HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS NATATORIUM AND ICE RINK PUD - Filed GC-GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE - 2003-10-29City of Fort Collins
ICE ARENA AND POOL
Statement of Planning Objectives
In compliance with the referendum passed by the residents of
Fort Collins on May 1, 1984, the City is proposing construction
of a new indoor 50 meter pool and regulation ice rink at Edora
Park. Seating for approximately 1000 spectators is provided for
major events at both the pool and ice arena.
The proposed plan conforms to the City's adopted policies
regarding the development of community parks and access to
natural waterways and the trail system. Additional public
concerns, raised at the first of two neighborhood meetings held
regarding this project have been addressed as follows:
1. Traffic impacts on Stuart Street and Riffenburg School.
1.1. Vehicular access to the facility has been restricted to
Riverside extended from Prospect Road.
1.2. A 14' wide overstructured walk, obstructed with keyed
bollards, is being designed to help releive congestion
of traffic leaving major events by providing a
controlled exit onto Stuart Street.
2. Visual Impacts
2.1. The facility has been relocated to the extreme east end
of the site.
2.2. The major parking areas are recessed into the hillside
and screened from the view of the neighborhood to the
south and west of the site.
2.3. The building and parking are placed to provide pleasant
views of both the facility and Edora Park.
2.4. Substantial landscape buffers are planned on all sides
- 1 -
June 26, 2002
Ms. Katie Moore
Engineering Department J R ENGINEERING
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Reference: Fort Collins Natatorium & Ice Arena, JR Project 39067.21
Sight Distance Variance Request
Dear Ms. Moore:
This letter is to request a variance from the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(LCUASS), Chapter 8, Figure 7-16. This figure addresses the sight distance required at
intersections with major streets. The drive approach in question will be an existing approach for
the south entrance to EPIC, which will be effected by the proposed additional building
improvements to the Ice Arena. The proposed approach will be an entrance/exit from Riverside
Avenue to a parking area with 3 stalls and a service loading area. Riverside Avenue is currently
classified as a collector.
The existing driveway approach has a measured sight distance of 235 feet. The same driveway
approach with the proposed improvements to the Ice Arena will reduce the sight distance to 200
feet. The standard for this collector is 310 feet per the LCUASS. It should be noted however that
Riverside Avenue is currently posted as a 25 MPH roadway, provides access to the subject
driveway and an apartment complex and in its current configuration ends with a cul-de-sac 100
feet south west of the proposed driveway. The standard of 310 feet sight distance is based on
distance required for a vehicle entering a major roadway to have sufficient time to accelerate to
speed such that thru traffic on the major roadway is not negatively impacted. Therefore, in its
current configuration we believe that the 310-foot sight distance is not necessary. The available
sight distance of 200 feet for this access does provide sufficient distance to accommodate a safe
stopping condition for all conflicting movements, however landscaping restrictions are
recommended within the existing roadway and utility easements extending 150 feet northeast
from the driveway along the roadway alignment.
Considering the proposed use of the approach, the current use of Riverside Avenue and the pre-
existing constraints, we believe that the request for a variance is reasonable based on sound
engineering Judgment.
If you have any questions or concerns that we have not addressed, please feel free to contact me
at your convenience.
(�,98/0)VA
0DO RS
Sincerely, o
34823
Kyle Arend, P.E.Project EngineerL NG\
Z620 Nast Prospect Road, Suiic 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525
970-491 9888 • Fax: 970-491-9984 • www.jrcngineering.com
w
w
a�
so a
��
o
V)
E M s
L
z
� V)
`
OU
c
Y OJ p p
-0— O c9
N
Z O O
OL O 0
�- p)
w Q M O 0 0 0 0 0 0
F. N O
z Ln — 00(D LO M N N N
L (D C
� M o a)o Ln
a)
�-
o
w
0o
Eon Y cco
z
Uj
z =
O U
0� U —a
o�`°=a� m
"pE -C.`� Tin
w
U
w
z
U
m o o
Ln
z
Q
>
Q
J
c y O O 0
E V U L
c
0
(~j7
p O
ONO M0 @�
U
Q
0
Q
�Ea: Np N �`
C �
-0
U1
Up
Ljj
(n
L w
�'
a-
F- Q
•� C N N
Q U N
Cz
O
z
r
z w
O w w
C C
o
�°3�
�
m
O
Z
U
>°�
0 0 Y i
Y
U
L
C� inOLnOLrn0 Tn0 Vn
z to Ln V V' M M N N
C =��0 0 D @m
0
w
N
>
Of C
G
p
�0
w
O
~ ��
(1) (n
NOO.��
U
�� O o f
0
z
Z
m Q w
O �o
O
M(Z
O
�� mC
m
E o@ c o ao
`
z
000 �_ °
U p T
e
o
O
D
U
T1, TU
0-0
`0 3 aE
L
>)U
co c O 0-
a
N
c
w�
�Y C J p 7
C
m
CURB w
E cam (0
co >> >Ln
N
E
U
� U
�o
m o U c M a�
c (D L o C- Ln
n
0) J L O
a)oQ�L� �M
U
Q
D
Oa
U
M
NOTE:
Line Of Sight must be within R.O.W. or sight distance
easement.
SIGHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS
(Unsignalized)
From "A Policy
on
Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets
1990"
by American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
SIGHT
DISTANCE ( SIGHT TRIANGLE)
LARIMER
COUNTY
APPROVED:
FIGURE
DESIGN
DATE:
09/11/00
URBAN AREA
FIGURE
"�
-16
STREET STANDARDS
DRAWN
BY: B"
Design
Speed
(mph)
Assumed
Speed for
Condition
(mph)
Brake Reaction
Time Distance
(sec) (ft)
Coefficient
of Friction
f
Braking
Distance
on Level
(ft)
Stopping Sight Distance
Rounded
Computed for Design
(ft) (ft)
20
20-20
2.5
73.3-73.3
0.40
33.3-33.3
106.7-106.7
125-125
25
24-25
2.5
2.'
88.0-91.7
102 7 110 0
0.38
0 35
50.5-54.8
74 7 85 7
138.5-146.5
177 3-195 7
150-150
200-200
30
35
28-30
32-35
2.5
117.3-128.3
0.34
100.4-120.1
217.7-248.4
225-250
40
36-40
2.5
132.0-146.7
0.32
135.0-166.7
267.0-313.3
275-325
45
40-45
2.5
146.7-165.0
0.31
172.0-217.7
318.7-382.7
325-400
50
44-50
2.5
161.3-183.3
0.30
215.1-277.8
376.4-461.1
400-475
55
48-55
2.5
176.0-201.7
0.30
256.0-336.1
432.0-537.8
450-550
60
52-60
2.5
190.7-220.0
0.29
310.8-413.8
501.5-633.8
525-650
65
55-65
2.5
201.7-238.3
0.29
347.7-485.6
549.4-724.0
550-725
70
58-70
2..5
212.7-256.7
0.28
400.5-583.3
613.1-840.0
625-850
Table III-1. Stopping sight distance (wet pavements).
APPROV
By: Date: W7 3 O2--
6a City of Fort Collins
�,rvo,Fa„�o Engineering Department
Interoffice Memorandum
Date: July, 2, 2002
To: Cam McNair, City Engineer
Thru: Dave Stringer, Development Review Manager v�Sc
From: Katie Moore, Development Review Engineer
RE: Variance Requests for EPIC, 2nd Sheet of Ice minor amendment
JR Engineering, on behalf of the Developer for the EPIC, 2nd Sheet of Ice project, has submitted
variance requests to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. The variances are for a sight
distance easement and driveway width. The sight distance is requested to be shorter (200 feet) as
opposed to the standard sight distance of 660 feet and the driveway is requested to be narrower (12
feet) as opposed to the standard 24 foot width for a non-residential driveway.
Typically, the City requires that the sight distance required on a collector street with a design speed of
40 miles per hour would be 660 feet measured along the flowline of the street (Figure 7-16,
LCUASS). This distance is to ensure the safety of both the motorists on the road and those entering the
roadway. The engineer proposes a 200 foot stopping sight distance, and believes that this variance can
be supported due to the posted speed limit of 25 mph on the road, resulting in a lower actual speed
than the design speed of 40 mph, and that currently Riverside terminates in a cul-de-sac, serving only
two parking lots and the apartment complex to the south. The engineer has provided a table from
AASHTO's Geometric Design of Highways and Streets showing recommended stopping sight distances
based on design speeds of roads, which states that 200 feet of stopping sight distance is recommended
on a street with a design speed of 30 mph. The engineer also reasons that the driveway affected serves
only 3 stalls and a service loading area.
It is my opinion that this variance can be supported based on the fact that Riverside is designed to local
street standards in regards to the curves in this area, resulting in slower speeds, and that currently
Riverside ends in a cul-de-sac and has low traffic volumes. The driveway in question only serves several
parking stalls and a sE,rvice loading area, which infers a low traffic volume as well. All of these factors
contribute to a reduced opportunity for conflicts as well as reduced sight distance needed for the safety
of motorists on and entering the roadway. Substituting stopping sight distance for the standard sight
distance triangle appears to be acceptable in this location.
The engineer also requested a variance regarding a single driveway width out to Riverside. Typically, the
City requires that driveways for commercial or industrial uses have a minimum width of 24 feet
(LCUASS Drawing 7-29B). This width is to allow for two vehicles side -by -side in the driveway for safe
operation when entering and exiting the roadway. The engineer proposes a 12 foot wide driveway, and
feels that this variance can be supported because the driveway would be used as an "infrequent
maintenance access for the owner's maintenance vehicles such as a pickup truck."
It is my opinion that this variance can be supported based on the small amount of use this driveway will
have, and that it is not to be used by the public.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns and if you need any additional clarification.
AT&T Broadband
1201 University Avenue
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
970-484-7166
Ms. Moore
After reviewing, and discussing with Dan Mattson at JR Engineering the proposed utility
easements for the EPIC project, it is my understanding that a 9-foot non-contiguous
utility easement will be provided on the west side of Riverside Avenue and a 13-foot
utility easement. will be provided on the east side of Riverside Avenue. I understand that
this project will only provide the 13-foot easement on the east side where it falls on the
EPIC property and that if and when the Union Pacific Railroad property is developed the
City of Fort Collins will require the 13-foot easement be provided the rest of the way
along the east side of Riverside Avenue to form a contiguous easement on the east side.
This will satisfy our needs, as the easement will only be needed if the railroad property is
developed.
Sincerely,
71,
-P
Dennis Greenwalt
AT&T Broadband, Ft. Collins
1201 University Ave
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Mattson, Dan
From: Mattson, Dan
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:34 PM
To: 'SKGRABLER@UP.COM'; Mattson, Dan
Cc: k,amoore@fcgov.com; chris.wesche@neenan.com; rlee@bhadesign.com;
bhamdan@fcgov.com; JLNELSON@up.com; JGUTIER2@up.com; JMATTHEWS@UP.COM
Subject: RE: EPIC in Fort Collins
Sue,
We will not place any rip rap on your property. I also will add the following note on the
drawings:
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Property shall not be used as a staging area for the
construction of this project, no personel or equipment shall be allowed to work on UPRR
property during the ccnstruction of this facility. The contractor shall delineate these
construction limints (UPRR/EPIC property line) with Orange plastic fencing.
Unless I hear differently from Jack Nelson by the end of the week (in addition to your
copying him on the e-mail, I left him a voicemail message) and based upon your comments
below ("I believe that the sidewalk realignment, if done by City personnel and not
contractors, would come under the existing Ped/Bike Path agreement between the City and
UPRR,..."), the Ped/Bike work should not be an issue if accomplished by the City.
Thank you,
Dan
Original Message -----
From: SKGRABLER@UP.COM [mailto:SKGRABLER@UP.COM]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:03 PM
To: DMattson@JREngineering.com
Cc: kamoore@fcgov.com; chris.wesche@neenan.com; rlee@bhadesign.com;
bhamdan@fcgov.com; JLNELSON@up.com; JGUTIER2@up.com; JMATTHEWS@UP.COM
Subject: Re: EPIC in Fort Collins
Dan Mattson - JR Engineering
FIRST ISSUE/DRAINAGE PROPOSAL:
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) does not have a problem with your design of
the Water Quality Pond. It appears there would be little impact on the
railroad right-of-way and that the infrastruture improvements are on City
property. Your note below indicates that Rip Rap would be placed at the
east side of the Pond, and possibly on UPRR property, for an emergency
spillway, which could possible divert drainage onto UPRR property. You
indicate this would be an unlikely event. Please note that if there is any
damage to UPRR track structure or property because of an unlikely event,
UPRR would look to the City of Ft. Collins to correct the problem at 100%
their cost.
I would advise you to make sure that there are no new improvements on UPRR
property without a valid drainage or license agreement. If there is an
encroachment of the Rip Rap on UPRR property, the City of Ft. Collins
would have to request a license agreement from Mgr. Jack Nelson, UPRR Real
Estate Department in Omaha, NE @ 402-997-3614.
SECOND ISSUE/PED/BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT:
I believe that the sidewalk realignment, if done by City personnel and not
contractors, would come under the existing Ped/Bike Path agreement between
the City and UPRR, however I would double check with ,Jack Nelson. He may
1
just need "as built plans" for the Ped/Bike trail realignment that you are
proposing, which would supplement the existing agreement between the City
and UPRR. If work is contemplated to be done by a contractor, the
contractor would have to enter into a Contractors Right of Entry Agreement
with UPRR.
If City personnel are going to demolish a portion of the Ped/Bike Trail,
and build the realigned portion of the Ped/Bike Path on UPRR R/W, they
should not be closer then 25 feet from the nearest rail, or they must have
a Railroad Flagger present. If your plans are correct, that likely will
not happen. However, for budgeting purposes, a Railroad Flagger is
estimated to cost UPRR $500 per day.
The City must make sure that there are no men or equipment working on UPRR
property during the construction of this facility. I would suggest that
the city or contractor be required to place the bright Orange plastic
fencing to delineate the joint city/railroad property line along the limits
of the construction area.
Susan K. Grabler
Manager Industry & Public Projects
Union Pacific Railroad
1400 W. 52nd Avenue
Denver, CO 80221
DMattson@JREngineerincr.com on 07/24/2002 10:04:04 AM
To: skgrabler@up.com
cc: kamoore@fcgov.com, chris.wesche@neenan.com, rlee@bhadesign.com,
bhamdan@fcgov.com
Subject: EPIC in Fort Collins
Sue,
Thank you for your time in looking into this matter concerning the use of
the Union Pacific ROW next to the EPIC project site. As we discussed on
the
phone there will not be storm water flowing onto the Union Pacific ROW as
we
had originally thought. Based upon our calculations and the timing of the
storm events we are new able to send the flow from the 100-yr storm event
into the existing 24-inch pipe without impacting other flows. Therefore,
no
regrading will be necessary and no flows will be sent onto the Union
Pacific
ROW as we are able to contain them in the proposed pond and the existing
24-inch pipe. If there is any blocking of the pond outlet structure the
flows will back up into the proposed drain pipe and outlet to the south and
west around the building. There will be an emergency spillway on the east
side of the pond that will match existing grade (so the City of Fort
Collins
will be placing some rip rap in the Union Pacific ROW for the spillway as a
part of this project). The following is quoted from our drainage report
2
for
the project:
No detention is required for the site due to it's location relevant to
Spring Creek_ The site peak flows occur at 5 minutes for the 100-year
storm. The Spring Creek SWMM model shows element 412, Spring Creek at
EPIC,
peaking at 54 minutes. Because the site peaks before Spring Creek it is
advantageous to release the flows undetained. Therefore only water quality
will be provided for the site.
The water quality pond has been designed to treat only minor events with
major events passing through a grate on the top of the water quality outlet
structure. For minor events, a perforated plate on the water quality
structure is designed to release flows over a 40-hr release period.
Details
of the structure are provided on Sheet 10 of the construction plans.
Calculations for the sizing of the structure are included in the appendix.
The top grate on the water quality structure has been designed to allow
major events including the 100-year event to pass through to the existing
24-inch RCP. This method is advantageous as the flows in the pipe peak at
a
much later time than those leaving the site. According to the Spring Creek
Hydrologic Model Update by Anderson Consulting Engineers, dated September
1999, the flows in the existing 24-inch pipe (conveyance element 513) peak
at 1 hour 22 minutes, whereas flows from the site peak at 5 minutes.
If for some reason the water quality structure becomes clogged, the water
will pond until it backs up the drainage pipe to design point 1. These
flows will then exit the site via a curb cut and swale south of the inlet.
The flow line of the curb cut is at an elevation of 4943.59, about 0.4 feet
lower than the finishe-d floor elevation. A curb with a top elevation of
4944.2 has been designed to prevent flows from spilling into the depressed
access of the existing swimming pool. All other entrances to the existing
and proposed building have finished floor elevations of 4944.0, which is
above the maximum water surface of 4943.0 required to pass flows through
the
grate on the top of the water quality structure. However, in the event that
the outlet structure and the other outlets described above fail, an
emergency spillway for the pond is provided along the east side of the
water
quality pond.
Therefore, the emergency spillway is only there for the rare case (which
will probably never happen) that everything else becomes clogged. It
should
also be noted that the Union Pacific Railroad tracks are approximately 100
feet away and much higher than the pond.
Please confirm that based upon our conversations you have stated that the
City of Fort Collins has a Right -of -Entry Agreement with Union Pacific
Railroad and therefore, the work for placing rip rap for the emergency
spillway, re -aligning the bike path and extending the culvert under the
bike
path can be done by the City of Fort Collins. This work would require no
additional agreements; however, the City of Fort Collins, as per the
existing agreement, must do the work and then provide "As -Built" Drawings
of
the work done in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW to the Railroad (to you,
Sue) in order that they may update their records.
Please respond to all with an e-mail confirming the above statements.
Thank you again,
Daniel L. Mattson
3
Project Manager
JR Engineering
970--491 -9888
of the building and parking areas.
3. Parking.
3.1. 374 automobile parking spaces plus bicycle and
motorcycle parking are provided on the site. In
addition, 99 spaces are available in the existing lot
north of the Edora Park horseshoe pits, and additional
overflow parking is available adjacent to the softball
fields.
3.2. The day to day needs of the facility are expected to be
met :in the lot immediately adjacent to the building
[containing 82 standard and 4 handicapped spaces].
3.3. The Large "fan shaped" parking lot is expected to be
used for parking only for major events. The large
paved area may be used for basketball courts or other
outdoor activities at other times.
3.4. The building entry is placed to help discourage
on -street parking on adjacent local streets.
4. Building quality.
4.1. The building shape has been redesigned to a more
interesting "broken up" configuration that was proposed
in 1979.
4.2. A high quality masonry skin [precast concrete panels or
brick are the alternatives being considered] will help
the building to reflect the quality materials used in
the adjacent neighborhood.
5. Energy conservation.
5.1. An extensive energy analysis is included as a part of
the design effort related to the proposed facility.
Passive solar, active solar, and a number of energy
efficient mechanical systems are among the items being
reviewed.
Construction is scheduled to begin in the spring of 1985, with
the facility opening to the public on December 25, 1986.
There are anticipated to be approximately 35 employees working
at the facility during major events.
- 2 -
Katie Moore - Re: EPIC in Fort Collins Page 1
From: <SKGRABLER@UP.COM>
To: FC'I.GWIA("DMattson@JREngineering.com")
Date: 7/25/02 2:06PM
Subject: Re: EPIC in Fort Collins
Dan Mattson - JR Engineering
FIRST ISSUE/DRAINAGE PROPOSAL
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) does not have a problem with your design of
the Water Quality Pond. It appears there would be little impact on the
railroad right-of-way and that the infrastruture improvements are on City
property. Your note below indicates that Rip Rap would be placed at the
east side of the Pond, and possibly on UPRR property, for an emergency
spillway, which could possible divert drainage onto UPRR property. You
indicate this would be an unlikely event. Please note that if there is any
damage to UPRR track structure or property because of an unlikely event,
UPRR would look to the City of Ft. Collins to correct the problem at 100%
their cost.
I would advise you to make sure that there are no new improvements on UPRR
property without a valid drainage or license agreement. If there is an
encroachment of the Rip Rap on UPRR property, the City of Ft. Collins
would have to request a license agreement from Mgr. Jack Nelson, UPRR Real
Estate Department in Omaha, NE @ 402-997-3614.
SECOND ISSUE/PED/BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT
I believe that the sidewalk realignment, if done by City personnel and not
contractors, would corne under the existing Ped/Bike Path agreement between
the City and UPRR, however I would double check with Jack Nelson. He may
just need "as built plans" for the Ped/Bike trail realignment that you are
proposing, which would supplement the existing agreement between the City
and UPRR. If work is contemplated to be done by a contractor, the
contractor would have to enter into a Contractors Right of Entry Agreement
with UPRR.
If City personnel are going to demolish a portion of the Ped/Bike Trail,
and build the realigned portion of the Ped/Bike Path on UPRR R/W, they
should not be closer then 25 feet from the nearest rail, or they must have
a Railroad Flagger present. If your plans are correct, that likely will
not happen. However for budgeting purposes, a Railroad Flagger is
estimated to cost UPRR $500 per day.
The City must make sure that there are no men or equipment working on UPRR
property during the construction of this facility. I would suggest that
the city or contractor be required to place the bright Orange plastic
fencing to delineate the joint city/railroad property line along the limits
of the construction area.
Susan K. Grabler
Manager Industry & Public Projects
Katie Moore - Re: EPIC in Fort Collins Page 2
Union Pacific Railroad
1400 W.52nd Avenue
Denver, CO 80221
DMattson@JREngine-ering.com on 07/24/2002 10:04:04 AM
To: skgrabler@up.com
cc: kamoore@fcgov.com, chris.wesche@neenan.com, rlee@bhadesign.com,
bhamdan@fcgov.com
Subject: EPIC in Fort: Collins
Sue,
Thank you for your time in looking into this matter concerning the use of
the Union Pacific ROW next to the EPIC project site. As we discussed on
the
phone there will not be storm water flowing onto the Union Pacific ROW as
we
had originally thought. Based upon our calculations and the timing of the
storm events we are now able to send the flow from the 100-yr storm event
into the existing 24-inch pipe without impacting other flows. Therefore,
no
regrading will be necessary and no flows will be sent onto the Union
Pacific
ROW as we are able to contain them in the proposed pond and the existing
24-inch pipe. If there is any blocking of the pond outlet structure the
flows will back up into the proposed drain pipe and outlet to the south and
west around the building. There will be an emergency spillway on the east
side of the pond that will match existing grade (so the City of Fort
Collins
will be placing some rip rap in the Union Pacific ROW for the spillway as a
part of this project). The following is quoted from our drainage report
for
the project:
No detention is required for the site due to it's location relevant to
Spring Creek. The site peak flows occur at 5 minutes for the 100-year
storm. The Spring Creek SWMM model shows element 412, Spring Creek at
EPIC,
peaking at 54 minutes. Because the site peaks before Spring Creek it is
advantageous to release the flows undetained. Therefore only water quality
will be provided for the site.
The water quality pond has been designed to treat only minor events with
major events passing through a grate on the top of the water quality outlet
Katie Moore - Re: EPIC in Fort Collins Page 3
structure. For minor events, a perforated plate on the water quality
structure is designed to release flows over a 40-hr release period.
Details
of the structure are provided on Sheet 10 of the construction plans.
Calculations for the sizing of the structure are included in the appendix.
The top grate on the water quality structure has been designed to allow
major events including the 100-year event to pass through to the existing
24-inch RCP. This method is advantageous as the flows in the pipe peak at
a
much later time than those leaving the site. According to the Spring Creek
Hydrologic Model Update by Anderson Consulting Engineers, dated September
1999, the flows in the existing 24-inch pipe (conveyance element 513) peak
at 1 hour 22 minutes, whereas flows from the site peak at 5 minutes.
If for some reason the water quality structure becomes clogged, the water
will pond until it backs up the drainage pipe to design point 1. These
flows will then exit the site via a curb cut and swale south of the inlet.
The flow line of the curb cut is at an elevation of 4943.59, about 0.4 feet
lower than the finished floor elevation. A curb with a top elevation of
4944.2 has been designed to prevent flows from spilling into the depressed
access of the existing swimming pool. All other entrances to the existing
and proposed building have finished floor elevations of 4944.0, which is
above the maximum water surface of 4943.0 required to pass flows through
the
grate on the top of the water quality structure. However, in the event that
the outlet structure and the other outlets described above fail, an
emergency spillway for the pond is provided along the east side of the
water
quality pond.
Therefore, the emergency spillway is only there for the rare case (which
will probably never happen) that everything else becomes clogged. It
should
also be noted that the Union Pacific Railroad tracks are approximately 100
feet away and much (nigher than the pond.
Please confirm that based upon our conversations you have stated that the
City of Fort Collins has a Right -of -Entry Agreement with Union Pacific
Railroad and therefore, the work for placing rip rap for the emergency
spillway, re -aligning the bike path and extending the culvert under the
bike
path can be done by the City of Fort Collins. This work would require no
additional agreements; however, the City of Fort Collins, as per the
existing agreement, must do the work and then provide "As -Built' Drawings
of
the work done in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW to the Railroad (to you,
Sue) in order that they may update their records.
Please respond to all with an e-mail confirming the above statements.
Thank you again,
Daniel L. Mattson
Project Manager
JR Engineering
Katie Moore Re: EPIC in Fort Collins Page 4
970-491-9888
CC:
FC'I.CFCPO(kamoore),FC1.GWIA("JMATTHEWS@UP.COM","JGUTIER2@UP.COM",
"JLNELSON@UP.CCM","rlee@bhadesign.com","chris.wesche@neenan.com"),wu.usc(bhamdan)
Katie Moore RE EPIC in Fort: Collins
Page 1
From:
<DMattson@JREngineering.com>
To:
FC1.GWIA("SKGRABLER@UP.COM")
Date:
7/25/02 2:48PM
Subject:
RE: EPIC in Fort Collins
Sue,
We will not place any rip rap on your property. I also will add the
following note on the drawings:
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Property shall not be used as a staging
area for the construction of this project, no personel or equipment shall be
allowed to work on UPRR property during the construction of this facility.
The contractor shall delineate these construction limints (UPRR/EPIC
property line) with Orange plastic fencing.
Unless I hear differently from Jack Nelson by the end of the week (in
addition to your copying him on the e-mail, I left him a voicemail message)
and based upon your comments below ("I believe that the sidewalk
realignment, if done by City personnel and not contractors, would come under
the existing Ped/Bike Path agreement between the City and UPRR,.....), the
Ped/Bike work should not be an issue if accomplished by the City.
Thank you,
Dan
-----Original Message -----
From: SKGRABLER@UP.COM [mailto:SKGRABLER@UP.COM]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:03 PM
To: DMattson@JREngineering.com
Cc: kamoore@fcgov.com, chris.wesche@neenan.com; rlee@bhadesign.com;
bhamdan@fcgov com; JLNELSON@up.com, JGUTIER2@up.com, JMATTHEWS@UP.COM
Subject: Re: EPIC in Fort Collins
Dan Mattson - JR Engineering
FIRST ISSUE/DRAINAGE PROPOSAL:
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) does not have a problem with your design of
the Water Quality Pond. It appears there would be little impact on the
railroad right-of-way and that the infrastruture improvements are on City
property. Your note below indicates that Rip Rap would be placed at the
east side of the Pond', and possibly on UPRR property, for an emergency
spillway, which could possible divert drainage onto UPRR property. You
indicate this would be an unlikely event. Please note that if there is any
damage to UPRR track structure or property because of an unlikely event,
UPRR would look to the City of Ft. Collins to correct the problem at 100%
their cost.
I would advise you to make sure that there are no new improvements on UPRR
property without a valid drainage or license agreement. If there is an
encroachment of the Rip Rap on UPRR property, the City of Ft. Collins
would have to request a license agreement from Mgr. Jack Nelson, UPRR Real
Estate Department in Omaha, NE @ 402-997-3614.
Katie Moore RE: EPIC in Fort: Collins page 2'I
SECOND ISSUE/PED/BIKE PATH REALIGNMENT:
I believe that the sidewalk realignment, if done by City personnel and not
contractors, would come under the existing Ped/Bike Path agreement between
the City and UPRR, however I would double check with Jack Nelson. He may
just need "as built plans" for the Ped/Bike trail realignment that you are
proposing, which would supplement the existing agreement between the City
and UPRR. If work is contemplated to be done by a contractor, the
contractor would have to enter into a Contractors Right of Entry Agreement
with UPRR.
If City personnel are going to demolish a portion of the Ped/Bike Trail,
and build the realigned portion of the Ped/Bike Path on UPRR R/W, they
should not be closer then 25 feet from the nearest rail, or they must have
a Railroad Flagger present. If your plans are correct, that likely will
not happen. However, for budgeting purposes, a Railroad Flagger is
estimated to cost UPRR $500 per day.
The City must make sure that there are no men or equipment working on UPRR
property during the construction of this facility. I would suggest that
the city or contractor be required to place the bright Orange plastic
fencing to delineate the joint city/railroad property line along the limits
of the construction area.
Susan K. Grabler
Manager Industry & Public Projects
Union Pacific Railroad
1400 W.52nd Avenue
Denver, CO 80221
DMattson@JREngineering.com on 07/24/2002 10:04:04 AM
To: skgrabler@up.com
cc: kamoore@fcgov.com, chris.wesche@neenan.com, rlee@bhadesign.com,
bhamdan@fcgov corn
Subject: EPIC in Fort Collins
Sue,
Thank you for your time in looking into this matter concerning the use of
the Union Pacific ROW next to the EPIC project site. As we discussed on
Katie Moore RE EPIC in Fort Collins Page 3
the
phone there will not be storm water flowing onto the Union Pacific ROW as
we
had originally thought. Based upon our calculations and the timing of the
storm events we are now able to send the flow from the 100-yr storm event
into the existing 24-inch pipe without impacting other flows. Therefore,
no
regrading will be necessary and no flows will be sent onto the Union
Pacific
ROW as we are able to contain them in the proposed pond and the existing
24-inch pipe. If there is any blocking of the pond outlet structure the
flows will back up into the proposed drain pipe and outlet to the south and
west around the building. There will be an emergency spillway on the east
side of the pond that will match existing grade (so the City of Fort
Collins
will be placing some rip rap in the Union Pacific ROW for the spillway as a
part of this project). The following is quoted from our drainage report
for
the project:
No detention is required for the site due to it's location relevant to
Spring Creek. The site peak flows occur at 5 minutes for the 100-year
storm. The Spring Creek SWMM model shows element 412, Spring Creek at
EPIC,
peaking at 54 minutes. Because the site peaks before Spring Creek it is
advantageous to release the flows undetained. Therefore only water quality
will be provided for the site.
The water quality pond has been designed to treat only minor events with
major events passing through a grate on the top of the water quality outlet
structure. For minor events, a perforated plate on the water quality
structure is designed to release flows over a 40-hr release period.
Details
of the structure are provided on Sheet 10 of the construction plans.
Calculations for the sizing of the structure are included in the appendix.
The top grate on the water quality structure has been designed to allow
major events including the 100-year event to pass through to the existing
24-inch RCP. This method is advantageous as the flows in the pipe peak at
a
much later time than those leaving the site. According to the Spring Creek
Hydrologic Model Update by Anderson Consulting Engineers, dated September
1999, the flows in the existing 24-inch pipe (conveyance element 513) peak
at 1 hour 22 minutes, whereas flows from the site peak at 5 minutes.
If for some reason the water quality structure becomes clogged, the water
will pond until it backs up the drainage pipe to design point 1. These
flows will then exit the site via a curb cut and swale south of the inlet.
The flow line of the curb cut is at an elevation of 4943.59, about 0.4 feet
lower than the finished floor elevation. A curb with a top elevation of
4944.2 has been designed to prevent flows from spilling into the depressed
access of the existing swimming pool. All other entrances to the existing
and proposed building have finished floor elevations of 4944.0, which is
above the maximum water surface of 4943.0 required to pass flows through
the
Katie Moore - RE: EPIC in Fort Collins Page 4
grate on the top of the water quality structure. However, in the event that
the outlet structure and the other outlets described above fail, an
emergency spillway for the pond is provided along the east side of the
water
quality pond.
Therefore, the emergency spillway is only there for the rare case (which
will probably never hiappen) that everything else becomes clogged. It
should
also be noted that the Union Pacific Railroad tracks are approximately 100
feet away and much higher than the pond.
Please confirm that based upon our conversations you have stated that the
City of Fort Collins has a Right -of -Entry Agreement with Union Pacific
Railroad and therefore, the work for placing rip rap for the emergency
spillway, re -aligning the bike path and extending the culvert under the
bike
path can be done by the City of Fort Collins. This work would require no
additional agreements, however, the City of Fort Collins, as per the
existing agreement, must do the work and then provide "As -Built' Drawings
of
the work done in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW to the Railroad (to you,
Sue) in order that they may update their records.
Please respond to all with an e-mail confirming the above statements.
Thank you again,
Daniel L. Mattson
Project Manager
JR Engineering
970-491-9888
CC:
wu.usc(BHAM DAN), FC1.CFCPO(kamoore),FC1.GWIA("JMATTHEWS@UP.COW, "JG
UTI ER2@U P.COM","J LN ELSON@UP.COM","rlee@bhadesign.com","chris.wesche@neenan.com")
ec
COMP 151
May 7, 1985
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522
Dear Board Members:
This letter is submitted to indicate that the Everitt Companies do not
object to the vacation of that portion of Stuart Street as proposed in
conjunction with the City' s indoor pool and ice arena, with the
following conditions which we believe to be correct.
1. The southerly one-half of the existing Stuart Street
will be deeded to the Everitt Companies at the time of
vacation subject to appropriate utility line easements.
2. The City will construct entirely and will bear all
expense involved with the new Stuart Street cul-de-sac
just east of Creekwood, and the extension of Riverside
Avenue to a new cul-de-sac located approximately at the
end of the existing Stuart Street. These new
constructions are as shown on the Site and Landscape
plan. by Cityscape and the accompanying drawings by RBD,
Inc. which were submitted to the City on May 6, 1985
for Planning and Zoning Board Approval.
3. Any development proposed for Tract A, Parkwood East,
Second Filing, that meets City criteria as def ined in
the current Land Development Guidance System, will be
allowed full access to and from Prospect on the
Riverside extension and to and from Lemay on the Stuart
Street construction mentioned in paragraph 2. This
does not preclude other possible ingress and egress
access points to Tract A.
3000 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(303) 226-1500
peveloprnrnt - Brokerage - Construction - Management - Investment - Financing - Joint Ventures - Computer Services - Building Materials
Page 2
May 7 , 1985
4. The City will be responsible for and will bear all
costs associated with removing existing asphalt, base,
curb and gutter, and sterilized soil beneath the
existing Stuart Street. In addition, any relocation of
street lights, telephone, gas or other utilities from
the existing Stuart Street right-of-way to accommodate
either Ice Arena or Tract A development will be at the
sole expense of the City.
p
5. The work stipulated in paragraphs 2 and 3 above shall
be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the new Ice Arena and Pool facility.
It is our understanding that the vacation request will be taken to
City Council after Planning and Zoning approval of the "Ice Arena and
Pool" PUD scheduled for your June 24th public hearing.
Sinc r ly,
Gerald R. Hax.t.,..
President, Everitt Enterprises
GRH/bpg
urban design
bldg. 21 suite 242, old town square
fort Collins, Colorado 80524
(303)221-0731
June 3, 1985
City of Fort Collins
Planning and Zoning Board
c/o Planning Division
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Board Members;
Consistent with the approved Preliminary Plans, the applicant
for the Ice Arena and Pool PUD would like to request a variance
to the City standard requirement that a cul-de-sac not exceed
660- in length. Although Riverside Avenue extends approximately
1900 feet from East Prospect Road to the the proposed cul-de-sac
at the southeast corner of the Ice Arena site, there are three
points of emergency access planned. The proposed traffic
circulation is the result of studies by City and private traffic
engineers, and extensive neighborhood input. It has been agreed
by all involved in the design that, although technically
requiring a variance, the proposal represents the best
circulation system for this specific use for this site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Eldon Ward
cc Jack Gianola
Bryce Hastings
Transportation Services
Engineering Department
Development Review Engineering
City of Fort Collins
January 22, 2002
Mr. Kyle Arend, PE
JR Engineering
2620 E. Prospect Rd. Suite 190
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Re: The variance requests for decreased sight distance and narrower driveway width
Dear Mr. Arend,
This letter is in response to your request for variances to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.
The first variance requested was a reduction of required sight distance from 660 feet to 200 feet at the
southernmost driveway on the west side of Riverside. This variance has been approved by the City
Engineer only at this location.
The second variance requested was a reduction in the width of a driveway from 24 feet to 12 feet. This
variance has been approved by the City Engineer only for the driveway located on the north side of the
building on the west side of Riverside.
As with all variances to the street standards, the variances granted for this project are based on the
particular situation under design and the judgment that we (the designer and the City) apply to determine
whether there is a public safety concern. The variances for this project in no way set any precedence for
relaxing these standards on other projects without complete analysis and justification.
Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this office
Sincerely,
Katie Moore
Project Engineer
City of Fort Collins
cc: file
Troy Jones
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6605 • FAX (970) 221-6378
www.fcgov.com
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Cturrent Planning
Citv of Fort Collins
To: Reviewing Staff
From: Troy Jones, Current Planning
I�
Date: May 13, 2002
Re: EPIC Expansion Minor Amendment
This project qualifies to be processed as a minor amendment to the original EPIC Center's "Ice Arena and
Pool PUD- approved in 1985. This minor amendment proposes a building expansion roughly the same size
as several areas or[ the original PUD depicted as "future building area subject to PUD amendment."
Although this is being processed as a minor amendment. I'd like to ensure that staff is given adequate time
to review the submittal as needed. The applicant submitted 3 copies of the following items:
• Ori-mal 1985 site and landscape plans,
• Original 1985 plat,
• Proposed site plan,
• Proposed landscape plan,
• Proposed elevations,
• Drainage report,
• Proposed revisions to Utility Plans.
• Traffic Study,
• Parkin, alternative compliance request,
• Response to conceptual review comments.
I've split the submittal into 3 bundles, and will route each of the bundles around for review and comment as
follows:
Bundle 1 (two drainage repo ts)
Bundle 2 (one drainage report)
Bundle 3 (no drainage report)
Stormwater
ineering
Current Planning
Watcr/Wastewater
Traffic Operations
Zoning
Light & Power
Transportation Planning
Building Inspection
Park Planning
Advance Planning
Poudre Fire Authority
Natural Resources
Forestry
" SI :Worth C ollcge Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020
City of Fort Collins
Utilities
light & power • stormwater • wastewater • water
MEMORANDUM
"TO: Trov Jones, Current Planning
FM: Doug Martine, Light & Power Engineering9Z
DT: June 7, 2002
RE: EPIC Expansion
I have reviewed the plans you sent for this minor amendment, and have the following
comments:
The existHiltransformer is not shown on the plans, but it Must maintain a minimum of 4
feet of clearance along the back and two sides from the edge of the concrete pad to any
wall or to the drip line of any overhang. The front (south) side of the transformer must
have a minimum of 8 feet of clearance. It is difficult to tell from the plans, but the
addition may be close to the 4 foot limit. Also, the transformer must remain accessible to
within 10 feet of where we can drive a line truck. In order to meet this accessibility
requirement, at the very least the existing frame storage building will need to be removed
or relocated.
The existing 1600 amp. service is near its capacity. I expect the electric service will need
to be upgraded to provide adequate power to include the addition. I have reviewed the
electric service history, and the historical peak electrical demand for the service has been
460 kW. The existing transformer is a 500 kVA (approximately equivalent to 500 kW).
There will be costs associated with any increase to the electric service capacity. Light
and Power will need a Electric Commercial Service form (commonly called a C-1 form)
completed and returned to Light and Power Engineering in order to determine these costs.
I have attached one of these forms that you can pass on to the appropriate person 1
encourage this form to be completed as soon as practical. Transformers of this size are
costly, and we do not maintain a large stock. The lead time to have a transformer
delivered is about 6 months. If the existing transformer needs to be changed to a larger
one, there will be a power outage to the facility of a few hours.
In November, 2001. the plans showed relocating the transformer a few feet. The new,
plan, appear that this will no longer be necessary. If the transformer does need to be
relocated additional costs will apply. Also, relocation of the transformer will result in a
power outa,1re of most of a day.
Any questions can be directed to me. My direct phone number is 224-6152 between 7:00 AM and
3:30 PM.
700 Wood St. • P.O. Box 5'M • Fort Collins. CO 80522-0580 • (470) 2 1-6700 • FAX (970) 22-1-6619 • TDD y7W 2_� 1)3
e-mail: utilities((; fcgov.corn . www.fcgoe.com'utiiitie,,
June 26. 2002
Ms. Katie Moore J R ENGINEERING
Engineering Department
City of Fort Collins
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Reference: Fort Collins Natatorium & Ice Arena, JR Project 39067.21
Width of Driveway Cut Variance Request
Dear Ms. Moore:
This letter is to request a variance from the requirement of a minimum driveway cut width of 24-
feet for any non-residential use. The above referenced project proposes a 12-foot wide
maintenance driveway from Riverside Avenue on the north side of the addition. This driveway
will not be used for any public access to the building, but rather will be used as an infrequent
maintenance access for the owner's maintenance vehicles such as a pickup truck. We do not
want the driveway to be viewed in any way as a public access point and would therefore like to
minimize the driveway cut.
Considering the proposed use of the driveway we would request that the minimum driveway cut
width be reduced from 24-feet to a 12-foot cut width, we believe this request for a variance to be
reasonable and based on sound engineering judgment.
If you have any questions or concerns that we have not addressed, please feel free to contact me
at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Ky e Arend, P.E.
Project Engineer
q OPPp� REG,ST�c `t'i
�)ONg9�cyo,9�0
34823
'ct
/ONALE
2620 Fact Prospect Road, Sniic 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525
970 491-9888 • Fax: 970-491-9984 • wwcv.irengineering.com