, it is standard engineering practice to assume that a facility with LOS A through
LOS D is within an acceptable range for most users. For Prospect Road in the City of Fort Collins, an
overall LOS D is the limit of acceptable delay at a signalized intersection. For unsignalized
intersections, an overall LOS F is acceptable and considered normal in an urban environment.
Capacity improvements to stop controlled intersections often means the addition of a traffic signal. The
need for a traffic signal is based upon ITE's 2001 Manual of Unifom Traffic Control Devices which
details eight Warrants and their requirements. An intersection needs to meet one or more of the eight
warrants before being considered for a signal.
The traffic analysis was completed using the Synchro software program. This program utilizes the
accepted methods of analysis as detailed in the HCM. It also can optimize timing plans, and it
incorporates the various intersections' effects on one another. Figure 4 shows the existing operations,
Page 6
Starter
oT TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE CDOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
Synchro analysis printout sheets are included in Appendix D, and the details of the signal warrant
analysis are included in Appendix H. Signalization warrants were completed using the MUTCD, Part 4,
Highway Traffic Signals, 2000. A summary of the existing traffic operations is shown below:
Western Frontage Road: Currently functioning at an overall LOS A in both the morning and evening.
However,the Frontage Road approaches are both at a LOS F with long delays. This intersection
currently meets the following signal warrants:
• Warrant 1 —8-Hour Vehicular Volume
■ Warrant 2-4-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 3—Peak Hour Vehicular Volume
Adding a traffic signal at the Western Frontage Road intersection would improve the function to an
overall LOS A and the Frontage Road approach improves from LOS F to LOS C and B (northbound
and southbound).
1-25 southbound ramp: Functioning well with limited delay and queue lengths.
1-25 northbound ramp:This intersection has an overall LOS F in both the morning and evening peak
hours. The morning delay for traffic exiting the interstate averages over three minutes (the limit for
LOS F is only 50 seconds). The queue lengths on the ramp are beginning to impede onto the 1-25
mainline. This intersection currently meets the following signal warrants:
■ Warrant 1 —8-Hour Vehicular Volume
■ Warrant 2—4-Hour Vehicular Volume
■ Warrant 3—Peak Hour Vehicular Volume
Adding a traffic signal at the 1-25 northbound ramp intersection would improve the function to a LOS B.
Eastern Frontage Road: Functioning well with limited delay and queue lengths.
Accident Data at the Interchange
Accident data for the Prospect Road Interchange was obtained from CDOT's Accident Data
Management Team within the State's Safety office. The raw data is included in Appendix I and
contains three years of accident data from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001. (The City of Fort
Collins was also contacted—they have only one year of data available that included a couple additional
accidents at the interchange not listed in CDOT's information.) There were 36 accidents in the area
during the three-year time period, of which 29 were related to the interchange.
The largest percentage of accidents (62%)were
related to the northbound off ramp and ramp terminal.
Only 340/6 were related to the southbound ramps. M' ,u �
There may be two contributing factors to the higher
accident occurrence for northbound vehicles:the v
limited sight distance makes the margin for error
smaller than at most intersections (see photo at right),
and the current long queues and delays tend to
encourage drivers to accept a smaller gap than typical.
Signalization of the intersection at the northbound
ramp terminal would eliminate the requirement of the
driver decision in choosing a gap, and would reduce
the delays by increasing capacity of the intersection.
Northbound Ramp Temdnal Looldng West
Qlmlted site dlstanoe)
Page 7
6'd3h,Q0Tl TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE CDOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
S. PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT FACILITIES
The project site is in an undeveloped more rural area. There are no current pedestrian facilities along the
Western Frontage Road, Prospect Road, and pedestrians are not allowed on 1-25. Bicycles within the
Project study limits are currently utilizing the roadway shoulders. There are no transit accommodations in
the area.
C. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
The proposed development is an interstate rest area whose purpose is to provide motor vehicles utilizing I-
25 with a place to stop, rest, use facilities, and have access to the neighboring welcome center.
1. TRIP GENERATION
Site generated traffic in this study is the estimated traffic that will be in the area due to the relocation of the
rest area. For the immediate timeframe,that traffic is assumed to be the same as the existing traffic at the
Poudre River Rest Area as shown in Table 1.
Unlike many standards traffic studies,the site-generated traffic will experience growth over time; this
growth is directly related to the anticipated growth of traffic on 1-25. CDOT estimates an annual growth of
3.53%along the mainline (both cars and trucks). Therefore,the site traffic used in the analysis is based
upon the numbers shown in Table 1 and the applicable amount of growth added. This results in the
following multipliers:
Year Factor
2005 1.11
10 yr 1.41
20 yr 2.0
2. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The trip distribution is assumed to be similar as that currently using the Poudre River Rest Area. Because
the existing sites have separate northbound and southbound facilities, it is easy to determine the current
distribution: fifty-five percent of the use is from northbound 1-25 and forty-five percent is from southbound
traffic. How this distribution relates to the Prospect Road interchange is shown graphically in Figure 5.
TNu&butt
j IR 1
� 6
11 \VTI F
J
Figure 5—Site Tral/k TAp Distribution Page 8
stantec
aT TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE CDOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
The assignment of the site traffic will vary at each horizon due to the growth of the rest area traffic. The
2005, 10-year, and 20-year traffic assignment is shown in Figure 7, 10, and 13, respectively.
Truck Volumes
Truck volumes within the traffic assignment were identified and used to specifically calculate truck
volumes for each turning movement in each time horizon. This should provide a realistic look at how
trucks utilizing the rest area will affect the interchange. Truck volumes vary from as low as 3%(due to
high volume of car traffic)to 15%for some specific interchange turning movements. The intersection
at the Western Frontage Road has some movements with truck percentages as high as 50% (the
northbound right turn in the AM).
D. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Background traffic is that traffic that will be utilizing area roadways without the addition of the proposed site
traffic. In order for the analysis of future year time horizons to be accurate, the traffic volumes used needs
to include an assumed amount of growth in the background traffic.
The growth rate of traffic using the rest area was discussed in Section C.1. The growth of existing traffic at
the Prospect Road Interchange was calculated separately. Five sources were used to gather potential
growth information:
• CDOT growth factors for 1-25 mainline (which vary from 1.5 to 3.0 in the area),
• The City of Fort Collins travel demand model (updated for the Mason Street Corridor and Mulberry
Study),
The MPOs travel demand model for traffic anticipated east of 1-25,
• 1-25 Corridor Plan completed as a multi-jurisdictional document, and
■ Recent Traffic Impact Studies for development in the area.
It is clear that the likely growth throughout the corridor will vary substantially by location within the study
area. For example,the Prospect corridor west of the interchange has 18,000 vehicles per day and a
typical growth rate of 3.5% per year is anticipated by most sources. The current average daily traffic along
Prospect east of the interchange is only 2,300 vehicles per day and 20-year estimates vary from 9,000—
14,000 vpd. A growth rate of over 7% (resulting in a 20-year factor of 4.0) seems more reasonable for this
section of roadway.
In this manner, each section of roadway was studied independently,the sources reviewed, and an annual
growth rate identified for that approach volume. 20-year growth factors resulting from the growth rates are
shown in Figure 6.
aMNh FMon
8 L(17
0.0(9.■NJY� 20 9 4.0
x (39XHO 2.0 UAW)(0.91HYr)2.0l09Hyr) Yr)
acw&0(ae
�� ao 4
20
(a89VYr) (alXNr) (0.9%IYh F(7.2%;4�0
MYw
XX 0 a.0 F�
(x.xxrrr)aiowd Rd.rrw
Figure 6—20-Year Growth Factors for Background TrafficPage a
shmtec
10/14/2004 T1fU 9:49 FAX 121001/001
r TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE COOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
The background traffic volumes for the 2005, 10-year and 20-year horizons are shown in Figures 7, 10,
and 13 respectively.
E. TOTAL TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Using the existing volumes(background)and the site volumes,the total traffic upon completion of the
project can now be determined. The total traffic for the 2005, 10-year and 20-year time horizons is
calculated by taking the background volumes and adding the site traffic and is shown in Figures 7, 10,and
13 respectively.
F. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. MOTOR VEHICLE ANALYSIS
A Level Of Service(LOS)analysis was completed for the background traffic and the total traffic
(background plus the rest area)for each time horizon. This provides a comparison to clearly determine the
impacts the relocation of the Poudre River rest area will have to the roadway system.
Short Term Traffic-2008
In the build-out year(2005),a LOS analysis was done with signals at both the west frontage road and
the northbound 1-25 Ramp based on signal warrants. A left turn lane was also added to the westbound
traffic at the west frontage road. With the signal and turn lane improvements all intersection and
approaches operate with an acceptable LOS. See Figure 8 and 9 for background and total LOS,
respectively. The geometries are shown in Figure 16. Note: the geometries shown include only
signals that are warranted by capacity. When the northbound ramp terminal is signalized,the
southbound ramp terminal will also be signalized due to the proximity and system operation.
Bottom Line: With the improvements discussed,the rest area would not alter the overall level of
service at any of the study intersections.
10-Year Traffic
In the 10-year horizon at the Western Frontage Road,an east and west bound left turn lane are
needed. Also,north and southbound right turn auxiliary lanes are also needed. At the southbound
ramp terminal,the left turning traffic has a LOS F and may warrant a signal at this time horizon by
capacity. The signal will have been installed in the short tern time horizon. . Geometries are shown in
Figure 17.
Bottom Line:The study area is still functioning at an acceptable level of service at all intersections with
or without the rest area. The rest area traffic does impact the overall LOS by one letter designation(ie
from a LOS B to a LOS C)at the northbound ramp(am and pm)and at the southbound ramp(am
only). See Figures 11 and 12.
20-Year Traffic
Page 10
steldec
or TIS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE COOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
0 0 19
In the 20-year horizon, even with signals, both the Southbound and Northbound 1-25 ramp terminals
have failing levels of service. The constraining factor is the lack of auxiliary lanes over the bridge for
left turning vehicles. This requires through moving vehicles to back up, and with high through volumes,
the capacity is no longer available to accomplish acceptable levels of service. In addition,the
northbound off ramp left turning volume is more than 1200 vehicles. This absolutely requires a double
left turn lane (which is not possible with only one lane over the bridge). The volumes are shown in
Figure 13, and the Levels of Service are shown in Figures 14 and 15. Assumed geometrics are shown
in Figure 17.
Bottom Line: For a traditional signalized intersection,the bridge needs to be widened in order to
achieve an acceptable Level of Service. This result occurs with or without the rest area traffic.
2. PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The intent and purpose of an interstate rest area is to accommodate vehicular traffic utilizing the interstate.
Pedestrians, bicycles, and transit modes outside the site are not a part of this study. However, a number of
improvements will be realized by multi-modal users:
■ The site plan for the rest area is designed for the internal circulation of pedestrians, especially
between the rest area and the welcome center;
• The new bridge over the Box Elder Creek will have a sidewalk,
■ The off-site roadway improvements will provide a widened shoulder for improved bicycle
usage;
• The three signals to be installed will provide positive direction for all users when it is
appropriate to enter the intersection.
Q STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The existing Prospect Road interchange has two intersections that currently meet multiple signal warrants.
The Western Frontage Road sees high levels of through traffic and unacceptable delays for minor street
traffic. The 1-25 southbound ramp has very long delays and queues are beginning to impede on mainline
traffic.
Relocating the Poudre River Rest Area to the Prospect Road interchange will typically increase the traffic
volume at the intersections by 2-3% in the morning and 7-8%in the evening in all time horizons (the
eastern Frontage Road intersection remains only nominally affected by the Rest Area relocation). This
difference, although occasionally affecting an intersection by one LOS, is not enough to substantially affect
the interchange function. Therefore, whether the interchange functions adequately or not is
overwhelmingly determined by the background traffic and not the proposed rest area traffic.
1. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED
Despite a relatively low level of impact that the rest area will have on the traffic volumes, due to existing
deficiencies, there are a number of off-site roadway improvements necessary prior to the opening of the
Relocated Poudre River Rest Area:
• Ramp Terminal Signaliiation. The northbound ramp terminal needs to be signalized prior to
any additional development traffic. Ramp terminal intersection controls are generally
Page 11
stantet
or TIS FOR THE REL,.:ATION OF THE CDOT
POUDRE RIVER REST ARE
connected (sometimes even operated from a single controller); so the southbound ramp
terminal should also be signalized.
• Frontage Road Signalization. The intersection of the Western Frontage Road and Prospect
Road also needs to be signalized.
• Ramp terminal geometrics. The northbound approach of the ramp terminal should be re-
striped to provide channelization for a left turn lane—allowing through and right turning traffic
to have their own lanes.
■ Westbound approach at the Western Frontage Road. The relocated rest area will be adding
up to 86 vehicles in the peak hour making a left turn from westbound Prospect to the Frontage
Road. This volume meets warrants for a left turn lane and it should be designed to
accommodate the higher than typical truck volumes.
■ Pavement improvement along Prospect and Frontage Road. As a part of final design, a
geotechnical investigation of the existing roadways should take place, and any necessary
pavement improvements be accomplished.
2. SUMMARY
With these improvements,the Poudre River Rest Area will be allowing not only adequate access for itself,
but will be providing substantial improvements to current users of the roadways. The lengthy delays and
safety issues related to limited sight distance at the northbound ramp terminal will be significantly reduced.
With these improvements,the interchange is expected to function adequately for the next B-10 years.
In the 20-year time horizon, due to regional growth, the volumes on the Prospect Road overpass exceed
the capacity of a two-lane facility. The inability to provide for auxiliary turn lanes from Prospect onto the I-
25 ramps over the bridge, as well as the need for double left turn lane northbound is the limiting factor.
This constraint will be present with or without the rest area.
Page 12
wStMItu
Community Planning and Environmental Services ATTACHMENT
ia Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
August 31, 2004
Colorado Department of Transportation
c/o Rick Gabel, North Program Engineer
1420 2"d Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Subject: City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board Disapproval of CDOT
Poudre River Rest Area
Dear Mr. Gabel and Members of the State Transportation Commission:
On August 26, 2004, the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board
considered the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area pursuant to 22-32-124 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes. Under the statutory provision, it was the duty of the
Planning and Zoning Board to review the proposed CDOT Poudre River Rest
Area within sixty (60) days after receiving the plan. Accordingly, the Planning
and Zoning Board reviewed the plan based upon its "location, character, and
extent' as described within the statute. The Board unanimously disapproved the
submitted plan based upon reasons as I shall describe in greater detail later in
this letter.
According to the statute, the Planning and Zoning Board must communicate its
reasons for disapproval to the Colorado Transportation Commission, which has
the power to overrule such disapproval by a recorded vote of not less than two-
thirds. Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to relay concerns expressed by the
Planning and Zoning Board regarding the proposed CDOT Poudre River Rest
Area. Those concerns are as follows:
• Increased truck traffic at the Prospect and 1-25 interchange will increase
congestion and create conflicts with vehicular movements, particularly during
peak hours;
• Travel lanes on the Prospect and 1-25 overpass are of an insufficient width to
accommodate large trucks simultaneously crossing the overpass;
• The 20% projected increase in traffic from the month of April to the month of
August cited in the Traffic Impact Study was too low relative to the higher
traffic volumes perceived by some members of the Board;
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX (970)416-2020
• The proposed design violates the City's adopted stormwater regulations
affecting the Boxelder floodway. In particular, a portion of the proposed
building and parking area will be located within the floodway boundary. The
impacts of the building and floatable materials, such as trucks and vehicles
within the parking areas, may cause negative impacts downstream from the
site; and
• The State is not providing its fair share of financial contribution to needed
improvements at the 1-25/Prospect interchange.
A complete transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board discussion from the
August 26, 2004 hearing is attached.
Thank you for your referral to the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board.
Should you have questions please feel free to contact me at (970) 221-6750.
Respectfully,
Cameron Gloss, AICP
Director of Current Planning &
Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Board
cc: Planning and Zoning Board
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Greg Byrne, CPES Director
Attachment-August 26, 2004 P&Z hearing transcript
ATTACHMENT 4
1
2
3
4
5 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
6
Held August 26, 2004
7 At City Council Chambers
300 West Laporte Street
8 Fort Collins, Colorado
9 In the Matter of
CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Relocation
10 27-04
11
Commission members present :
12 Mikal Torgerson, Chair
Jerry Gavaldon
13 Bridgette Schmidt
Sally Craig
14 Jennifer Carpenter
Dave Lingle
15 Judy Meyer
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 1
1 MR. TORGERSON: Oh, good evening and welcome
2 back to the August 26th Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
3 The next item on the agenda is the CDOT Poudre River Rest
4 Area Site Plan Advisory Review. I will turn it over to
5 Cameron for presentation of the project.
6 MR. GLOSS : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a
7 Site Plan Advisory Review that ' s being submitted by the
8 Colorado Department of Transportation for a new rest area
9 that ' s approximately 3 , 300 gross square feet, that would
10 be near the southwest corner of the intersection of I-25
11 and Prospect Road. This rest area would be located
12 immediately south of the Colorado Welcome Center and some
13 existing State Parks offices .
14 The facility will replace two existing rest areas .
15 They are located on I-25 just south of Horsetooth Road on
16 either side of I-25 . The site is part of a reclaim mining
17 operation. And the zoning is really split to two zoning
18 districts : River conservation and open lands -- public
19 open lands .
20 The review before you is what we refer to as a Site
21 Plan Advisory Review. The mission for the Board is to
22 evaluate the application relative to three criteria, and
23 then either approve or disapprove the application.
24 If the Board finds that the criteria are not met and
25 was to disapprove it, then it would be considered by the
2
1 State Transportation Commission. And they will decide
2 whether they would like to uphold the decision of the
3 Board or conduct a public hearing and take a separate
4 action.
5 I have an aerial photograph behind me that, I think,
6 pretty clearly shows the site. It ' s, as I said, on the
7 south side of the road about a quarter of a mile west of
8 I-25 . It fronts onto the I-25 frontage road. You have
9 parking for 53 automobiles, and 9 recreational vehicle
10 spaces, and 25 truck spaces. There' s also a couple of
11 other buildings that are shown on the site plan. There ' s
12 a maintenance building with a garage, and there are also
13 some picnic shelters . They would front and be adjacent to
14 the wildlife habitat in the City of Fort Collins, a
15 natural area which is located to the west and south of the
16 site . And there ' s some landscaping you see shone in the
17 landscape plan that would provide a buffer to that area
18 and provide a transition to that habitat .
19 Three criteria that we use to evaluate this project :
20 First is the location, and when we say location, it ' s
21 relative to specific site conditions and then within the
22 Fort Collins community. Based on City Plan and the
23 specific implementing plan of City plan, in this case I-25
24 sub-area plan, staff believes that the location is
25 appropriate. This does provide an attractive gateway into
3
1 Fort Collins and that ' s one of the key criteria, I think,
2 we used to evaluate a request within I-25 area. We have a
3 significant setback from I-25 .
4 Second issue is character. We have a design which, I
5 think, generally reflects some of the positive
6 characteristics of the Visitor Center while maybe being a
7 little more sympathetic to its setting. The use of
8 natural materials, I think, building forms, and
9 landscaping that blends very nicely into the natural
10 environment, and I think it is very well integrated with
11 respect to the site plan, as well .
12 There ' s a, I think, nicely complementing landscape
13 plan that uses a lot of native landscaping as you get
14 further away from the building which seems appropriate for
15 the character of the area . So from the staff ' s
16 perspective, it also meets the issue of whether the
17 application is in keeping with the character of the area.
18 And lastly is the extent of the development . What we
19 usually mean by that is, to what degree does it impact
20 City facilities? And this is one that we certainly had to
21 spend some time looking at because we know from past
22 experience that there are some issues with performance of
23 the I-25 and Prospect interchange. The applicant did
24 submit a pretty extensive traffic study, and I 'm going to
25 have the applicant later address some of these issues that
4
1 you specifically raised in the work session.
2 There are several public improvements that relate to
3 traffic on the site. First, there will be a signalization
4 at the ramps themselves as you come off of I-25 and get
5 onto I-25 . There will be signals there . The northbound
6 approach on the ramp terminal will be re-striped to help
7 channelize traffic for a left turn into the site . And
8 there will also be some pavement improvements along both
9 Prospect and the frontage road. We do have design
10 standards for these roadways, and they would be fully
11 meeting all of those design standards . And that would
12 include provision for pedestrian and bicycle facilities .
13 Our traffic operations staff has looked at the study
14 in great detail . Ward Stanford from our staff is here to
15 answer any questions that you have, but from our
16 perspective, this is an interim measure. It addresses the
17 immediate needs of this facility. I think the staff
18 acknowledges that there are additional issues about that
19 interchange that, over time, will need to be addressed as
20 development occurs . We don' t see these improvements, as I
21 just mentioned, allowing additional development in the
22 immediate future and helping those along the way without
23 these interchange improvements .
24 So with that, the staff has concluded that all three
25 criteria are met, and we ' re recommending that you approve
5
1 the project . Thank you.
2 MR. TORGERSON: Thank you, Cameron. Would the
3 applicant like to come down and give a presentation?
4 Please state your name and address for the record, and
5 sign in our logbook, if you would.
6 MR. GRAHAM: Okay. Hi, my name is Pete Graham,
7 and I 'm the project manager with CDOT. And thanks for the
8 opportunity to talk to you tonight about this. I guess
9 one of first questions that would come up is, why are we
10 doing this project? And CDOT is basically -- we conducted
11 a study back in 1997 where we looked at the Colorado rest
12 areas management and maintenance. And we determined at
13 that time that we wanted to move our rest area sites to
14 make them more efficient, to move them off-site . And what
15 that helps us do is get -- reduce conflicts on the
16 interstate where, you know, right now we have two rest
17 areas presently that enter and exit from the highway. And
18 by getting those two extra movements off, we can put them
19 on Prospect Road, and that actually will help the
20 function -- help us utilize rest area traffic better.
21 This project was initiated by CDOT management and
22 City management -- got together and talked about, you
23 know, where possible locations could be . And it worked
24 out that, for this particular location, that the City had
25 -- in exchange for our rest area site, part of this
6
1 project is to -- we will abandon our old facilities and
2 return those back to native conditions . And, of course,
3 that ' s right on the Poudre River Corridor. So the
4 southbound rest area site, then, will become property of
5 the City of Fort Collins. So the site that we ' re going to
6 has 12 acres, and we ' re going to be exchanging those for
7 the 27 acres that we presently are occupying.
8 Cameron pretty much went through with what ' s going on
9 the new site . We 've worked extensively with City staff
10 here for the last couple of years, basically, to make sure
11 that we've been compatible with City ideals. And we want
12 to be a good neighbor, so we've basically have done what
13 we can to meet the goals of City staff .
14 And so -- and we 're pretty proud of this rest area
15 site because it actually is going to be a very
16 nice-looking site . It ' s going to be compatible -- maybe
17 improve what ' s already out there at the existing Welcome
18 Center. And we -- the existing land is managed by natural
19 resources, and we went before their Board. And they
20 approved this site and thought that it was a good match.
21 So, some of benefits to the City, in addition to
22 getting the new natural area, we ' re going to be putting
23 the signals up at the intersection as we had discussed.
24 And that ' s about a half a million dollars of improvement .
25 And just overall, that ' s just -- just that in itself is
7
1 going to help the function of the ramps altogether. And
2 the whole Prospect interchange should be much improved by
3 that .
4 There ' s also -- the gain for the City is also that
5 the cars that exit off the interstate will go to --
6 presumably go to the rest area. And the Welcome Center
7 will be -- it is situated so that it is going to be a
8 natural movement to go over to the rest area. And the
9 City will presumedly gain traffic to the City. After
10 they've visited the Welcome Center, they' ll see what the
11 City of Fort Collins has to offer. And so that ' s why
12 we ' re doing this . It should help both of us .
13 We know that there ' s questions as far as traffic is
14 concerned. And I ' d like to introduce Martina Wilkinson
15 from Sear-Brown or, I 'm sorry, Stantech now, they've
16 recently changed. And she can answer some -- or go
17 through some of the traffic issues that we 've been working
18 with to make this location work at this .
19 MR. TORGERSON: Thank you.
20 MS . WILKINSON: Thank you. I know that you've
21 received in your packets and the information that you've
22 looked at through the work session, a summary of
23 information that was provided to you regarding the traffic
24 information. And I just want to run through a few of the
25 details that were included in that study, hopefully, for a
8
1 little bit of clarification. And then, certainly, we can
2 sort of expound upon that once you get to your questions .
3 The existing interchange, and it ' s shown here on the
4 aerial, is one that ' s a relatively tight diamond
5 configuration of an interchange . The ramp terminals are
6 about 550 feet apart . The benefit of this particular
7 interchange is that the frontage road locations have been
8 relocated out to a regular spacing of a frontage road.
9 So, unlike an interchange, such as the one at 392 in
10 Windsor, those frontage roads have been relocated so that
11 they provide adequate spacing for future signalization of
12 the interchange.
13 The bridge across the interstate currently is a very
14 narrow two-lane bridge. It is only 26 feet in width, and
15 we' re not currently proposing to widen that bridge . It ' s
16 not a part of this project.
17 The existing traffic at the interchange -- west of
18 the interchange -- is running about 18, 000 vehicles a day.
19 East of the interchange you' re only seeing about 2, 000 to
20 3 , 000 vehicles a day, so there ' s a huge difference in the
21 traffic -- in the existing traffic that you' re seeing at
22 the interchange.
23 When we run a capacity analysis on the intersections
24 that are at the ramp terminals, especially the
25 intersection that ' s on the east side, the northbound ramp
9
1 terminal, that is currently functioning at a level of
2 service F. And those levels of service are deemed by
3 traffic standards . They run from A to F, and A being the
4 best and F really being unacceptable.
5 So especially in our peak hours in the morning and in
6 the evening, we' re seeing tremendous delays at the
7 northbound off-ramp to the point where we ' re seeing some
8 of those back-ups go all the way back out onto the main
9 line of I-25 . And so that ' s not just a function issue,
10 it ' s not just a capacity issue, but it ' s very quickly
11 becoming a significant safety issue because you have those
12 queues that are backing up onto a main line interstate
13 that ' s running at 75 miles an hour.
14 So that is something that CDOT has recognized for
15 quite some time is a huge issue and have been trying
16 really to look for ways -- to look for funding to be able
17 to provide the signalization at that ramp terminal . The
18 difficulty with that particular intersection really
19 doesn' t have anything to do with the east- and westbound
20 traffic, but it has everything to do with those off-ramp
21 vehicles needing to stop and then make a left-hand turn.
22 And in the morning you' re seeing something like 600
23 vehicles in the peak hour stopping and making that
24 left-hand turn, and that ' s what ' s really providing that
25 difficulty. So it warrants a signal . If you would put a
10
1 signal up, then that level of service goes from a level of
2 service F to something like a level of service B.
3 So perhaps you' re asking why on earth would we want
4 to take an interchange that ' s currently failing and then
5 add rest area traffic to it . And that ' s certainly a
6 question that we asked ourselves when we first began the
7 project about 2 years ago.
8 The existing Poudre River rest area -- we took quite
9 a bit of time to go out and do a number of traffic counts
10 out at the rest area to try to get a better idea of
11 exactly the kind of traffic that ' s coming in, the kind of
12 traffic that ' s going out : what are trucks, what are cars,
13 and what ' s their distribution throughout the day. We did
14 what ' s called a 72-hour count out there where we lay the
15 tubes across the off-ramps . And it ' s a classification
16 count that tells us which cars or which are trucks that
17 are coming into the rest area. We chose the days that we
18 did that for by talking to CDOT and talking to the
19 caretaker that lives out there, to identify the peak days
20 during the week when the rest area traffic is the highest,
21 and that generally is from Thursday to Saturday. And
22 those are the three days we chose to do those counts .
23 We also recognize that when we did the counts, that
24 those were taken in April . And we looked at a lot of the
25 automatic traffic counters that are along 2-25 to try to
11
1 figure out exactly how the traffic varies from month to
2 month. And we recognize that April traffic for cars is
3 not the same as August traffic for cars . And so we upped
4 all of our numbers that we got in April by 20 percent to
5 make sure that we ' re accommodating the peak month of
6 travel, in addition to being the peak weekday of travel .
7 So in summary, the existing rest area traffic that
8 we' re seeing is about 1, 100 vehicles a day coming into the
9 rest area, and that ' s combined northbound and southbound.
10 Of those, about 25 percent are trucks. So we ' re seeing
11 about 270-some trucks per day enter the rest area. If you
12 convert that into an arrival rate of how often trucks are
13 actually coming in, the average arrival rate is about one
14 truck every five minutes or so.
15 Now that varies a little bit throughout the day because
16 the trucks have peaks just like the cars have peaks . And
17 the trucks have peaks at about 10 : 00 or 11 : 00 o' clock in
18 the morning is when the most trucks are coming in. And
19 their other peak is again at about 2 : 00 or 3 : 00 o' clock in
20 the afternoon. And that ' s sort of to our benefit, in terms
21 of this particular interchange, because the cars and the
22 regional traffic peaks run at 7 : 00 o' clock in the morning
23 and at 5 : 00 o ' clock in the evening. And at 7 : 00 o' clock in
24 the morning there are very, very few cars entering the rest
25 area.
12
1 So the arrival rates for trucks vary anywhere between
2 one every 2 to 3 minutes during the peak in the middle of '
3 the afternoon, to one every 20 minutes or so in the middle
4 of the night . So if we add rest area traffic to this
5 interchange, the impacts that we 're looking at in terms of
6 total volume during the peak morning or the peak evening is
7 about 2 to 3 percent additional traffic in the morning, and
8 7 to 8 percent additional traffic in the evening peak.
9 By comparison, and a lot of people have asked, well,
10 you know, how does this compare to other developments that
11 have been proposed in this area? And again, we ' re looking
12 at maybe 1, 100 vehicles per day that are coming into the
13 rest area. For instance, some of the other developments
14 that have been proposed in that area, like the Paradigm
15 Development, was looking at 11, 000 vehicles a day. And the
16 mixed use development that is on the northeast corner --
17 that was proposed on the northeast corner of that
18 interchange -- was looking at over 18, 000 vehicles a day.
19 So in comparison, the volumes -- the additional volumes
20 that we ' re looking at is really on the order of about 10
21 times less than some of these other developments that have
22 come in, that have been under consideration.
23 The improvements that we 're talking about, and I think
24 you mentioned some of those, are three traffic signals, one
25 at each of the ramp terminals . The northbound ramp
13
1 terminal is warranted by three warrants . The southbound
2 ramp terminal is not currently warranted, but we would put
3 it up as a part of the whole signal progression. And we
4 would also add a traffic signal at the westbound frontage
5 road, and that is also currently warranted. And a lot of
6 that southbound traffic that ' s coming down the frontage
7 road currently is waiting for multiple minutes of time
8 before they can find a gap to get out of Prospect .
9 And so, by having the State coming in and putting up a
10 traffic signal at the westbound frontage road certainly is
11 a benefit to all of the vehicles that are currently
12 utilizing the frontage road further north.
13 We ' ll add some turn lanes, as well . A westbound turn
14 lane specifically for the rest area traffic to go out onto
15 the frontage road. And we' ll make sure that that is long
16 enough to accommodate any of the rest area queues . And
17 even if we'd had multiple trucks arriving at a time, that
18 that would accommodate the queue and not impact the main
19 line traffic. And with the signals and with the additional
20 rest area traffic, we' re looking at that interchange going
21 from a level of service F to a level of service B. And so
22 there is a huge community benefit especially in terms of
23 safety, to get the signals up. And being able to have the
24 Department of Transportation come in and do a half million
25 dollars worth of improvements for the addition of only 2
14
1 percent additional traffic, I think, is really an excellent
2 trade off for the City and the community.
3 Now what these improvements do not do, is that they do
4 not accommodate a huge regional mall in the northeast
5 corner. They do not accommodate substantial huge
6 developments on the east part . They do accommodate
7 regional growth over the course of probably the next 10
8 years or so. But beyond that point, I think everybody
9 recognizes that the interchange will need to be rebuilt
10 whether or not the rest area is there . But in the
11 meantime, we see this very much as being an interim
12 solution that can benefit the community here. It ' s a
13 safety improvement, and then it allows the rest area
14 traffic to have access . With that, thank you.
15 MR. TORGERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone in
16 the audience that would like to speak to this item before
17 the Board? Okay, seeing none, I ' ll close public input and
18 bring it back to the Board for questions . Jerry?
19 MR. GAVALDON: Would the project manager from
20 CDOT come down. And then I ' ll have questions for Ward.
21 MR. TORGERSON: Actually, it ' s on, he ' s just not
22 speaking into it .
23 MR. GAVALDON: Can you hear me now? Okay, sir,
24 blunt question. Why isn' t CDOT willing to participate in
25 the widening of east Prospect overchange?
15
1 MR. GRAHAM: Participate in the east Prospect
2 interchange?
3 MR. GAVALDON: Yeah. Why aren' t you guys going
4 to -- why isn' t CDOT willing to participate in with the
5 other developers in expanding the -- widening the overpass
6 of Prospect over I-25?
7 MR. GRAHAM: Well, presently -- I mean, we have
8 the process -- Prospect is not high enough on a priority
9 list right now to make those improvements. So there ' s
10 presently no funding identified for it . And it ' s pretty
11 low down on the list right now as far as needs in the
12 Northern Front Range.
13 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. What if we say no to the
14 project? What will you do then?
15 MR. GRAHAM: As far as, well, the improvements,
16 well, we won' t -- as part of this project, have the
17 signals come in. So we wouldn' t be able to put the
18 signals in at this time. So I mean -- I think we would --
19 that part of it would go away.
20 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. My worry is that moving
21 the rest stops from where they are currently to the new
22 spot, I don' t see any justification for it . Why?
23 Because, one, you just rebuilt those rest stops a couple
24 years ago. Okay. Why do you want to move them after you
25 put money into them already?
16
1 MR. GRAHAM: Well, as a part of this program, I
2 mean, it ' s more than just -- we've got the facilities that
3 have been upgraded, but they' re not built to a newer
4 standard. It ' s -- the turns on the rest area -- the
5 highway, when it was designed, was built back in 1965 and
6 the design --
7 MR. GAVALDON: -- 1958 under the Interstate Act
8 by President Eisenhower, huh?
9 MR. GRAHAM: Yes . But they were built to an
10 older standard. And at that time, they were designed to a
11 70 mile-an-hour design speed. We 're at higher design
12 speeds now. If you go to the ramps, as they go, it ' s a
13 quick exit . We are limited -- the location is limited.
14 It ' s close proximity to Harmony Road, so we ' re limited to
15 acceleration lanes to get off of the -- to get back onto
16 the interstate . To get off, it ' s a quick exit .
17 We just don' t have the geometrics there to make
18 expansions practical . Also, combining the two rest areas
19 into one site, it ' s easier for us to manage, it ' s easier
20 for us to perform maintenance on, we won' t have to travel
21 from both sides . So there' s just some savings there .
22 It ' s just easier to police one site rather than two sites .
23 MR. GAVALDON: Secondly, have you looked at
24 doing some geometric changes to the deacceleration and the
25 acceleration lanes versus trying to move them to another
17
1 spot?
2 MR. GRAHAM: Well, again, we 've -- as a part of
3 this study -- actually, when we did this study, we looked
4 at different size rest areas. And we looked at high
5 volume -- this is considered a high volume rest area --
6 medium volume and low volume. And the Poudre rest area
7 was the one they studied as far as the problems at that
8 site . And it was determined that that site needed to be
9 consolidated into one site, so the geometrics of that
10 would be considerable . It ' s not compatible with the study
11 that they did. But we've got a railroad bridge on the
12 north side . If we were to have the deceleration lane, as
13 well as the acceleration lane -- we just have expensive
14 things that we would have to do to bring that up to
15 compliance .
16 MR. GAVALDON: Would it be cheaper than moving
17 them?
18 MR. GRAHAM: I would -- well --
19 MR. GAVALDON: Do you have the numbers?
20 MR. GRAHAM: I don' t have the numbers but to
21 expand a bridge -- it ' s very expensive . And then we 'd
22 still have to rebuild the site and upgrade the buildings
23 and that sort of thing. But again, this is -- what we ' re
24 doing is compatible with the State. This report was done
25 for the Colorado Transportation Committee, and they
18
1 approved it . And we believe that that is the direction
2 that the State of Colorado is going. We are consolidating
3 rest areas throughout the State, and we ' re kind of at the
4 cutting edge up here in Northern Colorado. But it ' s
5 consistent with our plan.
6 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. You said earlier that this
7 is one of the busiest rest stops; is that true?
8 MR. GRAHAM: It ' s a high volume rest area. Yes,
9 you could say it is probably one of the busiest rest
10 areas .
11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, so going back to where you
12 want to move it to, and the overpass at Prospect not going
13 to be wider, and you think you' re going to signalize it
14 and improve it . But no other entity or property owner can
15 develop except only CDOT because they' re putting in
16 traffic lights . But if CDOT would pitch in and help pay
17 for the widening of the road, then we can allow these
18 other folks to develop. Are you willing to do that?
19 MR. GRAHAM: We ' re not taking -- the
20 improvements that we' re putting in there are not for --
21 they are for the facilities that we are putting in place.
22 It ' s not our intent to improve the interchange for other
23 developers in the area.
24 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I can understand your
25 point, but to me seeing the State getting away with not
19
1 paying their fair share of this movement and growth, but
2 making the private sector pay, concerns me . I think the
3 State should pay their fair share or not be able to build
4 until this road meets adequate public facilities . I know
5 we can' t use that, but it seems like you guys are getting
6 away with something, you know?
7 MR. GRAHAM: I think Martina said it . I mean,
8 for a 2 percent increase in traffic to that entire
9 interchange, we ' re improving it from a level of service D
10 to a level of service B.
11 MR. GAVALDON: However, you' re looking at the
12 tractor trailer rigs. I read your traffic report, and
13 bumping it up 20 percent to accommodate isn' t adequate .
14 It should be 50 percent . Because you take the size of
15 those vehicles and then -- I did my own study of this over
16 the weekend. My numbers track with your numbers .
17 However, I was looking at it from a magnitude aspect .
18 You got a big magnitude of trucks going in there : the
19 singles, the doubles, the triples, to make those turns .
20 And the amount of use they' re going to put into it looking
21 at your peaks of trucks . It ' s not 2 percent, it ' s more
22 than 2 percent . And you should have lifted -- uplifted it
23 -- the traffic engineer should have uplifted it by 50
24 percent to accommodate the magnitude.
25 And that ' s where I 'm saying I 'm having a hard time
20
1 supporting this because I think the State should pay their
2 fair share of growth development. And it ' s not for the
3 traffic engineer, it ' s for you. I 'd like to know why the
4 State ' s not willing to help us out to make this road far
5 more safer than it is . Can you help me with that? Any
6 comment on that?
7 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, I think Martina -- we rely on
8 our traffic studies to make the determinations that we did
9 for the interchange. And I think Martina would be better
10 able to address your question.
11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you, sir, I
12 appreciate your time.
13 MS . WILKINSON: I think there' s a couple of
14 things there in your comments . Maybe you can help me
15 better understand what some of them were . I know one of
16 your comments had to do with the increased --
17 MR. GAVALDON: I can' t hear you at all, ma'am.
18 MS . WILKINSON: I 'm sorry. One of the comments
19 that you had, had to do with the increase of traffic by 20
20 percent. And you felt like that should be an increase of
21 50 percent .
22 MR. GAVALDON: 50 percent by the magnitude
23 factor.
24 MS . WILKINSON: The 20 percent that we increased
25 our traffic by is to increase our volumes of the car
21
I traffic from the month of April to the month of August .
2 MR. GAVALDON: Is that -- okay, that ' s fair.
3 MS . WILKINSON: And so that has to do with the
4 fact that generally there is higher level car traffic in
5 the middle of the summer than there is in April . Now when
6 -- in our discussions with both CDOT and the trucking
7 industry, the trucking industry remains relatively
8 constant throughout the year because of the transport of
9 their durable goods, and so the counts that we did for the
10 trucks in April, everyone felt were valid to use also for
11 August . So the increase of 20 percent only had to do with
12 the car increase to reflect summertime traffic . Now --
13 MR. GAVALDON: Colorado surely relies more on
14 tourism as part of our sales tax. I think 20 percent is
15 very small in volume from April to August because we
16 depend heavily on tourism. So you got cars, and you got
17 motor homes .
18 MS . WILKINSON: Correct .
19 MR. GAVALDON: Some of the calculations -- some
20 of the observations I was able to see -- in fact, I used
21 Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday to track. You have
22 more motor homes as a magnitude almost equal to the number
23 of trucks .
24 MS . WILKINSON: Correct .
25 MR. GAVALDON: So at 20 percent -
22
1 MS . WILKINSON: Especially in the summer months .
2 And so we recognize that and included it in our analysis.
3 One of the other things that I think I heard in one of
4 your comments had to do perhaps with the length of trucks
5 and whether they're singles or doubles . And in all of our
6 analysis in each of the turning movements, and this is a
7 little bit unusual for a typical traffic study, but we
8 knew this was a little bit more specialized, for every
9 single one of the turning movements, we calculated what
10 the truck percentage would be of the volume of that
11 turning movement .
12 So for instance, all the people that are traveling
13 northbound and coming off onto the Prospect Street
14 interchange and making that left-hand turn, we figured out
15 what the percentage of trucks would be in that particular
16 movement . And we included that in our analysis because,
17 you' re absolutely right, it ' s very important to make sure
18 that you include and accommodate for that length.
19 Generally a truck is about the same length as at least
20 three cars --
21 MR. GAVALDON: How about a triple?
22 MS . WILKINSON: I 'm sorry?
23 MR. GAVALDON: A triple?
24 MS . WILKINSON: Well, it ' s something that we
25 take -- we have an average of about what general truck
23
1 lengths are. And so, in our simulation models, we show
2 those trucks being accommodated in every single one of the
3 turning movements . And a lot of times in traffic studies,
4 you' ll just assume 2 percent trucks or you' ll assume 5
5 percent trucks if it ' s a higher truck general area. But
6 because this was a specialized one, we had some truck
7 turning percentages that were as high as 50 percent .
8 For instance, in the morning making the right-hand
9 turn out of the rest area onto Prospect, that truck
10 percentage is 50 percent . So we needed to be able to
11 accommodate that length, saying that every single one of
12 those vehicles, half of them are going to be trucks, and
13 we need to accommodate for that length. So that is
14 included in all of the analysis that we did.
15 MR. GAVALDON: I read your analysis. I went
16 through the appendices and your tables, but I don' t see
17 anything in here for the magnitude of the impact that you
18 have . You' re just looking at numbers and volumes. And I
19 think we ' re just going to disagree, but your factor should
20 be 50 percent for volume. And there should have been some
21 analysis for magnitude --
22 MS . WILKINSON: So you think 50 percent of what,
23 I 'm sorry?
24 MR. GAVALDON: 50 percent increase for August
25 because we ' re in the high months of tourism here .
24
1 MS . WILKINSON: So you think that --
2 MR. GAVALDON: And maybe July should have been
3 used because tourism has gone down a little bit in August
4 because everyone ' s going back to school . So, you know, we
5 may disagree but --
6 MS . WILKINSON: So it would be your
7 understanding that the percent of trucks is 50 percent
8 higher in August than it is in April?
9 MR. GAVALDON: No, I 'm saying your volume --
10 your numbers you used in April should be 50 percent
11 higher. But that ' s just a difference of numbers there.
12 So I 'm just concerned that moving this, and with the
13 traffic study, I think we 're missing the magnitude of
14 impact that this is having on the current crossover of
15 Prospect Road from I-25 . And I 'm really having to
16 struggle in whether to support this idea. I ' ll just leave
17 it like that .
18 MR. TORGERSON: Jerry, I think Bridgette has a
19 follow up question.
20 MS . SCHMIDT: I was just wondering if you know
21 right now how many trucks go off northbound and use that
22 ramp off Prospect . Cause I would imagine that a lot of
23 them exit on Harmony or Mulberry or use the rest stop. I
24 drive by that area but it ' s usually on the weekends . And
25 I have never noticed, although I 've noticed the traffic
25
1 backing all the way up to the interstate, I haven' t
2 noticed a lot of truck and trailer traffic cause that
3 bridge is very narrow.
4 That ' s going to be a difficult turn, I think, for a
5 truck. And so I 'm just wondering if we' re sort of
6 handicapping them by having them come off, if they' ll
7 choose not to exit there, if that -- and, you know, I
8 understand the part about them coming on and off the
9 interstate, and it alleviates some of that . But you still
10 have Port of Entry traffic that sort of creates that same
11 situation in that area, although with the automatic
12 screening, it ' s cut it down some. But there are still a
13 lot of trucks that always enter and exit on the Port of
14 Entry, so you' re not totally alleviating the problem by
15 getting rid of the rest stops .
16 MS . WILKINSON: Correct . And we did meet with
17 the Port of Entry and have been coordinating with them to
18 make sure that we ' re accommodating their needs as well .
19 And you' re correct, about 50 percent of the traffic is
20 currently using their automated fee deduction systems .
21 And about 50 percent is still using the scales at the Port
22 of Entry.
23 MS . SCHMIDT: So do you have any actual counts
24 on how many trucks are using that northbound ramp right
25 now off -
26
1 MS . WILKINSON: Currently?
2 MS . SCHMIDT: Yeah.
3 MS . WILKINSON: Very few. It ' s less than 2
4 percent . And then our truck percentages, again, they' ll
5 vary depending on the time of day and the time horizon
6 once the rest area gets there.
7 MR. TORGERSON: Sally?
8 MS . CRAIG: I 'm not sure if I need to direct
9 this question to you or if I need to direct it to
10 Mr. Graham. Since the trucks are going to be the ones
11 that are impacted the most from taking this off the
12 interstate and making it, you know, worrying about the
13 turns, the signals, etc. etc. , how much time did you spend
14 discussing this with them? Was this -- did you try to
15 talk to truckers? Did you try to -- I know -- I 'm not
16 sure if they have an association, or if there ' s a way that
17 you can get your message out to them. But I would be very
18 interested on their perspective of what you' re doing. And
19 I 'm wondering what CDOT did in that regard.
20 MS . WILKINSON: I think it ' s -- we talked about
21 the possibility as rest areas become single-sided areas
22 and not double-sided areas that are what we call
23 off-system, so they don' t have direct on- and off-ramps
24 off the interstates, that there is always the possibility
25 that there will be somewhat fewer trucks utilizing the
27
1 rest area than what did before .
2 There ' s also the possibility that there will be some
3 increased usage because it ' s a nicer facility. And so
4 what we found in other rest areas that have been built,
5 and it is becoming the CDOT standard to build single-sided
6 rest areas that are off-system. And all of their new rest
7 areas that are going in are, by policy, going in at
8 interchanges on just a single side. And so I think they
9 found that the usage remains relatively the same .
10 MS . CRAIG: Is there one in Colorado that is
li similar to this, as far as the amount of traffic that ' s
12 going to be impacted, especially with the trucks? Is
13 there one in place in Colorado at this time?
14 MR. GRAHAM: Edwards rest stop out on I-70, just
15 west of Vail, would probably be similar to this one.
16 MS . CRAIG: Okay. And have you received any
17 comments or anything from truckers in regards to the
18 change of venue?
19 MR. GRAHAM: The trucker -- I mean -- the rest
20 area itself is being used. It ' s a fairly -- it ' s used
21 relatively well . The people who operate it say that the
22 trucks are -- I mean, the caretaker says that the trucks
23 are using it . I 've gone out there and looked at it, and
24 the trucks are using it about the same level as they were
25 when they are separate facilities .
28
1 So we have a rest area that we combined at Sterling
2 on I-76 that ' s functioning well . Trucks are using it.
3 That particular one is also combined with a rest area.
4 And they' re finding that it is drawing traffic to the
5 Welcome Center as well . So I think there are going to be
6 those truckers who will pass because it ' s not quite as
7 convenient as driving directly off the interstate. There
8 are going to be those who drive beyond it . But it ' s not a
9 significant number.
10 As far as talking to trucking associations, the State
11 of Colorado Department of Transportation talks with the
12 Colorado Motor Carriers Association fairly regularly, so
13 we keep in pretty close touch because what we do effects
14 them greatly. And they understand what we ' re doing here
15 as a general program.
16 Other things with the rest area: We ' re putting 25
17 spaces in. And not all truckers use our facilities . If
18 you drive down the road to Johnson' s Corner, they just
19 made an incredibly large expansion on their truck stop to
20 draw truckers in. So we 're not the only facility. So
21 those who drive by ours will be captured by other truck
22 stops down the road.
23 MS . CRAIG: Okay. Cause I have noticed,
24 especially late at night, that on both sides your rest
25 area is used quite a bit by truckers . And the change of,
29
1 "I 'm exhausted. I 'm going to pop over here for a couple
2 of hours" , versus trying to remember where the rest stop
3 is off of the interstate, I just wondered if that was an
4 issue or not . And you' re telling me that you have not
5 noticed a difference in volume of trucks whether it ' s on
6 the interstate or it is off the interstate like this
7 proposed one.
8 MR. GRAHAM: One observation is truckers -- and
9 many parking spots as you build, truckers will probably
10 use . So we ' re limited in the amount that we ' re putting in
11 here to 25 . We expect truckers will come in and use it,
12 and it will be used a good portion of the time .
13 MS . CRAIG: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. TORGERSON: Bridgette?
15 MS . SCHMIDT: I had another question. Was there
16 any consideration given to moving this rest area possibly
17 north of the Mulberry interchange somewhere, to try to
18 encourage the truckers to not use 287?
19 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, that ' s a good question. The
20 City with the Northern Colorado Truck Bypass Study that
21 they've done in the last couple of years, and it ' s ongoing
22 right now, that came up at that time as a thought to draw
23 truckers off and divert around, go up to Cheyenne and
24 avoid using 287 altogether. Our discussions with the Port
25 of Entry were that the location of the port is actually
30
1 the best way to capture traffic through Fort Collins . I
2 mean, where it ' s located it ' s south of 287, 14, it
3 captures I-25 traffic going north and southbound. And so,
4 for them to move their facilities, they've recently
5 upgraded their facilities as well, to do the weigh-in
6 motion, so it doesn' t accomplish the same thing moving
7 further north. So we have considered it, and it ' s
8 considered not feasible . It doesn' t work with the way the
9 Port works .
10 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. I have a couple other
11 traffic questions . On the road that ' s Prospect eastbound,
12 will there be an opportunity -- will that be wide enough
13 so if someone is at the traffic light waiting to go east,
14 that cars will also be able to get on to the interstate,
15 or will that back up?
16 MS. WILKINSON: Are you talking about the
17 intersection at the western frontage road or at one of the
18 ramp terminals?
19 MS . SCHMIDT: At one of the ramp terminals .
20 MS. WILKINSON: The western ramp terminal
21 wouldn' t need a left-hand turn lane because that ' s the
22 traffic that ' s coming off of I-25 . And on the east side
23 of the interchange, the width of the bridge limits us to
24 just a single approach lane.
25 MS . SCHMIDT: Okay. So what I see happening
31
1 right now, because I 'm usually coming off the southbound
2 ramp. And because of the signal light at Summitview, you
3 have a whole row of cars coming. And then you have
4 someone standing there that hasn' t come off the
5 interchange but has come from Timnath. And they're trying
6 to get on the interstate, so they' re blocking the bridge
7 by trying to make a left-hand turn. And you've got a
8 sizable number; it ' s usually mostly cars .
9 A lot of them do want on the interstate . But like,
10 every fifth one is going to go straight. And you just
11 hope that people are using their signals correctly. And
12 so that creates a dangerous situation with people trying
13 to go around the person turning to the left and also
14 trying to figure out, are they really using their signals?
15 And I 'm thinking, once there are traffic lights there,
16 you' re going to get backlogs because the people can' t
17 move . So they've all got to sit in line because the first
18 person wants to go straight . And then you've got another
19 person who wants to turn left . And then the trucks are
20 going to be backing up behind that.
21 So I 'm just wondering if actually, in some ways, if
22 you get people wanting to do the wrong things, and again
23 it ' s usually only one person and right now it doesn' t
24 really matter, but now you' re going to have maybe two
25 trucks behind them. And it ' s going to create more of a
32
1 backlog than you' re possibly expecting.
2 MS . WILKINSON: It ' s something that we did
3 consider in the course of our analysis . Because of the
4 limitations of the bridge, we 're not in a position to put
5 in those left-turn lanes, then, that would have those
6 left-turn lanes go up and over the bridge.
7 As a part of our analysis, there' s a couple of things
8 we can do. Because the through traffic is so minimal at
9 the moment, our analysis is showing that there is not a
10 significant backup that occurs regularly because of that
11 kind of a situation. If we found in later years once the
12 signals have gone up and that that ' s occurring, then we
13 can always look at altering the phasing of those signals.
14 Because you only have three approach lights at that
15 signal, you can look at altering the phasing and doing
16 sprints and some sort of a split phasing where you' re
17 allowing those lefts to go together with the throughs. So
18 you' re actually giving them a green arrow instead of just
19 a permissive turn. So I think there ' s a couple of
20 different things that we can do, in terms of signal
21 timing, if that were to become an issue. The analysis
22 that we did, at least initially in these first about 10
23 years or so, doesn' t indicate that to become a real
24 substantial problem.
25 MR. TORGERSON: I guess I had a question for
33
1 Mr. Graham. You had indicated that the impetus for this
2 project was to reduce conflicts on I-25 . I was curious
3 was sort of conflicts you were describing. Is there an
4 extraordinarily high accident rate on those on-and
5 off-ramps at the existing rest stops, or what sort of
6 things are we looking at?
7 MR. GRAHAM: Well, that ' s one of the
8 considerations for moving off of the interstate. But any
9 time you have an access to the interstate, that ' s a point
10 of conflict where people are merging, where they're
11 merging movements. That ' s what we consider a conflict
12 point. There is an accident history there. It ' s not an
13 extraordinary -- it ' s not an unusual -- but it is an extra
14 point of merging. And so, consequently, there are
15 accidents that take place there .
16 So that ' s one of the considerations . We' re trying to
17 remove conflict points off the interstate wherever we can.
18 And this is one place where we can easily do that, and we
19 don' t effect traffic -- through traffic -- off the system.
20 MR. TORGERSON: I guess what you' re hearing -- I
21 think the base concern that we ' re expressing is that we ' re
22 also charged with trying to reduce conflicts within our
23 City. And I think the base concern is that having these
24 trucks on a very narrow bridge in an existing poor
25 intersection, it may be creating conflicts within our
34
1 City. And I think that ' s the base concern that we have .
2 What did you say the width of that bridge was?
3 MR. GRAHAM: I think it ' s 26 . Travel way is 26
4 feet . The bridge itself is in good condition. It ' s
5 obsolete . And so it actually functions well; it ' s not in
6 danger of collapse or anything. But it ' s narrow, and so
7 it ' s obsolete . And so we know that it ' s undersized,
8 however, we don' t have -- because it ' s in good condition,
9 there ' s no reason to -- other than the obsolete part --
10 there' s no reason to replace it at this point . It ' s more
11 of a narrowness issue.
12 The conflicts that we' re getting on the interstate
13 are high speed conflicts as opposed to low speed
14 conflicts . And the geometry that we will be able to get
15 for trucks turning left -- the conflict points -- the
16 trucks should be able to make that turn. And so --
17 MR. TORGERSON: -- should be able to.
18 MR. GRAHAM: Should be able to. Right .
19 MR. TORGERSON: The other question I had is,
20 what about wide loads? It seems like a wide load and a
21 semi can' t pass in 26 feet. They just don' t get off at
22 the rest stops?
23 MR. GRAHAM: They generally don' t . I would
24 expect that that would not be something that we have much
25 -- that we have -- you know, I 'm not sure how the permits
35
1 would work for that. I believe that permits are just
2 allowed to be moving at night and --
3 MR. TORGERSON: -- I see wide loads during the
4 day driving down 14 .
5 MR. GRAHAM: Driving down 14 but --
6 MR. STANFORD: Mikal, wide loads that may come
7 through that area, that would be a disturbance -- would
8 possibly come and get a permit from us . And if they are
9 of a width that would interfere with traffic, they would
10 -- one, we would require that they have a lead vehicle
11 that halts traffic in its tight areas, such as we've done
12 at College Avenue at Riverside, when those oversized
13 vehicles come to try and make that left turn. And we
14 block off all the traffic to let them pass .
15 Most of those are usually done in the evening hours,
16 but we have had them pass during the day. We've gone out
17 in front of them with our own crews and tilt up the signal
18 lights to pass the high ones. So those kind of things get
19 accommodated, but they' re planned out in advance .
20 MR. TORGERSON: I guess I 'm mostly just talking
21 about -- my office happens to be right on College Avenue
22 and Riverside and so I see a lot of these -- I see trucks
23 with giant dump truck boxes sitting on flat beds drive
24 through all the time . And I don' t see that -- it says
25 Wide Load, but I don' t see pilot cars or anything like
36
1 that . And I guess my thought is, if two of those tried to
2 pass on this bridge, they're not going to pass .
3 MR. STANFORD: You might give that on a true
4 possibility of very small, ever happening. There ' s some
5 of those issues where they are just a little bit over size
6 that, yes, we let them work it out. The possibility of
7 them meeting each other, not recognize it, being in such a
8 large span that they couldn' t tell that each other are
9 going to meet, is really small and remote.
10 If you think about how many curves we might have
11 where that site visibility is too short to see another
12 very, very large vehicle. Or a bridge that ' s so long
13 around here that you couldn' t tell that and let one of
14 them back off and let the other come. So a lot of those
15 conditions we do just let them pass on their own cause
16 they work it out . It ' s typical standard practice.
17 MR. TORGERSON: Do you recall -- I 'm not sure if
18 this is a question for you or perhaps Cameron -- what the
19 minimum road width that we allow in development nowadays
20 is? Isn' t it more than 26?
21 MR. STANFORD: Typical minimum?
22 MR. TORGERSON: The minimum road width that a
23 developer could develop.
24 MR. STANFORD: I think we have -- In fact,
25 Sherry may have a better answer on that, but I want to say
37
1 28 feet, unless we start looking at alleys and such.
2 MR. TORGERSON: Right .
3 MR. STANFORD: I think we have a scale for a 28
4 foot roadway, I think.
5 MR. TORGERSON: I think that ' s right . I guess
6 the analogy I 'm making is that the narrowest road that we
7 even permit within the City, and that ' s just a
8 neighborhood street, is 28 feet . And we ' re looking at
9 very intense traffic traveling on a 26-foot-wide -- not
10 just a road but a bridge. That concerns me. Cameron, did
11 you have something to add?
12 MR. GLOSS : No, it ' s just not maybe all that
13 scientific, but just coincidentally, I was in New York
14 City very recently. And I 've got a photograph of a street
15 cross section -- 24 feet, measured it, kind of weird,
16 traveling planner --
17 MR. TORGERSON: You've got to get a life .
18 MR. GLOSS : But I was on vacation, so I kind of
19 had a life, but then I was doing professional work, too.
20 And it was interesting. There was a hook-and-ladder
21 truck, a car parked on the curb, and a flow of traffic
22 right down through the middle of the street. It was 24
23 feet wide, just as a point of reference. And I just
24 happened to be looking at the picture a few hours ago so
25 it ' s kind of fresh in my mind. But I think we sometimes
38
1 tend to exaggerate what the needs are for some of these
2 roadways if the speeds are even reasonable, if we ' re not
3 talking about a high speed roadway.
4 And if you've been in New York, people drive pretty
5 aggressively and relativly fast . And where I was, you
6 could see it was obviously being accommodated. Again,
7 it ' s not that scientific, but I 'm just throwing that out
8 as maybe kind of a possible example of a roadway that can
9 work. It ' s more constrained than some of the roads that
10 we have, and people learn to work with that, within that
11 condition.
12 MR. TORGERSON: That ' s a fair point . We should
13 probably share that photo with PFA. But that ' s off the
14 subject . Dave?
15 MR. LINGLE: You had mentioned that one of the
16 stimulus for the traffic signals is a safety issues,
17 what ' s becoming a safety issue with cars backing out
18 completely onto the travel through-lanes and,
19 unfortunately, I get caught in that once in a while . The
20 question I have is, if it is a safety issue, why wouldn' t
21 you go ahead and put the signals in anyway, regardless of
22 the rest area project?
23 MR. GRAHAM: Well, signalization -- I mean, you
24 know, we have different funding mechanisms of how we
25 prioritize, how we spend our money, where we can spend our
39
1 money and this is -- and there ' s limited pools for
2 everything. And so, right now, there are area needs that
3 are higher than Prospect on I-25 at this point .
4 So, you know, eventually, yes, it would probably come
5 down -- come lower on the list where it would get -- when
6 money becomes available to put there, but it isn' t there
7 now. But because we have rest area money, and with that
8 money can come improvements to improve the interchange to
9 make the traffic work for the rest area, then we have a
10 source of money that we can readily use for that . So it ' s
11 because it ' s coming from a different source of funding.
12 MS . WAMHOFF: I just wanted to add, the 28 foot
13 street is the minimum street we allow, but that does
14 include parking on one side. So it is travel lanes and a
15 parking lane, as well, not just travel lanes .
16 MR. TORGERSON: Thank you. Jerry?
17 MR. GAVALDON: I have more traffic questions .
18 Ward, maybe you can help me on this one . CDOT' s Appendix
19 I talks about their accident issues -- their accident .
20 They had from January 1 of 1999 to 12/3 -- to December 31
21 of 2001, we 've only had 33 accidents at the rest stop. A
22 lot of them are just backing in and bumping each other.
23 And there were no deaths, no fatalities . And then I 'm
24 just trying to find out some more data, and I can' t find
25 it. Maybe, Ward, you can help me . But how did they
40
1 conclude the accident rate on I-25 interchange with
2 Prospect? Do you know what the number is? Is that still
3 the same -- 33?
4 MR. STANFORD: As I read through the study, what
5 I saw was that the accident rate was more described at the
6 interchange . The northbound had 62 percent of the
7 accident rate and whatnot, so I thought it was more
8 related to the interchange, and our discussions were more
9 relevant about that .
10 MR. GAVALDON: Well, there was two of them. One
11 occurring at the rest stop itself and one at the
12 interchange. And I saw the same numbers, the same
13 percentages, but I just want to know what the total
14 numbers were of accidents at Prospect and I-25 .
15 MR. STANFORD: That ' s not a count that we keep
16 seeing as how that ' s a State area. I think we 've got one
17 year of a count and that ' s it . And so it did not
18 correlate -- We didn' t have data to correlate against
19 their data. That would be data that the State police
20 kept --
21 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, sir, would you have that
22 data or the traffic engineer?
23 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, that data is available.
24 MR. GAVALDON: Is there a way we can have a
25 number now? You have it with you?
41
1 MR. GRAHAM: Not now. But we have a web site
2 where you can pull historic accident data.
3 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I think that would have
4 been important to have in this report . We just see
5 percentages, but I want to know what the number is . Like,
6 the number of accidents was 33 at the rest stop itself,
7 but just percentages for the interchange . Wouldn' t that
8 be something that we would need to have in order to make
9 an informed recommendation?
10 MR. STANFORD: As I see it, I read it as they
11 have 29 at the interchange; 36 total in the area.
12 MR. GAVALDON: I don' t see that, Ward --
13 MR. STANFORD: That ' s what I made notes of
14 from --
15 MR. GAVALDON: -- must be a different book
16 because I got this one here. This was a very hard one to
17 read and understand. I 've seen stronger ones before . But
18 if you're saying it ' s only -- Ward, you' re saying 29, is
19 that a big enough reason to move a rest stop? Is that a
20 big enough safety factor to have in place, saying that we
21 need to do this because of safety?
22 MR. STANFORD: Safety' s never a bad reason to
23 make improvements. To move a rest stop? Not really my
24 topic to make a decision about what to do. If the
25 accidents are happening at the intersection, I do believe
42
1 the signal will absolutely improve that . Cause what we
2 see out there is that frustration of being stacked in
3 those lines so long that people are taking the will to
4 take the smaller and smaller gaps . And that ' s where a lot
5 of the accidents are coming from at the interchange.
6 MR. GAVALDON: So CDOT should be putting those
7 lights in because of safety regardless of rest stop goes
8 or not . That ' s the way I see it . Even though you have
9 funding mechanisms, its almost sacred pots of this money,
10 sacred pots of that money. We got sacred pot of rest stop
11 money so we can make these improvements, but we got to
12 move a rest stop. Is that how it ' s working, sir?
13 MR. GRAHAM: What our purpose is, is to -- we
14 are wanting to move the rest area off-site. In order to
15 make that work, we recognize that that interchange won' t
16 work for a rest area unless we make improvements to it .
17 So we are, as part of this project, just to reiterate, as
18 part of this project, we' re making these improvements to
19 allow that to happen so it can be used readily by traffic .
20 MR. GAVALDON: Any other time, no, we don' t have
21 the money then, right?
22 MR. GRAHAM: As far as funding, I mean, that ' s
23 kind of a larger issue than what I 'm prepared to talk
24 about today. So I 'm not -- I don' t have the money handy,
25 but I can just say that I don't have access to it .
43
1 MR. GAVALDON: And you don' t have enough money
2 to widen the Prospect overpass?
3 MR. GRAHAM: No. We have a special process in
4 place for how we prioritize that so no, we don' t .
5 MR. GAVALDON: All right . Thank you very much.
6 MR. STANFORD: There is -- on page 5, there is
7 an item under the --
8 MR. GAVALDON: -- page where?
9 MR. STANFORD: Page 5, Accident Data at the
10 Existing Rest Area, that does talk about 33 accidents
it related to the site .
12 MR. GAVALDON: Yeah, I saw that . Then if you
13 look on the next page -- but you don' t have anything on
14 the --
15 MR. TORGERSON: Ward, since we don' t all have
16 that traffic report, could you summarize that? What it
17 is, the rest stop versus the intersection?
18 MR. STANFORD: This one is specifically talking
19 about the rest area. And it talks about, there were 33
20 accidents related to the rest area site of which 22 were
21 northbound accidents; 11 were southbound; 40 percent of
22 the accidents were sideswipes or rear ends, while
23 33 percent involved some sort of fixed object . If you
24 look back at that page that Jerry' s looking back in
25 Appendix I, it shows you a number of different fixed
44
1 object events.
2 MR. GLOSS: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I believe
3 you do have that information. There ' s some summary sheets
4 in the back. It ' s page 5, there. I think it does have
5 Accident Data, Existing Rest Area, that ' s the center
6 section on page 5 . I think it talks about that . And also
7 page 7 which is also included in your packets . It ' s the
8 preceding page.
9 MR. TORGERSON: Great . Thank you, Cameron.
10 Other questions? Sally?
11 MS . CRAIG: Cameron, I wanted some reassurance .
12 I know when the ODPs came through on the various corners
13 of this interchange, and we discussed the fear of if we
14 approved the ODP, can they fragment it to a point of
15 something coming in. And you pretty much reassured us to
16 the point of maybe a couple of houses could come in, and
17 that was it. And this bring me back to the 1, 100 vehicles
18 a day that they' re adding to the system. How does that
19 fit in the formula?
20 MR. GLOSS : Everything I mentioned in the past
21 stands true today. As the applicant ' s consulting traffic
22 engineer stated, there are a series of public improvements
23 that are improving the condition. We have the three
24 traffic signals, and the turn lane that ' s being added to
25 make this both a safer condition and one that handles
45
1 additional volume through the area. So that ' s the
2 additional capacity that ' s being provided through these
3 public improvements that CDOT is performing as part of
4 this project . I think the applicant stated half a million
5 dollars worth of improvements that are going to be
6 conducted or built as part of this.
7 So that ' s different from what we talked about before
8 because that did not include any of those traffic signals
9 when we were discussing the other corners of that
10 intersection.
11 MS . CRAIG: Okay. So now that we ' ll say that
12 CDOT puts in this signalization, let' s revisit that. Can
13 some of those ODPs now come in because we 've now lowered
14 the LOS to B? Can some of those projects --
is MR. GLOSS : I 'm going to let Ward jump on board
16 in a second if he doesn' t like my answer. But if you look
17 at the traffic study, and I think the response from
18 traffic operations staff -- their review process -- that
19 this will be merely an interim condition that will not
20 facilitate additional development at this interchange.
21 And those are the other three corners that we've talked
22 about .
23 MS . CRAIG: Okay. So it' s just enough to slip
24 this 1, 100 a day in, but not enough beyond that. Is that
25 what that means?
46
1 MR. GLOSS: That ' s my understanding.
2 MR. STANFORD: It -- just on basic level of
3 service values alone, it could allow additional
4 development strictly from that characteristic. Small that
5 it would be, but it could. But its existing condition, as
6 you stated, could also, as long as they stayed below 2
7 percent of the delay and --
8 MS . CRAIG: So if they knock this down to a B,
9 it could be really a pretty good size project to knock it
10 back down to an F.
11 MR. STANFORD: Depending on how it interacts
12 with that interchange in that area. That ' s why I say just
13 strictly looking at the character B or C level of service,
14 yes, I have to answer that it could have additional
15 capacity for development . But looking at the overall
16 picture of how it will provide that, how it will work in
17 the future, that would also come into play as to whether
18 we could allow much development or not until more
19 substantial improvements are done.
20 MS . CRAIG: Okay. Another question in a
21 different subject, and I apologize for not catching this
22 at work session that we filled full of many things that
23 day and that is the Boxelder Floodway. And Sherry might
24 be able to answer this since I don' t see anybody else here
25 from Stormwater unless, Cameron, you feel comfortable
47
1 addressing this . If what I 'm looking at is right, this is
2 being built in the Boxelder floodway, not the floodplain;
3 is that right?
4 MR. GLOSS: That ' s correct. If you go to page 5
5 of the staff report, I summarize the Stormwater analysis.
6 And essentially, CDOT or Stormwater staff and FEMA have
7 been meeting. And there' s an agreement that a hydraulic
8 analysis will be completed. We are -- through this FEMA
9 map process, we have confidence that the floodplain
10 impacts are going to be acceptable to FEMA based on the
11 site improvements that they're doing. And that FEMA will
12 go ahead and approve this change and it will be
13 incorporated into the map that get approved kind of in
14 conjunction with this project .
15 We can' t say absolutely that that ' s the case. I
16 can' t give you percentages. Our Stormwater staff is
17 confident that FEMA will make this change, and then it
18 will be compliant .
19 MS . CRAIG: So how does this fit into the new
20 regulations that we just approved earlier this year? In
21 those regulations, did we approve the fact that we can
22 build in the floodway?
23 MR. GLOSS: Well, I think the issue here is
24 whether negative impacts are going to be caused
25 downstream.
48
1 MS . CRAIG: Exactly. No rise.
2 MR. GLOSS : Correct . And as I said, there ' s
3 analysis that ' s been done. And FEMA representatives and
4 our staff and CDOT have been working together on,
5 essentially, a map change that would be compliant with our
6 requirements .
7 MS . CRAIG: Okay, so by changing the map, we
8 rearrange the area so it no longer has to comply?
9 MR. GLOSS: I don' t know that I would use those
10 words. I think the design of the site as I understand it,
11 with these changes, will make it compliant with our
12 standards. That ' s how it was explained to me by the
13 Stormwater staff .
14 MS . WAMHOFF: I may be wrong in this, but I
15 would guess that part of the map change is due to the
16 grading changes . As they create and fill and cut in
17 different areas, it ' s going to bring where that water
18 comes out onto the site differently, and so that ' s a map
19 change . Even though it may not effect the water levels or
20 anything downstream because they' re all accommodating it
21 on site . But by modifying those grades, that line -- the
22 edge of that line can move. And that is part of what the
23 map change would be.
24 MS . CRAIG: Okay. So this goes back to the
25 no-rise. By changing the grade so that it does not impact
49
1 any other area, it changes the area itself . And that ' s
2 why FEMA has to come in and remap it?
3 MS . WAMHOFF: Yeah.
4 MR. STEIN: My name is Dale Stein. I 'm with
5 Stantech and we ' re working on the Stormwater department .
6 The existing -- the mapping that Sherry' s referring to is
7 not due to the rest area re-gradings . It ' s just due to
8 the existing grading that ' s at the site right now.
9 Currently, there ' s no FEMA mapping for the rest area site.
10 However, there ' s some mapping inside the Boxelder
11 Floodplain.
12 So what the City is doing is working right now with
13 FEMA to establish an existing condition map through our
14 project site. So we ' re working with the Stormwater
15 Department now to make sure we' re helping them with that .
16 And also in our new site plan and grading, we' re not going
17 to -- there will be some additional grading on the site to
18 raise our building above the existing floodplain. But
19 we ' re going to compensate that with some excavation in the
20 site, to balance the site, so there ' s no impacts
21 downstream in the floodway or the floodplain. Like I
22 said, the mapping is due to the existing condition, not
23 the proposed condition.
24 MS . CRAIG: Okay. That was helpful . Thank you.
25 MR. TORGERSON: Sir, are you working with the
50
1 City of Fort Collins floodplain as well as the FEMA
2 floodplain, or just the FEMA floodplain?
3 MR. STEIN: Currently there ' s no FEMA floodplain
4 in the rest area proper. There ' s a recently adopted City
5 floodplain or that will be adopted that FEMA has,
6 according to Matt Fader. FEMA has adopted the City
7 mapping to date and they are working through this map
8 program over the next year, I believe, to get that fully
9 adopted. The Boxelder has an established floodplain, but
10 the area to the west where the site is has no established
11 floodplain til recently. The City has established said
12 floodplain.
13 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. And you' re saying that
14 the re-mapping is really just establishing what the
15 existing conditions are and where the floodplain and
16 floodway are right now?
17 MR. STEIN: I understand that the City' s going
18 through a process across the City to upgrade their
19 mapping. And that particular area is just being upgraded
20 as part of that process . We 've helped the City with some
21 with some topography in the area, to upgrade it to
22 existing condition. Our process -- the new grading that
23 we ' re going to be proposing does not change that existing
24 condition. We have to still adhere to the no-rise
25 condition downstream of our project .
51
1 MR. TORGERSON: So as a part of your site
2 development, are you looking to take the location of the
3 building and the parking out of the floodway?
4 MR. STEIN: We' ll be taking the building out of
5 the floodway. Some of the parking will be in the
6 floodway. But the building itself will be out of the
7 floodway. In order to do that, we' ll have to compensate
8 with some excavation in the site to make sure there ' s no
9 rise downstream.
10 MR. TORGERSON: Right . I guess where I 'm going
11 with that is, I know one of the goals of the Stormwater
12 Department was to keep people sleeping out of floodways
13 and out of floodplains . And I know that the truckers park
14 there and sleep in their rigs, and people park in their
15 RVs and sleep in those. And having those operations and
16 clearly floatable vehicles in a floodway seems like it ' s
17 contrary to our goals in terms of our stormwater goals .
18 MR. STEIN: Part of the parking will be in the
19 floodway, but it ' s a very low level floodplain. I mean,
20 the amount of flood we' re looking at is probably to the
21 level of 6 inches or less than a foot . So if they're in
22 their truck, there shouldn' t be an issue with that . It ' s
23 a very -- part of the floodplain does slip through our
24 site, but it ' s a very shallow floodplain.
25 MR. TORGERSON: I guess I 'm more concerned about
52
1 floodway. I just heard that this is floodway.
2 MR. STEIN: It ' s both floodway and floodplain in
3 our system.
4 MR. TORGERSON: And it ' s a 6-inch floodway?
5 MR. STEIN: I don' t have the exact terms on the
6 exact depth of the floodway, but it ' s less than a foot
7 through our parking lot area. Through the process we' re
8 defining the floodway to the west side of our project,
9 west of our building, nearing the location where it ' s at
10 right now. But across our parking lot, it seems to be
11 less than 6 inches of floodway through our parking lot .
12 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you.
13 MS . CRAIG: Another question in that regard. Is
14 the bridge -- however they' re getting across Boxelder into
15 their site, how are they addressing that as far as the
16 floodplain and stuff? I know usually there is special
17 engineering that you need to use so that it doesn' t cause
18 blockage, etc . Maybe Sherry could answer that?
19 MS . WAMHOFF: That ' s being -- since it ' s just a
20 driveway coming in, any of that criteria within the
21 floodway is being reviewed by the Stormwater Department .
22 So unfortunately, I can't provide you with information in
23 regards to how they' re reviewing that structure.
24 MS . CRAIG: Okay, but you might be able to help
25 me. On their master plan, they showed that culvert which
53
1 is up on Prospect which has been an issue . And if that
2 isn' t improved, how does that play out as far as if there
3 is flooding in this area? And the fact that we aren' t
4 making them participate in the possibility of improving
5 that culvert?
6 MS . WAMHOFF: Well, I 'm sure that the way that
7 the City with the floodplain and working with FEMA is,
8 that they' re addressing the way the culvert is right now
9 and that would be a part of how everything is mapped -- is
10 based on the existing conditions there. Any changes with
11 obviously increasing the size of that culvert and stuff
12 would change the map limits and those type of things .
13 They are probably including that within one of the
14 master plans because they have been looking at the
15 increased size of that, but I don' t know that that ' s a
16 mapping that would be firmly established or anything until
17 such time as that a larger culvert underneath Prospect
18 would be built .
19 MS . CRAIG: Okay. Thank you.
20 MR. TORGERSON: Cameron, I 'm curious about the
21 timing of this application. If they' re not even certain
22 where the floodway is relative to the property, might it
23 be premature to be having this kind of review or -- I 'm
24 just curious about why it was brought to us now versus
25 later, when some of those issues might be better -
54
1 MR. GLOSS: Probably two answers to that
2 question. First is the statutory limitation. Under the
3 State law, you' re required to review this application
4 within 60 days of the receipt of the application --
5 complete application, and that is -- we are within that
6 time . So you' re obligated to do that review.
7 Secondly, our City Stormwater staff has been working
8 with CDOT for quite some time on this project. It goes
9 back several months. And we have been working with them
10 through these Stormwater issues and, from the perspective
11 of the Stormwater staff, and I have spoken to three
12 members of the staff going all the way up to upper level
13 management, their perspective is that they' re satisfied
14 that the standards can be met with this development
15 application.
16 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, thank you.
17 MS . WAMHOFF: Based on -- I have a little bit of
18 information. This is based on comments that were in the
19 comment letter that went back to the applicant from
20 Stormwater dated September 6 or August 6, I guess .
21 Getting ahead. It states here that the City needs to
22 submit the floodplain mapping to FEMA by the end of
23 September.
24 So with that, it also states here, based on
25 conversations between CDOT and the City and FEMA, it was
55
1 agreed that the hydraulic analysis of the site would be
2 submitted to FEMA along with the city' s mapping for the
3 map modernization process . So if this has to be submitted
4 by the end of September, my assumption would be that they
5 have a pretty good idea of where the floodplain limits and
6 all of those are to be based on the current proposal and
7 the information that they have right now.
8 MR. TORGERSON: You' re probably right . So does
9 the applicant know if the building and parking lot are
10 presently within the floodway?
11 MR. STEIN: We've been working with the
12 Stormwater Department for over a year now. That was part
13 of the reason why this project has taken as long as it
14 has . Prior to us coming to the project, the City did not
15 have a formal floodway through our particular project .
16 But they were working on that system as we were pursuing
17 our project simultaneously. They do know -- they do
18 believe they know where the floodway is through our
19 project . They've mapped that . We 've helped them with
20 some topographic information with that process also.
21 That ' s what they' re submitting to FEMA here in September.
22 MR. TORGERSON: Do you know where that is,
23 though?
24 MR. STEIN: Excuse me?
25 MR. TORGERSON: Do you know where that is
56
1 relative to your site plan?
2 MR. STEIN: We do know and we 've got mapping
3 with us today. And it was in the reports that you've seen
4 -- we've given to the City. We do know what the existing
5 floodway is . That ' s been mapped by the City; they've
6 given that to us. We do know where our building is
7 located relative to that existing floodway. We ' re
8 designing our system around that existing floodway.
9 MR. TORGERSON: So is the existing building in
10 the floodway? Not the existing building, the proposed
11 building?
12 MR. STEIN: The proposed building is
13 horizontally within the floodway boundary. We ' re
14 raising -- we ' re going to be raising that structure
15 vertically to get it outside the floodway.
16 MR. TORGERSON: I thought -- Sally, you have the
17 new floodplain regulations, but I thought the policy that
18 we were going toward, in terms of Stormwater, was that we
19 would not do work in the floodway. But we were expanding
20 things that could be done within the floodplain; that we
21 weren' t going to allow anyone to do work within the
22 floodway. That ' s just my recollection from the
23 presentation. Does anyone --
24 MR. GAVALDON: I agree with you there.
25 MR. TORGERSON: It ' s too bad nobody from
57
1 Stormwater is here. Sherry, do you recall the direction
2 that they were going on that?
3 MS . WAMHOFF: No, not with enough to be able to
4 tell you.
5 MR. TORGERSON: Any other questions?
6 MR. GAVALDON: No. Go ahead, Mikal, I was ready
7 to do a motion. I 'm ready to move forward on this one .
8 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Here it is right here.
9 For non-residential construction, no fill will be allowed
10 in the floodway. I just remember the entire movement was
11 toward allowing a lot more things in the floodplain and
12 nothing in the floodway. But, unfortunately, that
13 knowledge isn' t all that clear, so I guess that shouldn' t
14 play into my decision.
15 MR. GAVALDON: If the Board is okay, I 'm ready
16 to move with a motion.
17 MR. TORGERSON: Okay.
18 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I move that the Planning
19 and Zoning Board not approve the CDOT Poudre River Rest
20 Area Site Plan Advisory Review filed 27/04 (phonetic) for
21 the following reasons : One, the location of CDOT Poudre
22 River Rest Area is not appropriate given its orientation
23 towards highway users and its operating characteristics .
24 Two, the extent of the CDOT River -- Poudre River Rest
25 Area does not adequately address through the proposed
58
1 transportation and Storm Water designs . I did not include
2 landscaping language. We didn' t touch it, so I figured,
3 well -- that ' s my motion.
4 MR. TORGERSON: Is there a second?
5 MS . SCHMIDT: I ' ll second it .
6 MR. TORGERSON: Are there any comments?
7 MR. GAVALDON: I 'm really concerned with the
8 lack of Storm Water data even though it ' s covered in staff
9 report and I wish we would have had Storm Water people
10 here from the City. I don' t believe -- and this is my own
11 opinion -- that the transportation study covered the area
12 adequately enough given the magnitude which it lacks
13 totally. The accident rate data seems very small . And
14 the improvements are very small compared to what the
15 magnitude of users will be using this rest area given its
16 new location. I have not even touched on the architecture
17 or characteristics, but I ' ll leave that for another day.
18 But I just feel like we are approving something that we do
19 not have a lot of information on. And I believe we are
20 making some big mistakes here.
21 MR. TORGERSON: Any other thoughts? Bridgette?
22 MS . SCHMIDT: I agree with the motion just
23 because I 'm basically worried. I think the traffic lights
24 would be a definite improvement in the area. I think
25 there would be a great improvement, especially with just
59
1 the cars . I 'm really afraid that when you start adding
2 the truck traffic to it, the short distance between the
3 lights is going to cause some problems . And then we ' re in
4 a situation where, what do you do with the problems? It ' s
5 sort of like Lemay and Vine. And I remember standing
6 there hearing a traffic person say, don' t worry about it,
7 we have this fix. It ' s going up next week, no problem.
8 And that fix has duct tape over it within two weeks after
9 it went up. And we still have a situation on Lemay and
10 Vine that ' s slightly more dangerous than we would like.
11 But I 'm worried that we don' t because it is such a
12 problemmatic area. It ' s not like we can just go out, do
13 X, Y, Z and add another lane . If these traffic lights
14 don' t work and we have the truck traffic, we 've really got
15 ourselves in a pickle . And that ' s what worries me about
16 this situation.
17 MR. TORGERSON: Other thoughts? Jerry?
18 MR. GAVALDON: Lastly, my other concern. I
19 didn' t put it in here . I know I 've asked a lot of
20 questions about CDOT' s share of contribution to making
21 Prospect Road wider and, of course, there are sacred pots
22 in the State no different than the City. You can' t use
23 this money for that, can' t use that money for this . My
24 concern is that we are holding the private sector at bay,
25 that they cannot develop unless this area is improved.
60
1 My worry is that we' re letting the State go ahead
2 with this even though they' re claiming 2 percent . Again,
3 I don' t think that ' s correct, either. I think it ' s a
4 bigger number, more of a magnitude . And I believe the
5 State should not be allowed, given this road condition,
6 unless it ' s improved. And I 'm a strong believer in
7 fairness . What ' s good for the private sector is good for
8 the public sector. And I hold the State at the same level
9 as I hold a private developer. And I keep hearing this :
10 Nope, we got to let them through because APF don' t apply.
11 I think we ' re really sending the wrong message to the
12 community.
13 MR. TORGERSON: Jerry, did you just describe the
14 restroom as a sacred pot? The one aspect that we didn' t
15 touch on at all tonight was character. And I do think
16 that you guys have done a great job with the character,
17 especially significantly better than the neighboring
18 property that would be next to this proposal . So
19 unfortunately, we always have a tendency to discuss the
20 more controversial aspects of it, but I think you guys
21 should be commended for the character that was proposed in
22 the proposal . Are there any other comments? Can we have
23 a vote, please?
24 THE CLERK: Mr. Gavaldon?
25 MR. GAVALDON: Yes .
61
1 THE CLERK: Ms. Meyer?
2 MS . MEYER: Yes .
3 THE CLERK: Ms . Schmidt?
4 MS . SCHMIDT: Yes .
5 THE CLERK: Ms . Craig?
6 MS . CRAIG: Yes .
7 THE CLERK: Ms. Carpenter?
8 MS . CARPENTER: Yes .
9 THE CLERK: Mr. Torgerson?
10 MR. TORGERSON: Yes . Okay. The CDOT Poudre
11 River Rest Area is denied. And we ' ll take a five minute
12 break and be back for our final item.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
1 STATE OF COLORADO)
2 ) SS REPORTERS CERTIFICATE
3 COUNTY OF BOULDER)
4
5 I, Debra E. Payne, a professional court reporter and
6 notary public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the
7 foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter of the CDOT
8 Poudre River Rest Area Relocation and recorded on
9 August 26, 2004, at 300 West Laporte Street, Fort Collins,
10 Colorado, was duly transcribed by me and reduced under my
11 supervision to the foregoing 62 pages; that said transcript
12 is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings so
13 taken.
14 I further certify that I am not related to, employed
15 by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys
16 herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case .
17 Attested to by me this 1st day of September, 2004 .
18
19
Debra E. Payne
20 Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
171 North College Avenue
21 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(970) 482-1506
22 My commission expires August 27, 2007
23
24
25
63