Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND JANUARY 2004 - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2004-08-11PROJECT ice.. COMMENT SHEET City of Fort Collins Current Planning REC.D DATE: August 12, 2003 TO: Engineering Pavement PROJECT: #49-02A INTERSTATE LAND ODP - TYPE 1I (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: September 10, 2003 Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference jY0 (',-^er4Y`7e ` Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Basin B1 is draining into the Cooper Slough. The requirement that should be met is to show no adverse impact downstream and no rise should be caused in the downstream floodway at Prospect Road. TR Response: Noted Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Topic: traffic Number: 2 Created: 9/3/2003 The TI5 is acceptable for the ODP submittal. As phases come into the process, additional TIS analyses will need to be completed. The project on a whole generates more than 10,000 trips/day and I will more than likely require the TI5 to go west as for as Timberline/Prospect. If the uses are I-25 related, the APF and Timber line/Prospec:t may need not be addressed. However, the interchange itself has APF issues as well as safety issues. Any phase will need to examine the issues in more depth and make improvements to the interchange. I do not believe it is acceptable to create another "I-25/5H392 scenario" such as Windsor is experiencing. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Transportation Number: 6 Created: 9/10/2003 CDOT will need to review and comment on the proposed overall development plan. There will most likely be multi -modal improvements necessary to the Prospect interchange as individual PUP's are submitted. Please consult CDOT further to address and coordinate their future plans and the upcoming environmental study regarding the I-25 corridor. FYI - future development along Interstate 25 will need to take into account the interchange improvements. CDOT has asked for sufficient space to construct a design similar Harmony Rd. interchange. Number: 7 Created: 9/10/2003 Please be aware that as the PUP proposals are submitted that more detailed analysis of the transportation system and impact analysis will be required. This may lead to off site improvements, such as bicycle or pedestrian connections to surrounding destinations as identified in the Overall Development Plan's TI5 (i.e. neighborhood to the west). Number: 8 Created: 9/10/2003 Please correct the note in parentheses on the legend for the trail, from 'Proposed per E. Mulberry Plan' to 'Proposed per Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan). Page 7 If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at 491-9888. Yours Truly, Michael Brake, PE, PLS Director of Operations 7R Engineering Page 8 project (7omments Sheet CityotPortCollins Selected :departments Date: September 18, 2003 Project: INTERSTATE LAND ODP - TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: September 10, 2003 Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Transportation Number: 21 Created: 9/17/2003 Please remove the proposed traffic signal symbols and notes. Number: 22 Created: 9/17/2003 Per 3.6.3 an additional connection out to the frontage road, north of the existing motorcycle dealership is needed (unless rendered as specified in the code.) City Staff has concurred that there Is support in not requiring this connection. The applicant should present rationale on the CDP that such a connection is infeasible and/or submit an alternative compliance request to formalize meeting this section of code. Number: 23 Created: 9/17/2003 Please add the following notes on the ODP (per 2.3.2(H)(4) of the LUC): - The frontage road and Prospect Road does not meet current City standards. - Traffic functionality of the frontage road at Prospect Road currently does not meet acceptable level of service. - Traffic functionality of the northbound 1-25 off ramp at Prospect Road currently does not meet acceptable level of service. - The Prospect Road overpass over 1-25 does not meet current City standards. - The applicant will work with the City and CDOT with respect to transportation improvements in the area. - The City may review classification of the frontage road at the time of a PDP. - No vehicular access points to Prospect Road will be allowed for the parcel east of the frontage road. - Redesign/reconfiguration of the 1-25/Prospect Road Interchange may result in an Impact on the development of the site and may require additional right-of-way. - Offsite Improvements may be required at the time of a PDP in order to meet level of service for all modes of transportation. - Site distance easements may be required along the public roadways at the time of PDP review. Number: 24 Created: 9/17/2003 Please amend the beginning of the existing note regarding street pattern to state "Internal street pattern", not just "Street pattern'. Number: 25 Created: 9/17/2003 Please remove the word "Major" In the "Major Access Point" symbol to only read "Access Point". driveway access points along the frontage road andAFProspect Road is not anticipated. Additional "minor" / `p� (J —S D to — CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat __ Site Drainage Report Other_ ✓Utility __ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Ci(c ui Pnrt Cullim Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. Date: 9/18/2003 c/o Joe Carter 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for INTERSTATE LAND ODP - TYPE II (LUC), and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Ditch Easement Number: 13 Created: 9/16/2003 Please see the attached letter from Don Magnuson, Superintendent of the Lake Canal Company (dated August 22, 2003), regarding their position and concerns about this development proposal. Topic: Landscape Number: 17 Created: 9/16/2003 Laurie D'Audney of the Utilities Department (Water Conservation) indicated that the landscape plans for future PDP's must include the City of Fort Collins "Water Conservation Standards" requirements. Topic: Parks d Trails Number: 16 Created: 9/16/2003 Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department indicated that they will continue to work with this developer on the neighborhood park location and trail alignments. Topic: Traffic Number: 18 Created: 9/16/2003 The proposed future traffic signals should not be shown on the ODP. Topic: Transportation Number: 19 Created: 9/16/2003 The future Interstate 25 & East Prospect Road interchange improvements could/should look something like the recent Interstate 25 & East Harmony Road improvements. Page I Number: 20 Created: 9/17/2003 Per Section 2.3.2(H)(4) of the LUC, an ODP shall conform to the Master Street Plan requirements and the street pattern/connectivity standards both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the plan as required pursuant to Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.3(A) - (F) of the LUC. An alternative compliance request is needed at this time to address the lack of proposed street connections to the east, to the Frontage Road. City staff will be supportive of this request. The lack of street connections to the west will be dealt with through Section 4.1(E)(1)(b) of the LUC. Topic: Utilities Number: 14 Created: 9/16/2003 Mike Scheid of the. East Lorimer County Water District provided comments on a red - lined set of utility plans. These plans were given to Cityscape Urban Design following the staff review meeting held September 10, 2003. Number: 15 Created: 9/16/2003 Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy (Public Service Company) offered the following comments: a. Public Service Company (P5CO) has 4" gas mains along the north side of East Prospect Road and the east side of the Frontage Road to serve the proposed development area. b. P5CO will need adequate easements (15' wide) along both sides of all interior streets. C. P5CO also has an existing overhead electric distribution line along the north edge of East Prospect Road. This will be required to be undergrounded (with development of the Interstate Land property) at the developer's expense. d. PSCO will need a minimum 25' wide utility easement along the south edge of this development adjacent to the East Prospect Road right-of-way. e. Any relocation, cutoffs, and/or installations will be at the developer's expense, in accordance with the extension policy on file with the Public Utilities Commission. Most of these comments obviously relate more to future PDP submittals and development review. Page 2 Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Transportation Number: 21 Created: 9/17/2003 Please remove the proposed traffic signal symbols and notes. Number: 22 Created: 9/17/2003 Per 3.6.3 an additional connection out to the frontage road, north of the existing motorcycle dealership is needed (unless rendered as specified in the code.) City Staff has concurred that there is support in not requiring this connection. The applicant should present rationale on the ODP that such a connection is infeasible and/or submit an alternative compliance request to formalize meeting this section of code. Number: 23 Created: 9/17/2003 Please add the following notes on the ODP (per 2.3.2(H)(4) of the LUC): - The frontage road and Prospect Road does not meet current City standards. - Traffic functionality of the frontage road at Prospect Road currently does not meet acceptable level of service. - Traffic functionality of the northbound I-25 off ramp at Prospect Road currently does not meet acceptable level of service. - The Prospect Road overpass over I-25 does not meet current City standards. - The applicant will work with the City and CDOT with respect to transportation improvements in the area. - The City may review classification of the frontage road at the time of a PDP. - No vehicular access points to Prospect Road will be allowed for the parcel east of the frontage road. - Redesign/reconfiguration of the I-25/Prospect Road interchange may result in an impact on the development of the site and may require additional right-of-way. - Offsite improvements may be required at the time of a PDP in order to meet level of service for all modes of transportation. - Site distance easements may be required along the public roadways at the time of PDP review. Number: 24 Created: 9/17/2003 Please amend the beginning of the existing note regarding street pattern to state "Internal street pattern", not just "Street pattern". Number: 25 Created: 9/17/2003 Please remove the word "Major" in the "Major Access Point" symbol to only read "Access Point". Additional "minor" driveway access points along the frontage road and/or Prospect Road is not anticipated. Page 3 Department: Police Topic: Genera/ Number: 9 Will comment at preliminary plan. Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Created: 9/10/2003 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Detention Pond Sizing Number:11 Created:9/12/2003 It seems that the detention ponds were sized using the rational method. At PDP SWMM modeling will be required, this could have a significant impact on the size of these ponds. The report proposes to release drainage waters from the detention ponds at rates matching the 10 and 100 year storms. It is recommended by the master plan that a 2 year release be done. The matching of the hydrograph in the 10 year storm and the 100 year storm as proposed would only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated at POP stage that no adverse conditions are caused by such a release. Topic: Ditch Easement Number: 12 Created: 9/12/2003 The Lake Canal is located along the north side of the property. The ditch company is requesting that an easement be designated for the canal right of way. This easement should be 50 feet from the centerline of the canal, for a total of 100 feet wide. If the Canal is along the property line then only 50 feet would need to be provided by this development. Crossing agreements would be needed at PDP for any bridge or utility crossing of the canal. Topic: F/oodpiain Management Number: 4 Created: 9/9/2003 9/8/03 Floodplain Management Comments Susan Hayes I The floodway for the revised Cooper Slough/Boxelder floodplain has been adopted and will be applied to this site as it develops. Please remove any reference to "proposed" floodway on the drawings and in the report. Show both the current FEMA floodplains (including Cooper Slough) and the revised floodplain/floodway on the drawings. It's not clear on the ODP plan whether the floodway line is shown in its entirety. Please use the work maps to correctly site the Cooper Slough floodplain. Page 4 Since there are two regulatory floodplains (City and FEMA) analysis for both conditions shall be required at time of design of any facility in the floodplain. Because a floodway is not mapped in the FEMA floodplain, the floodplain is considered "no -rise". This means that you can not cause a rise in the flood level off of your property without obtaining easements from offected property owners. Any changes that are made to the no -rise floodplain or in the recently adopted floodway (fill, plantings, construction of buildings, culverts, channels, bridges, bikepoths, etc.) will need to be modeled by a registered professional engineer to document no -rise. A $300 fee is required if hydraulic modeling is necessary. Please use the City's Floodplain Modeling Guidelines for the preparation of this analysis. Please include the benchmark number and elevation being used for the site. On Sheets 2 and 3 for the Overall Development Plan, what does "Future Extents of Amended Floodplain Per JP Engineering" mean? This is not discussed in the report. Please clarify. There needs to be sufficient notes pertaining to the floodplain and regulations on both the Overall Drainage Plan and Overall Development Plan sheets. Please add the following notes to the plans: Any residential structures in the floodplain must have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level. Any non-residential structures in the floodplain must either have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level or be flood -proofed 18" above the 100-year flood level. Critical facilities are not allowed to be built in the most restrictive 100-year floodplain. Please see Chapter 10 of City Code for the definition of critical facilities. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for each structure that is built in the floodplain. To obtain a CO, an elevation certificate or flood -proofing certificate will be required to be submitted and approved. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for any construction activity in the floodplain including construction of the detention ponds and any roads. All utilities within the most restrictive 100-year floodplain shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters. Pagc 5 In the report please discuss the erosion buffer limits and how they will affect the design of the bridge crossing and any other drainage features. At time of PUP please use the Floodplain Review Checklist to aid in the development of a complete submittal. Topic: Flows into Cooper Slough Number: 10 Created: 9/12/2003 Basin B1 is draining into the Cooper Slough. The requirement that should be met is to show no adverse impact downstream and no rise should be caused in the downstream floodway at Prospect Road. Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Topic: traffic Number: 2 Created: 9/3/2003 The TIS is acceptable for the ODP submittal. As phases come into the process, additional TI5 analyses will need to be completed. The project on a whole generates more than 10,000 trips/day and I will more than likely require the TI5 to go west as for as Timberline/Prospect. If the uses are I-25 related, the APF and Timberline/Prospect may need not be addressed. However, the interchange itself has APF issues as well as safety issues. Any phase will need to examine the issues in more depth and make improvements to the interchange. I do not believe it is acceptable to create another "I-25/5H392 scenario" such as Windsor is experiencing. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Transportation Number: 6 Created: 9/10/2003 CDOT will need to review and comment on the proposed overall development plan. There will most likely be multi -modal improvements necessary to the Prospect interchange as individual PDP's are submitted. Please consult CDOT further to address and coordinate their future plans and the upcoming environmental study regarding the I-25 corridor. FYI - future development along Interstate 25 will need to take into account the interchange improvements. CDOT has asked for sufficient space to construct a design similar Harmony Rd. interchange. Number: 7 Created: 9/10/2003 Please be aware that as the PDP proposals are submitted that more detailed analysis of the transportation :system and impact analysis will be required. This may lead to off site improvements, such as bicycle or pedestrian connections to surrounding destinations as identified in the Overall Development Plan's TI5 (i.e. neighborhood to the west). Page 6 Number: 8 Created: 9/10/2003 Please correct the note in parentheses on the legend for the trail, from 'Proposed per E. Mulberry Plan' to 'Proposed per Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan). There are several significant comments that must be addressed prior to this item going to a Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. Another round of review is considered to be necessary. This proposal is subject to the 90-day revision re - submittal requirement (from the date of this comment letter, being September 18, 2003) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your red -lined plans when you re -submit. The number of copies of each document to re -submit is shown on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341. Yours Truly, Steve Olt City Planner Page 7 � ,r 0 , City of Fort Callins. Current PlanninE ROJECT COMMENT SHEF�'CzVED AUG 13 2aa3 DATE: August 12, 2003 TO: Building Inspectio a PROJECT: #49-02A INTERSTATE LAND ODP - TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: September 10, 2003 Note - PI EASE identify your redlines for future reference t'�10 _ UO 6r-n �J llrbl G o7 s pk-C 7t"5 -tl tAF, . Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS _Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape City of Fort Collins October 24, 2003 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Interstate Land ODP— First Round Comments and Responses Dear Steve: C Uo Y7g@@[P@ urban design, inc. 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 fax (970) 226-4196 e@cityscapeud.com Included below are the comments received from City Staff regarding the first round of Overall Development Plans for Interstate Land. An explanation (in italics) of how issues have been addressed follows each comment. These comments were received on September 18'", 2003. ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Ditch Easement Number:13 Created:9/16/2003 Please see the attached letter from Don Magnuson, Superintendent of the Lake Canal Company (dated August 22, 2003), regarding their position and concerns about this development proposal. We have noted the attached letter. Currently, there is no easement or R.O.W. associated with the Lake Canal. The applicant will work with the City and the Lake Canal Company on a R.O.W. dedication. The City of Fort Collins is considering a 125' R.O.W. acquisition along this canal in addition to the 50' requested by the Lake Canal Company. Cityscape has contacted both Susan Hayes and Don Magnuson regarding the proposed R.O.W.s. Susan Hayes said she would begin a conversation between the Lake Canal Company and the City of Fort Collins regarding the ROW widths for the Lake Canal. The drawings show a proposed 125' ROW width until a decision is reached between The City of Fort Collins and the Lake Canal Company. Topic: Landscape Number:17 Created:9/16/2003 Laurie D'Audney of the Utilities Department (Water Conservation) indicated that the landscape plans for future PDP's must include the City of Fort Collins "Water Conservation Standards" requirements. So noted. Thank you. Topic: Parks & Trails Number:16 Created:9/16/2003 Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department indicated that they will continue to work with this developer on the neighborhood park location and trail alignments. So noted. Thank you. Topic: Traffic Number:18 Created:9/16/2003 The proposed future traffic signals should not be shown on the ODP. The traffic signals have been removed from the plan. Page 1 Topic: Transportation Number:19 Created:9/16/2003 The future Interstate 25 & East Prospect Road interchange improvements could/should look something like the recent Interstate 25 & East Harmony Road improvements. So noted. Thank you. JR Engineering has created an exhibit showing how the Harmony Road interchange would fit at the proposed Prospect Road and 1-25 interchange. From this preliminary review, the ROW appears to be very close to allowing a Harmony Road like interchange at this intersection. An 11x17" exhibit showing this configuration has been attached to this resubmittal. Number 20 Created:9/17/2003 Per Section 2.3.2(H)(4) of the LUC, an ODP shall conform to the Master Street Plan requirements and the street pattern/connectivity standards both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the plan as required pursuant to Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.3(A) - (F) of the LUC. An alternative compliance request is needed at this time to address the lack of proposed street connections to the east, to the Frontage Road. City staff will be supportive of this request. The lack of street connections to the west will be dealt with through Section 4.1(E)(1)(b) of the LUC. Alternative Compliance has been requested for the street connection between the proposed residential area and the 1-25 Frontage Road. Topography, a substantial floodplain and a natural area designation have been the determining factors in preventing a second access point. Section 4.1 (E) (1) (b) of the LUC states "Development in this [UE] District shall be exempt from the standards contained in Section 3.6.3, Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards. " No street or pedestrian connections are proposed from this development west into the existing Larimer County residential development. Topic: Utilities Number:14 Created:9/16/2003 Mike Scheid of the East Larimer County Water District provided comments on a red -lined set of utility plans. These plans were given to Cityscape Urban Design following the staff review meeting held September 10, 2003. This information was passed on to the applicant's civil engineer. Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment. Number:15 Created:9/16/2003 Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy (Public Service Company) offered the following comments: a. Public Service Company (PSCO) has 4" gas mains along the north side of East Prospect Road and the east side of the Frontage Road to serve the proposed development area. Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment. b. PSCO will need adequate easements (15' wide) along both sides of all interior streets. PSCO will be provided the standard easements along the proposed roads within the development per the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. c. PSCO also has an existing overhead electric distribution line along the north edge of East Prospect Road. This will be required to be undergrounded (with development of the Interstate Land property) at the developer's expense. Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment. Page 2 d. PSCO will need a minimum 25' wide utility easement along the south edge of this development adjacent to the East Prospect Road right-of-way. Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment. e. Any relocation, cutoffs, and/or installations will be at the developer's expense, in accordance with the extension policy on file with the Public Utilities Commission. Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment. Most of these comments obviously relate more to future PDP submittals and development review. So noted. Thank you. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Transportation Number:21 Created:9/17/2003 Please remove the proposed traffic signal symbols and notes. The traffic signals have been removed from the plan. Number, 22 Created: 9/17/2003 Per 3.6.3 an additional connection out to the frontage road, north of the existing motorcycle dealership is needed (unless rendered as specified in the code.) City Staff has concurred that there is support in not requiring this connection. The applicant should present rationale on the ODP that such a connection is infeasible and/or submit an alternative compliance request to formalize meeting this section of code. Alternative Compliance has been requested for the street connection between the proposed residential area and the 1-25 Frontage Road. Topography, a substantial floodplain and a natural area designation have been the determining factors in preventing a second access point. Number:23 Created:9/17/2003 Please add the following notes on the ODP (per 2.3.2(H)(4) of the LUC): - The frontage road and Prospect Road does not meet current City standards. - Traffic functionality of the frontage road at Prospect Road currently does not meet acceptable level of service. - Traffic functionality of the northbound 1-25 off ramp at Prospect Road currently does not meet acceptable level of service. - The Prospect Road overpass over 1-25 does not meet current City standards. - The applicant will work with the City and CDOT with respect to transportation improvements in the area. - The City may review classification of the frontage road at the time of a PDP. - No vehicular access points to Prospect Road will be allowed for the parcel east of the frontage road. - Redesign/reconfiguration of the 1-25/Prospect Road interchange may result in an impact on the development of the site and may require additional right-of-way. - Offsite improvements may be required at the time of a PDP in order to meet level of service for all modes of transportation. - Site distance easements may be required along the public roadways at the time of PDP review. These notes have been added to the ODP. Page 3 Number:24 Created:9/17/2003 Please amend the beginning of the existing note regarding street pattern to state "Internal street pattern", not just "Street pattern". The note has been amended as stated in the comment above. Number:25 Created:9/17/2003 Please remove the word "Major' in the "Major Access Point" symbol to only read "Access Point". Additional "minor" driveway access points along the frontage road and/or Prospect Road is not anticipated. The label has been amended to read "Access Point". While "minor' driveway access points are not anticipated with this CDP, future development may desire access to the frontage road. CDOT and the City of Fort Collins will make final determinations on access to the Frontage Road at the time of PDP review. Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General Number:9 Created:9/10/2003 Will comment at preliminary plan. So noted. Thank you. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Detention Pond Sizing Number:11 Created:9112/2003 It seems that the detention ponds were sized using the rational method. At PDP SWMM modeling will be required, this could have a significant impact on the size of these ponds. The report proposes to release drainage waters from the detention ponds at rates matching the 10 and 100-year storms. It is recommended by the master plan that a 2-year release be done. The matching of the hydrograph in the 10-year storm and the 100-year storm as proposed would only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated at PDP stage that no adverse conditions are caused by such a release. Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment. Topic: Ditch Easement Number:12 Created:9/12/2003 The Lake Canal is located along the north side of the property. The ditch company is requesting that an easement be designated for the canal right of way. This easement should be 50 feet from the centerline of the canal, for a total of 100 feet wide. If the Canal is along the property line then only 50 feet would need to be provided by this development. Crossing agreements would be needed at PDP for any bridge or utility crossing of the canal. During previous discussions with City Staff, staff mentioned that they would like to see a 125' R.O.W. along the Lake Cana! for use in times of flooding. The applicant is encouraging the staff to contact the Lake Canal Company in regards to this desire and determine the appropriate amount of R.O.W. necessary for both the needs of the City and the Lake Canal Company. Please see the response to comment #13 above. Page 4 Topic: Floodplain Management Number:4 Created:9/9/2003 9/8/03 - Floodplain Management Comments - Susan Hayes The floodway for the revised Cooper Slough/Boxelder Floodplain has been adopted and will be applied to this site as it develops. Please remove any reference to "proposed" floodway on the drawings and in the report. Show both the current FEMA floodplains (including Cooper Slough) and the revised Floodplain/floodway on the drawings. It's not clear on the ODP plan whether the floodway line is shown in its entirety. Please use the work maps to correctly site the Cooper Slough floodplain. Since there are two regulatory floodplains (City and FEMA) analysis for both conditions shall be required at time of design of any facility in the floodplain. Because a floodway is not mapped in the FEMA floodplain, the floodplain is considered "no -rise". This means that you can not cause a rise in the flood level off of your property without obtaining easements from affected property owners. The existing FEMA and City floodplains and floodways are shown on the ODP per the referenced work maps. The entire Cooper Slough floodplain was not defined by the City of Fort Collins. Susan Hayes stated that the City did not map the floodplain along Cooper Slough because the flows /spill didn't warrant such efforts. Only the FEMA maps define the floodplain within Cooper Slough. In order for the ODP to realize full development potential of the property the applicant's engineer determined how the floodplain could be manipulated to provide greater developable area. The applicant maintains that a modified floodplain should remain on the ODP. This modified floodplain is shown as 'Conceptual Floodplain' and note #30 has been added to the general notes on the cover page. Any changes that are made to the no -rise floodplain or in the recently adopted floodway (fill, plantings, construction of buildings, culverts, channels, bridges, bikepaths, etc.) will need to be modeled by a registered professional engineer to document no -rise. A $300 fee is required if hydraulic modeling is necessary. Please use the City's Floodplain Modeling Guidelines for the preparation of this analysis. The proposed developed floodplain defined on the ODP was modeled by a registered engineer and used the City of Fort Collins modeling guidelines. Notes have been added to the plan that state documentation supporting the modeling of this boundary will be require at time of PDP application. Please include the benchmark number and elevation being used for the site Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment On Sheets 2 and 3 for the Overall Development Plan, what does "Future Extents of Amended Floodplain Per JR Engineering" mean? This is not discussed in the report. Please clarify. The 'Future Extents of Amended Floodplain' designation has been changed to read 'Conceptual Floodplain'. Notes have been added to the general notes section to provided a detailed definition and explanation of the 'Conceptual Floodplain'. Page 5 There needs to be sufficient notes pertaining to the floodplain and regulations on both the Overall Drainage Plan and Overall Development Plan sheets. Please add the following notes to the plans: - Any residential structures in the floodplain must have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level. - Any non-residential structures in the floodplain must either have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level or be flood -proofed 18" above the 100-year flood level. - Critical facilities are not allowed to be built in the most restrictive 100-year floodplain. Please see Chapter 10 of City Code for the definition of critical facilities. - A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for each structure that is built in the floodplain. To obtain a CO, an elevation certificate or flood -proofing certificate will be required to be submitted and approved. - A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for any construction activity in the floodplain including construction of the detention ponds and any roads. - All utilities within the most restrictive 100-year floodplain shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters. These notes have been added to the ODP. In the report please discuss the erosion buffer limits and how they will affect the design of the bridge crossing and any other drainage features. Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment. At time of PDP please use the Floodplain Review Checklist to aid in the development of a complete submittal. So noted. Thank you. Topic: Flows into Cooper Slough Number:10 Created:9/12/2003 Basin B1 is draining into the Cooper Slough. The requirement that should be met is to show no adverse impact downstream and no rise should be caused in the downstream floodway at Prospect Road. Please see JR Engineering's response letter that addresses this comment. Department: Traffic Operations Issue Contact: Eric Bracke Topic: traffic Number: 2 Created, 9/3/2003 The TIS is acceptable for the ODP submittal. As phases come into the process, additional TIS analyses will need to be completed. The project on a whole generates more than 10,000 trips/day and I will more than likely require the TIS to go west as far as Timberline/Prospect. If the uses are I- 25 related, the APF and Timberline/Prospect may need not be addressed. However, the interchange itself has APF issues as well as safety issues. Any phase will need to examine the issues in more depth and make improvements to the interchange. I do not believe it is acceptable to create another "I-25/SH392 scenario" such as Windsor is experiencing. So noted. Thank you. Also, please note that CDOT is proposing to develop a rest area south of the Welcome Center on Prospect Road. Traffic signals at the Frontage Road and northbound off -ramp may be included with this proposed construction. Page 6 Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Transportation Number Created:9/10/2003 CDOT will need to review and comment on the proposed overall development plan. There will most likely be multi -modal improvements necessary to the Prospect interchange as individual PDP's are submitted. Please consult CDOT further to address and coordinate their future plans and the upcoming environmental study regarding the 1-25 corridor. FYI - future development along Interstate 25 will need to take into account the interchange improvements. CDOT has asked for sufficient space to construct a design similar Harmony Rd. interchange. JR Engineering has created concept plans (attached) for a Harmony like interchange placed at this intersection. These plans show that the current ROW width is sufficient to allow such a structure to exist. It is noted that multi -modal improvements to the Prospect Road interchange may be necessary at time of PDP application. CDOT has been contacted regarding the pending environmental study of the 1-25 corridor. The applicant will continue to coordinate with CDOT as they go forth with these plans. Number Created:9/10/2003 Please be aware that as the PDP proposals are submitted that more detailed analysis of the transportation system and impact analysis will be required. This may lead to off site improvements, such as bicycle or pedestrian connections to surrounding destinations as identified in the Overall Development Plan's TIS (i.e. neighborhood to the west). It is noted that a more detailed analysis of the transportation system will be required at PDP. Conceptual realignment of the Boxelder Creek Trail has been shown on this ODP. This proposed realignment has been provided to allow the trail to either cross over Prospect Road at a signalized intersection or under Prospect Road at Boxelder Creek. Number:8 Created:9/10/2003 Please correct the note in parentheses on the legend for the trail, from 'Proposed per E. Mulberry Plan'to'Proposed per Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Master Plan). The note has been corrected This concludes the response to the City of Fort Collins Planning Department comments. Engineering and Utility response to comments have been provided under separate cover. All reclined plans have been included along with this second submittal. Joe Carter Cityscape Urban Design Page 7 Project Comments Sheet Selected Departments Department: Engineering Date: November 14, 2003 Project: INTERSTATE LAND ODP - TYPE II (LUC) All comments must be received by Steve Olt in Current Planning, no later than the staff review meeting: November 12, 2003 Note - Please identify your redlines for future reference Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 32 Created: 11 /10/2003 [ 1 ]/] 0/03] The ODP now shows an additional access point onto the frontage road immeadiately north of Prospect Road which was not previously known. The access point is not supported by Engineering and should be removed. Provided this access point is removed, all previous comments appear to be addressed and Engineering considers the project ready for a hearing. Signature Date CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS Plat _ ✓ Site Drainage Report Other Utility _ Redline Utility Landscape Page 1 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW ( l.ittcnt Iml (lrllim Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. Date: 11/25/2003 c/o Joe Carter 3555 Stanford Road, Suite #105 Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for INTERSTATE LAND, ODP • TYPE II (LUC), and we offer the following comments: 16�Y11X.�1 Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Floodplain Management Number: 36 Created, 11/25/2003 (11/25/03] Basil Hamdan of Stormwater offered the following comments: a. The floodway has been adopted. b. Stormwater wants a floodway/floodplain map. C. Please check the benchmark elevation that was used. The applicant is not using the 2-year storm. This must be shown at the PDP stage. Topic: General Number: 37 Created: 11/25/2003 [11/25/03] Please see the red -lined plans from Current Planning for the outstanding comments. Topic: Traffic Number: 35 Created: 11/25/2003 [11/25/03] The proposed point of access on the Frontage Road nearest East Prospect Road must be removed from the ODP. Topic: Utilities Number: 34 Created: 11/25/2003 [11/25/03] Mike Scheid of the East Larimer County Water District indicated that red -lined remarks were made on the included utility plan. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 32 Created: 11/10/2003 [11/10/03] The ODP now shows an additional access point onto the Frontage Road immediately north of Prospect Road that was not previously known. The access point is not supported by Engineering and should be removed. Provided this access point is removed, all previous comments appear to be addressed and Engineering considers the project ready for a public hearing. Page 1 Department: Stormwater Utility Topic: Detention Pond Sizing Number: 11 Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Created: 9/12/2003 [11 /17/03] Please note that these requirements will need to be met at the PDP stage. It seems that the detention ponds were sized using the rational method. At PDP SWMM modeling will be required, this could have a significant impact on the size of these ponds. The report proposes to release drainage waters from the detention ponds at rates matching the 10 and 100 year storms. It is recommended by the master plan that a 2 year release be done. The matching of the hydrograph in the 10 year storm and the 100 year storm as proposed would only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated at PDP stage that no adverse conditions are caused by such a release. Topic: Floodplain Management Number: 4 [11/17/031 Interstate Lands ODP 11/11/03 Floodplain Management Comments Susan Hayes Created: 9/9/2003 1. The floodway for the revised Cooper Slough/Boxelder Floodplain has been adopted and will be applied to this site as it develops. Please remove the reference to "proposed" floodway in the report. (Repeat comment for report.) 2. Show both the curent FEMA floodplains (including Cooper Slough) and the revised floodplain/floodway on the drawings. It's not clear on the ODP plan whether the floodway line is shown in its entirety. (Repeat comment.) Modify legend on the Overall Drainage Plan. Add F000dway to legend on Sheet 2 of the Overall Development Plan. Floodplain lines are still very difficult to see. A request has been put into the Engineer to provide a version of the Overall Drainage Plan with just the Floodplain lines so we can review it before approval. 3. Please use the FEMA work maps to correctly site the Cooper Slough floodplain. (Repeat comment.) It looks like the floodplain is still too far to the west and you have a proposed detention pond located in the correct location. The work maps are located at the Utilities office. Please contact Susan Hayes at 416-2233 to review them. 4. Please check the benchmark number and elevation being used for the site. The one shown on the plan does not appear in the City's list, unless it's a new one. 9/8/03 Floodplain Management Comments Susan Hayes The floodway for the revised Cooper Slough/Boxelder floodplain has been adopted and will be applied to this site as it develops. Please remove any reference to "proposed" floodway on the drawings and in the report. Page 2 r F � OJECT COM/lENT SHEET Ciiv of Fort Collins Current Planning REC.D DATE: August 12, 2003 TO: Technical Services PROJECT: #49-02A INTERSTATE LAND OAP — TYPE II (LUC) Vx0 All comments must be received by Steve Olt no later than the staff review meeting: September 10, 2003 Note - PLEASE identify your redlines for future reference N F- Name (please print) CHECK HERE IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE COPIES OF REVISIONS a- Gfi Plat _Site _Drainage Report _Other _Utility _Redline Utility _Landscape Citv of Fort Collin Show both the current FEMA floodplains (including Cooper Slough) and the revised floodplain/floodway on the drawings. It's not clear on the ODP plan whether the floodway line is shown in its entirety. Please use the work maps to correctly site the Cooper Slough floodplain. Since there are two regulatory floodplains (City and FEMA) analysis for both conditions shall be required at time of design of any facility in the floodplain. Because a floodway is not mapped in the FEMA floodplain, the floodplain is considered "no -rise", This means that you can not cause a rise in the flood level off of your property without obtaining easements from affected property owners. Any changes that are made to the no -rise floodplain or in the recently adopted floodway (fill, plantings, construction of buildings, culverts, channels, bridges, bikepaths, etc.) will need to be modeled by a registered professional engineer to document no -rise. A S300 fee is required if hydraulic modeling is necessary. Please use the City's Floodplain Modeling Guidelines for the preparation of this analysis. Please include the benchmark number and elevation being used for the site. On Sheets 2 and 3 for the Overall Development Plan, what does "Future Extents of Amended Floodplain Per JR Engineering" mean? This is not discussed in the report. Please clarify. There needs to be sufficient notes pertaining to the floodplain and regulations on both the Overall Drainage Plan and Overall Development Plan sheets. Please add the following notes to the plans, Any residential structures in the floodplain must have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level. Any non-residential structures in the floodplain must either have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level or be floodproofed 18" above the 100-year flood level. Critical facilities are not allowed to be built in the most restrictive 100-year floodplain. Please see Chapter 10 of City Code for the definition of critical facilities. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for each structure that is built in the floodplain. To obtain a CO, an elevation certificate or floodproofing certificate will be required to be submitted and approved. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for any construction activity in the floodplain including construction of the detention ponds and any roads, All utilities within the most restrictive 100-year floodplain shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters. In the report please discuss the erosion buffer limits and how they will affect the design of the bridge crossing and any other drainage features. At time of PDP please use the Floodplain Review Checklist to aid in the development of a complete submittal. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: General Number: 33 Created: 11/12/2003 [11/12/03] No further comments. Page 3 Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: ZONING Number: 31 Created: 11/4/2003 [11/4/03] No comment The project is considered to be ready for a Planning and Zoning Board public hearing and it has been placed on the January 15, 2004 Board hearing agenda. The following items are needed by the dates indicated below: 1 8.5" x 11,0" reduced copy of each of the 3 sheets of the Overall Development Plans, by Wednesday, December 3151. 8 full-size paper copies (folded) of the 3 sheet set of Overall Development Plans, by Friday, January 2nd. Please be sure and return all of the City staff red -lined plans when you submit the above documents. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6341. Yours Truly, GvVw� lJw� Steve Olt City Planner Page 4 December 31, 2003 Steve Olt City of Fort Collins Community Planning and P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Environmental Services Cb�Y7�@@[P* urban design, inc. RE: Interstate Land ODP— Response to second round of comments Dear Steve: 3555 stanford road, suite 105 fort collins, colorado 80525 (970) 226-4074 fax (970) 226-4196 e@cityscapeud.com Included below are the comments received from City Staff regarding the second round of Overall Development Plans for Interstate Land. An explanation (in italics) of how issues have been addressed follows each comment. These comments were received on November 25, 2003. ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Floodplain Management Number:36 Created:11/25/2003 [11/25/03] Basil Harridan of Stormwater offered the following comments: a. The floodway has been adopted. Stormwater wants a floodway/floodplain map. C. Please check the benchmark elevation that was used. d. The applicant is not using the 2-year storm. This must be shown at the PDP stage. Please see the response to comments provided by JR Engineering in their response letter. Topic: General Number:37 Created:11/25/2003 [11/25/03] Please see the red -lined plans from Current Planning for the outstanding comments. The redlined plan comments have been noted and the changes are reflected on the plans. Page 1 urban design, inc. Topic: Traffic Number:35 Created:11/25/2003 [11/25103] The proposed point of access on the Frontage Road nearest East Prospect Road must be removed from the CDP. The access point has been removed from the plans as requested. Topic: Utilities Number:34 Created:11/25/2003 [11/25/03] Mike Scheid of the East Larimer County Water District indicated that red -lined remarks were made on the included utility plan. Please see the response to comments provided by JR Engineering in their response letter. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number:32 Created:11/10/2003 [11/10/03] The CDP now shows an additional access point onto the Frontage Road immediately north of Prospect Road that was not previously known. The access point is not supported by Engineering and should be removed. Provided this access point is removed, all previous comments appear to be addressed and Engineering considers the project ready for a public hearing. The access point has been removed from the plans as requested. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Harridan Topic: Detention Pond Sizing Number:11 Created:9/12/2003 [11/17/031 Please note that these requirements will need to be met at the PDP stage. It seems that the detention ponds were sized using the rational method. At PDP SWMM modeling will be required, this could have a significant impact on the size of these ponds. The report proposes to release drainage waters from the detention ponds at rates matching the 10 and 100 year storms. It is recommended by the master plan that a 2 year release be done. The matching of the hydrograph in the 10 year storm and the 100 year storm as proposed would only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated at PDP stage that no adverse conditions are caused by such a release. Please see the response to comments provided by JR Engineering in their response letter Page 2 c0�Y� M 0 O urban design, inc. Topic: Floodplain Management Number:4 Created:9/9/2003 [11/17/031 Interstate Lands ODP 11/11/03 Floodplain Management Comments Susan Hayes 1. The floodway for the revised Cooper Slough/Boxelder floodplain has been adopted and will be applied to this site as it develops. Please remove the reference to "proposed" floodway in the report. (Repeat comment for report.) Please see the response to comments provided by JR Engineering in their response letter 2. Show both the current FEMA floodplains (including Cooper Slough) and the revised floodplain/floodway on the drawings. It's not clear on the ODP plan whether the floodway line is shown in its entirety. (Repeat comment.) Modify legend on the Overall Drainage Plan. Add Floodway to legend on Sheet 2 of the Overall Development Plan. Floodplain lines are still very cliff icult to see. A request has been put into the Engineer to provide a version of the Overall Drainage Plan with just the floodplain lines so we can review it before approval. Please see the response to comments provided by JR Engineering in their response letter 3. Please use the FEMA work maps to correctly site the Cooper Slough floodplain. (Repeat comment.) It looks like the Floodplain is still too far to the west and you have a proposed detention pond located in the correct location. The work maps are located at the Utilities office. Please contact Susan Hayes at 416-2233 to review them. Please see the response to comments provided by JR Engineering in their response letter. 4. Please check the benchmark number and elevation being used for the site. The one shown on the plan does not appear in the City's list, unless it's a new one. Please see the response to comments provided by JR Engineering in their response letter. 9/8/03 Floodplain Management Comments Susan Hayes The floodway for the revised Cooper Slough/Boxelder floodplain has been adopted and will be applied to this site as it develops. Please remove any reference to "proposed" floodway on the drawings and in the report. Show both the current FEMA floodplains (including Cooper Slough) and the revised floodplain/floodway on the drawings. It's not clear on the ODP plan whether the floodway Page 3 co,, YY @ o urban design, inc. line is shown in its entirety. Please use the work maps to correctly site the Cooper Slough floodplain. Since there are two regulatory floodplains (City and FEMA) analysis for both conditions shall be required at time of design of any facility in the floodplain. Because a floodway is not mapped in the FEMA floodplain, the floodplain is considered "no -rise". This means that you can not cause a rise in the flood level off of your property without obtaining easements from affected property owners. Any changes that are made to the no -rise floodplain or in the recently adopted floodway (fill, plantings, construction of buildings, culverts, channels, bridges, bikepaths, etc.) will need to be modeled by a registered professional engineer to document no -rise. A $300 fee is required if hydraulic modeling is necessary. Please use the City's Floodplain Modeling Guidelines for the preparation of this analysis. Please include the benchmark number and elevation being used for the site. On Sheets 2 and 3 for the Overall Development Plan, what does "Future Extents of Amended Floodplain Per JR Engineering" mean? This is not discussed in the report. Please clarify. There needs to be sufficient notes pertaining to the floodplain and regulations on both the Overall Drainage Plan and Overall Development Plan sheets. Please add the following notes to the plans: Any residential structures in the floodplain must have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level. Any non-residential structures in the floodplain must either have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level or be floodproofed 18" above the 100-year flood level. Critical facilities are not allowed to be built in the most restrictive 100-year floodplain. Please see Chapter 10 of City Code for the definition of critical facilities. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for each structure that is built in the floodplain. To obtain a CO, an elevation certificate or floodproofing certificate will be required to be submitted and approved. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for any construction activity in the floodplain including construction of the detention ponds and any roads. All utilities within the most restrictive 100-year floodplain shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters. In the report please discuss the erosion buffer limits and how they will affect the design of the bridge crossing and any other drainage features. At time of PDP please use the Floodplain Review Checklist to aid in the development of a complete submittal. Page 4 urban design, inc. These comments were addressed on the ODP by Cityscape and are shown on the ODP. Also, please see the response to comments provided by JR Engineering in their response letter. Mike Brake from JR Engineering has been in contact with the City to address these issues and the City has reviewed these plans prior to this resubmittal. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: General Number:33 Created:11/12/2003 [11/12/03] No further comments. So noted. Thank you. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Jenny Nuckols Topic: ZONING Number:31 Created:11/4/2003 [11/4/03] No comment So noted. Thank you. The project is considered to be ready for a Planning and Zoning Board public hearing and it has been placed on the January 15, 2004 Board hearing agenda. The following items are needed by the dates indicated below: 1 8.5" x 11.0" reduced copy of each of the 3 sheets of the Overall Development Plans, by Wednesday, December 31st. 8 full-size paper copies (folded) of the 3 sheet set of Overall Development Plans, by Friday, January 2"d The aforementioned plans have been included in this resubmittal. The requested quantity of plans as per the routing sheet has also been included in this resubmittal. Also included in this submittal is a jpeg file of the ODP for inclusion in the City's power point presentation_ The applicant will submit acomplete power point presentation to staff on January 7, 2004. Please be sure and return all of the City staff red -lined plans when you submit the above documents. The redlined plans have been included in this resubmittal Page 5 Project Review Response Comments City of Fort Collins 281 North College Fort Collins. Colorado 80524 JR Engineering has provided the following responses to staff review comments. ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: Ditch Easement Number: 13 Created: 9/16/2003 Please see the attached letter from Don Magnuson, Superintendent of the Lake Canal Company (dated August 22, 2003), regarding their position and concerns about this development proposal. Topic: Landscape Number: 17 Created: 9/16/2003 Laurie D'Audney of the Utilities Department (Water Conservation) indicated that the landscape plans for future PDP's must include the City of Fort Collins "Water Conservation Standards" requirements. Topic: Parks 4 Trails Number: 16 Created: 9/16/2003 Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department indicated that they will continue to work with this developer on the neighborhood park location and trail alignments. Topic: Traffic Number: 18 Created: 9/16/2003 The proposed future traffic signals should not be shown on the ODP. Topic: Transportation Number: 19 Created: 9/16/2003 The future Interstate 25 & East Prospect Road interchange improvements could/should look something like the recent Interstate 25 & East Harmony Road improvements. JR Response: Please see attached exhibit representing a potential East Harmony Road interchange layout. Page I Number: 20 Created: 9/17/2003 Per Section 2.3.2(H)(4) of the LUC, an ODP shall conform to the Master Street Plan requirements and the street pattern/connectivity standards both within and adjacent to the boundaries of the plan as required pursuant to Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.3(A) - (F) of the LUC. An alternative compliance request is needed at this time to address the lack of proposed street connections to the east, to the Frontage Road. City staff will be supportive of this request. The lack of street connections to the west will be dealt with through Section 4.1(E)(1)(b) of the LUC. Topic: Utilities Number: 14 Created: 9/16/2Q03 Mike Scheid of the East Lorimer County Water District provided comments on a red - lined set of utility plans. These plans were given to Cityscape Urban Design following the staff review meeting held September 10, 2003. 7R Response: Discussions with Mike Scheid indicate that a connection needs to happen to provide adequate water supply. A water line connection will be provided within an easement to be used for utilities only and not for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Number: 15 Created: 9/16/2003 Len Hilderbrand of Xcel Energy (Public Service Company) offered the following comments: a. Public Service Company (PSCO) has 4" gas mains along the north side of East Prospect Road and the east side of the Frontage Road to serve the proposed development area. b. PSCO will need adequate easements (15' wide) along both sides of all interior streets. 7R Response: Easements will be provided on the plat with the PDP submittal. C. PSCO also has an existing overhead electric distribution line along the north edge of East Prospect Road. This will be required to be undergrounded (with development of the Interstate Land property) at the developer's expense. d. PSCO will need a minimum 25' wide utility easement along the south edge of this development adjacent to the East Prospect Road right-of-way. Page 2 JR Response: Easements will be provided on the plat with the PDP submittal e. Any relocation, cutoffs, and/or installations will be at the developer's expense, in accordance with the extension policy on file with the Public Utilities Commission. Most of these comments obviously relate more to future PDP submittals and development review. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: Transportation Number: 21 Created: 9/17/2003 Please remove the proposed traffic signal symbols and notes. Number: 22 Created: 9/17/2003 Per 3.6.3 an additional connection out to the frontage road, north of the existing motorcycle dealership is needed (unless rendered as specified in the code.) City Stoff has concurred that there is support in not requiring this connection. The applicant should present rationale on the ODP that such a connection is infeasible and/or submit an alternative compliance request to formalize meeting this section of code. Number: 23 Created: 9/17/2003 Please add the following notes on the ODP (per 2.3.2(H)(4) of the LUC): - The frontage road and Prospect Road does not meet current City standards. - Traffic functionality of the frontage road at Prospect Road currently does not meet acceptable level of service. - Traffic functionality of the northbound I-25 off ramp at Prospect Road currently does not meet acceptable level of service. - The Prospect Road overpass over I-25 does not meet current City standards. - The applicant will work with the City and CDOT with respect to transportation improvements in the area. - The City may review classification of the frontage road at the time of a PDP. - No vehicular access points to Prospect Road will be allowed for the parcel east of the frontage road. - Redesign/reconfiqurotion of the I-25/Prospect Road interchange may result in an impact on the development of the site and may require additional right-of-way. - Off site improvements may be required at the time of a PDP in order to meet level of service for all modes of transportation. - Site distance easements may be required along the public roadways at the time of PDP review. Page 3 Number: 24 Created: 9/17/2003 Please amend the beginning of the existing note regarding street pattern to state "Internal street pattern", not just "Street pattern". Number: 25 Created: 9/17/2003 Please remove the word "Major" in the "Major Access Point" symbol to only read "Access Point". Additional "minor" driveway access points along the frontage road and/or Prospect Road is not anticipated. Department: Police Topic: General Number: 9 Will comment at preliminary plan. Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Created:9/10/2003 Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Detention Pond Sizing Number: 11 Created: 9/12/2003 It seems that the detention ponds were sized using the rational method. At PDP SWMM modeling will be required, this could have a significant impact on the size of these ponds. JR Response: Noted The report proposes to release drainage waters from the detention ponds at rates matching the 10 and 100 year storms. It is recommended by the master plan that a 2 year release be done. The matching of the hydrogroph in the 10 year storm and the 100 year storm as proposed would only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated at PDP stage that no adverse conditions are caused by such a release. JP Response: Noted Topic: Ditch Easement Number: 12 Created: 9/12/2003 The Lake Canal is located along the north side of the property. The ditch company is requesting that an easement be designated for the canal right of way. This easement should be 50 feet from the centerline of the canal, for a total of 100 feet wide. If the Canal is along the property line then only 50 feet would need to be provided by this development. Crossing agreements would be needed at PDP for any bridge or utility crossing of the canal. Page 4 JR Response: A coordination meeting needs to occur with Stormwater Utility Department and the ditch company to discuss potential improvements to Lake Conal to prevent flooding. This meeting can help coordinate necessary easements. Topic: Floodplain Management Number: 4 Created: 9/9/2003 9/8/03 Floodplain Management Comments Susan Hayes The floodway for the revised Cooper Slough/Boxelder floodplain has been adopted and will be applied to this site as it develops. Please remove any reference to "proposed" floodway on the drawings and in the report. JR Response: Done Show both the current FEMA floodplains (including Cooper Slough) and the revised floodplain/floodway on the drawings. It's not clear on the ODP plan whether the floodway line is shown in its entirety. Please use the work maps to correctly site the Cooper Slough floodplain. JR Response: Done Since there are two regulatory floodplains (City and FEMA) analysis for both conditions shall be required at time of design of any facility in the floodplain. Because a floodway is not mapped in the FEMA floodplain, the floodplain is considered "no -rise". This means that you can not cause a rise in the flood level off of your property without obtaining easements from affected property owners. JR Response: Noted Any changes that are made to the no -rise floodplain or in the recently adopted floodway (fill, plantings, construction of buildings, culverts, channels, bridges, bikepoths, etc.) will need to be modeled by a registered professional engineer to document no -rise. A $300 fee is required if hydraulic modeling is necessary. Please use the City's Floodplain Modeling Guidelines for the preparation of this analysis. Please include the benchmark number and elevation being used for the site. On Sheets 2 and 3 for the Overall Development Plan, what does "Future Extents of Amended Floodplain Per JR Engineering" mean? This is not discussed in the report. Please clarify. Page 5 JP Response: Noted. Discussion of the amended floodplain can be found in the last paragraph of section 3 of the Drainage Report. There needs to be sufficient notes pertaining to the floodplain and regulations on both the Overall Drainage Plan and Overall Development Plan sheets. Please add the following notes to the plans: Any residential structures in the floodplain must have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level. Any non-residential structures in the floodplain must either have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the most restrictive 100-year flood level or be flood -proofed 18" above the 100-year flood level. Critical facilities are not allowed to be built in the most restrictive 100-year floodplain. Please see Chapter 10 of City Code for the definition of critical facilities. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for each structure that is built in the floodplain. To obtain a CO, an elevation certificate or flood -proofing certificate will be required to be submitted and approved. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for any construction activity in the floodplain including construction of the detention ponds and any roads. All utilities within the most restrictive 100-year floodplain shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems into floodwaters. In the report please discuss the erosion buffer limits and how they will affect the design of the bridge crossing and any other drainage features. At time of PDP please use the Floodplain Review Checklist to aid in the development of a complete submittal. JP Response: Done Topic: Flows into Cooper Slough Number: 10 Created: 9/12/2003 Page 6