Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDOT POUDRE RIVER REST AREA - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 27-04 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF COLORADO) ) SS COUNTY OF BOULDER) REPORTERS CERTIFICATE I, Debra E. Payne, a professional court reporter and notary public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings, taken in the matter of the CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Relocation and recorded on August 26, 2004, at 300 West Laporte Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, was duly transcribed by me and reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 62 pages; that said transcript is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings so taken. I further certify that I am not related to, employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the case. Attested to by me this lst day of September, 2004. Debra E. Payne Meadors Court Reporting, LLC 171 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 (970)482-1506 My commission expires August 27, 2007 1 My worry is that we're letting the State go ahead 2 with this even though they're claiming 2 percent. Again, 3 I don't think that's correct, either. I think it's a 4 bigger number, more of a magnitude. And I believe the 5 State should not be allowed, given this road condition, 6 unless it's improved. And I'm a strong believer in 7 fairness. What's good for the private sector is good for 8 the public sector. And I hold the State at the same level 9 as I hold a private developer. And I keep hearing this: 10 Nope, we got to let them through because APF don't apply. 11 I think we're really sending the wrong message to the 12 community. 13 MR. TORGERSON: Jerry, did you just describe the 14 restroom as a sacred pot? The one aspect that we didn't 15 touch on at all tonight was character. And I do think 16 that you guys have done a great job with the character, 17 especially significantly better than the neighboring 18 property that would be next to this proposal. So 19 unfortunately, we always have a tendency to discuss the 20 more controversial aspects of it, but I think you guys 21 should be commended for the character that was proposed in 22 the proposal. Are there any other comments? Can we have 23 a vote, please? 24 THE CLERK: Mr. Gavaldon? 25 MR. GAVALDON: Yes. 1 transportation and Storm Water designs. I did not include 2 landscaping language. We didn't touch it, so I figured, 3 well -- that's my motion. 4 MR. TORGERSON: Is there a second? 5 MS. SCHMIDT: I'll second it. 6 MR. TORGERSON: Are there any comments? 7 MR. GAVALDON: I'm really concerned with the 8 lack of Storm Water data even though it's covered in staff 9 report and I wish we would have had Storm Water people 10 here from the City. I don't believe -- and this is my own 11 opinion -- that the transportation study covered the area 12 adequately enough given the magnitude which it lacks 13 totally. The accident rate data seems very small. And 14 the improvements are very small compared to what the 15 magnitude of users will be using this rest area given its 16 new location. I have not even touched on the architecture 17 or characteristics, but I'll leave that for another day. 18 But I just feel like we are approving something that we do 19 not have a lot of information on. And I believe we are 20 making some big mistakes here. 21 MR. TORGERSON: Any other thoughts? Bridgette? 22 MS. SCHMIDT: I agree with the motion just 23 because I'm basically worried. I think the traffic lights 24 would be a definite improvement in the area. I think 25 there would be a great improvement, especially with just 1 relative to your site plan? 2 MR. STEIN: We do know and we've got mapping 3 with us today. And it was in the reports that you've seen 4 -- we've given to the City. We do know what the existing 5 floodway is. That's been mapped by the City; they've 6 given that to us. We do know where our building is 7 located relative to that existing floodway. We're 8 designing our system around that existing floodway. 9 MR. TORGERSON: So is the existing building in 10 the floodway? Not the existing building, the proposed 11 building? 12 MR. STEIN: The proposed building is 13 horizontally within the floodway boundary. We're 14 raising -- we're going to be raising that structure 15 vertically to get it outside the floodway. 16 MR. TORGERSON: I thought -- Sally, you have the 17 new floodplain regulations, but I thought the policy that 18 we were going toward, in terms of Stormwater, was that we 19 would not do work in the floodway. But we were expanding 20 things that could be done within the floodplain; that we 21 weren't going to allow anyone to do work within the 22 floodway. That's just my recollection from the 23 presentation. Does anyone -- 24 MR. GAVALDON: I agree with you there. 25 MR. TORGERSON: It's too bad nobody from I MR. GLOSS: Probably two answers to that 2 question. First is the statutory limitation. Under the 3 State law, you're required to review this application 4 within 60 days of the receipt of the application -- 5 complete application, and that is -- we are within that 6 time. So you're obligated to do that review. 7 Secondly, our City Stormwater staff has been working 8 with CDOT for quite some time on this project. It goes 9 back several months. And we have been working with them 10 through these Stormwater issues and, from the perspective 11 of the Stormwater staff, and I have spoken to three 12 members of the staff going all the way up to upper level 13 management, their perspective is that they're satisfied 14 that the standards can be met with this development 15 application. 16 MR. TORGERSON: Okay, thank you. 17 MS. WAMHOFF: Based on -- I have a little bit of 18 information. This is based on comments that were in the 19 comment letter that went back to the applicant from 20 Stormwater dated September 6 or August 6, I guess. 21 Getting ahead. It states here that the City needs to 22 submit the floodplain mapping to FEMA by the end of 23 September. 24 So with that, it also states here, based on 25 conversations between CDOT and the City and FEMA, it was 1 floodway. I just heard that this is floodway. 2 MR. STEIN: It's both floodway and floodplain in 3 our system. 4 MR. TORGERSON: And it's a 6-inch floodway? 5 MR. STEIN: I don't have the exact terms on the 6 exact depth of the floodway, but it's less than a foot 7 through our parking lot area. Through the process we're 8 defining the floodway to the west side of our project, 9 west of our building, nearing the location where it's at 10 right now. But across our parking lot, it seems to be 11 less than 6 inches of floodway through our parking lot. 12 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. Thank you. 13 MS. CRAIG: Another question in that regard. Is 14 the bridge -- however they're getting across Boxelder into 15 their site, how are they addressing that as far as the 16 floodplain and stuff? I know usually there is special 17 engineering that you need to use so that it doesn't cause 18 blockage, etc. Maybe Sherry could answer that? 19 MS. WAMHOFF: That's being -- since it's just a 20 driveway coming in, any of that criteria within the 21 floodway is being reviewed by the Stormwater Department. 22 So unfortunately, I can't provide you with information in 23 regards to how they're reviewing that structure. 24 MS. CRAIG: Okay, but you might be able to help 25 me. On their master plan, they showed that culvert which 1 City of Fort Collins floodplain as well as the FEMA 2 floodplain, or just the FEMA floodplain? 3 MR. STEIN: Currently there's no FEMA floodplain 4 in the rest area proper. There's a recently adopted City 5 floodplain or that will be adopted that FEMA has, 6 according to Matt Fader. FEMA has adopted the City 7 mapping to date and they are working through this map 8 program over the next year, I believe, to get that fully 9 adopted. The Boxelder has an established floodplain, but 10 the area to the west where the site is has no established 11 floodplain til recently. The City has established said 12 floodplain. 13 MR. TORGERSON: Okay. And you're saying that 14 the re -mapping is really just establishing what the 15 existing conditions are and where the floodplain and 16 floodway are right now? 17 MR. STEIN: I understand that the City's going 18 through a process across the City to upgrade their 19 mapping. And that particular area is just being upgraded 20 as part of that process. We've helped the City with some 21 with some topography in the area, to upgrade it to 22 existing condition. Our process -- the new grading that 23 we're going to be proposing does not change that existing 24 condition. We have to still adhere to the no -rise 25 condition downstream of our project. I MS. CRAIG: Exactly. No rise. 2 MR. GLOSS: Correct. And as I said, there's 3 analysis that's been done. And FEMA representatives and 4 our staff and CDOT have been working together on, 5 essentially, a map change that would be compliant with our 6 requirements. 7 MS. CRAIG: Okay, so by changing the map, we 8 rearrange the area so it no longer has to comply? 9 MR. GLOSS: I don't know that I would use those 10 words. I think the design of the site as I understand it, 11 with these changes, will make it compliant with our 12 standards. That's how it was explained to me by the 13 Stormwater staff. 14 MS. WAMHOFF: I may be wrong in this, but I 15 would guess that part of the map change is due to the 16 grading changes. As they create and fill and cut in 17 different areas, it's going to bring where that water 18 comes out onto the site differently, and so that's a map 19 change. Even though it may not effect the water levels or 20 anything downstream because they're all accommodating it 21 on site. But by modifying those grades, that line -- the 22 edge of that line can move. And that is part of what the 23 map change would be. 24 MS. CRAIG: Okay. So this goes back to the 25 no -rise. By changing the grade so that it does not impact 1 MR. GLOSS: That's my understanding. 2 MR. STANFORD: It -- just on basic level of 3 service values alone,, it could allow additional 4 development strictly from that characteristic. Small that 5 it would be, but it could. But its existing condition, as 6 you stated, could also, as long as they stayed below 2 7 percent of the delay and -- 8 MS. CRAIG: So if they knock this down to a B. 9 it could be really a pretty good size project to knock it 10 back down to an F. 11 MR. STANFORD: Depending on how it interacts 12 with that interchange in that area. That's why I say just 13 strictly looking at the character B or C level of service, 14 yes, I have to answer that it could have additional 15 capacity for development. But looking at the overall 16 picture of how it will provide that, how it will work in 17 the future, that would also come into play as to whether 18 we could allow much development or not until more 19 substantial improvements are done. 20 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Another question in a 21 different subject, and I apologize for not catching this 22 at work session that we filled full of many things that 23 day and that is the Boxelder Floodway. And Sherry might 24 be able to answer this since I don't see anybody else here 25 from Stormwater unless, Cameron, you feel comfortable 1 object events. 2 MR. GLOSS: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I believe 3 you do have that information. There's some summary sheets 4 in the back. It's page 5, there. I think it does have 5 Accident Data, Existing Rest Area, that's the center 6 section on page 5. I think it talks about that. And also 7 page 7 which is also included in your packets. It's the 8 preceding page. 9 MR. TORGERSON: Great. Thank you, Cameron. 10 Other questions? Sally? 11 MS. CRAIG: Cameron, I wanted some reassurance. 12 I know when the ODPs came through on the various corners 13 of this interchange, and we discussed the fear of if we 14 approved the ODP, can they fragment it to a point of 15 something coming in. And you pretty much reassured us to 16 the point of maybe a couple of houses could come in, and 17 that was it. And this bring me back to the 1,100 vehicles 18 a day that they're adding to the system. How does that 19 fit in the formula? 20 MR. GLOSS: Everything I mentioned in the past 21 stands true today. As the applicant's consulting traffic 22 engineer stated, there are a series of public improvements 23 that are improving the condition. We have the three 24 traffic signals, and the turn lane that's being added to 25 make this both a safer condition and one that handles 1 the signal will absolutely improve that. Cause what we 2 see out there is that frustration of being stacked in 3 those lines so long that people are taking the will to 4 take the smaller and smaller gaps. And that's where a lot 5 of the accidents are coming from at the interchange. 6 MR. GAVALDON: So CDOT should be putting those 7 lights in because of safety regardless of rest stop goes 8 or not. That's the way I see it. Even though you have 9 funding mechanisms, its almost sacred pots of this money, 10 sacred pots of that money. We got sacred pot of rest stop 11 money so we can make these improvements, but we got to 12 move a rest stop. Is that how it's working, sir? 13 MR. GRAHAM: What our purpose is, is to -- we 14 are wanting to move the rest area off -site. In order to 15 make that work, we recognize that that interchange won't 16 work for a rest area unless we make improvements to it. 17 So we are, as part of this project, just to reiterate, as 18 part of this project, we're making these improvements to 19 allow that to happen so it can be used readily by traffic. 20 MR. GAVALDON: Any other time, no, we don't have 21 the money then, right? 22 MR. GRAHAM: As far as funding, I mean, that's 23 kind of a larger issue than what I'm prepared to talk 24 about today. So I'm not -- I don't have the money handy, 25 but I can just say that I don't have access to it. 1 conclude the accident rate on I-25 interchange with 2 Prospect? Do you know what the number is? Is that still 3 the same -- 33? 4 MR. STANFORD: As I read through the study, what 5 I saw was that the accident rate was more described at the 6 interchange. The northbound had 62 percent of the 7 accident rate and whatnot, so I thought it was more 8 related to the interchange, and our discussions were more 9 relevant about that. 10 MR. GAVALDON: Well, there was two of them. One 11 occurring at the rest stop itself and one at the 12 interchange. And I saw the same numbers, the same 13 percentages, but I just want to know what the total 14 numbers were of accidents at Prospect and I-25. 15 MR. STANFORD: That's not a count that we keep 16 seeing as how that's a State area. I think we've got one 17 year of a count and that's it. And so it did not 18 correlate -- We didn't have data to correlate against 19 their data. That would be data that the State police 20 kept -- 21 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, sir, would you have that 22 data or the traffic engineer? 23 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, that data is available. 24 MR. GAVALDON: Is there a way we can have a 25 number now? You have it with you? 1 tend to exaggerate what the needs are for some of these 2 roadways if the speeds are even reasonable, if we're not 3 talking about a high speed roadway. 4 And if you've been in New York, people drive pretty 5 aggressively and relativly fast. And where I was, you 6 could see it was obviously being accommodated. Again, 7 it's not that scientific, but I'm just throwing that out 8 as maybe kind of a possible example of a roadway that can 9 work. It's more constrained than some of the roads that 10 we have, and people learn to work with that, within that 11 condition. 12 MR. TORGERSON: That's a fair point. We should 1. 13 probably share that photo with PFA. But that's off the 14 subject. Dave? 15 MR. LINGLE: You had mentioned that one of the 16 stimulus for the traffic signals is a safety issues, 17 what's becoming a safety issue with cars backing out 18 completely onto the travel through -lanes and, 19 unfortunately, I get caught in that once in a while. The 20 question I have is, if it is a safety issue, why wouldn't 21 you go ahead and put the signals in anyway, regardless of 22 the rest area project? 23 MR. GRAHAM: Well, signalization -- I mean, you 24 know, we have different funding mechanisms of how we 25 prioritize, how we spend our money, where we can spend our 1 that. And I guess my thought is, if two of those tried to 2 pass on this bridge, they're not going to pass. 3 MR. STANFORD: You might give that on a true 4 possibility of very small, ever happening. There's some 5 of those issues where they are just a little bit over size 6 that, yes, we let them work it out. The possibility of 7 them meeting each other, not recognize it, being in such a 8 large span that they couldn't tell that each other are 9 going to meet, is really small and remote. 10 If you think about how many curves we might have 11 where that site visibility is too short to see another 12 very, very large vehicle. Or a bridge that's so long 13 around here that you couldn't tell that and let one of 14 them back off and let the other come. So a lot of those 15 conditions we do just let them pass on their own cause 16 they work it out. It's typical standard practice. 17 MR. TORGERSON: Do you recall -- I'm not sure if 18 this is a question for you or perhaps Cameron -- what the 19 minimum road width that we allow in development nowadays 20 is? Isn't it more than 26? 21 MR. STANFORD: Typical minimum? 22 MR. TORGERSON: The minimum road width that a 23 developer could develop. 24 MR. STANFORD: I think we have -- In fact, 25 Sherry may have a better answer on that, but I want to say 1 City. And I think that's the base concern that we have. 2 What did you say the width of that bridge was? 3 MR. GRAHAM: I think it's 26. Travel way is 26 4 feet. The bridge itself is in good condition. It's 5 obsolete. And so it actually functions well; it's not in 6 danger of collapse or anything. But it's narrow, and so 7 it's obsolete. And so we know that it's undersized, 8 however, we don't have -- because it's in good condition, 9 there's no reason to -- other than the obsolete part -- 10 there's no reason to replace it at this point. It's more 11 of a narrowness issue. 12 The conflicts that we're getting on the interstate 13 are high speed conflicts as opposed to low speed 14 conflicts. And the geometry that we will be able to get 15 for trucks turning left -- the conflict points -- the 16 trucks should be able to make that turn. And so -- 17 MR. TORGERSON: -- should be able to. 18 MR. GRAHAM: Should be able to. Right. 19 MR. TORGERSON: The other question I had is, 20 what about wide loads? It seems like a wide load and a 21 semi can't pass in 26 feet. They just don't get off at 22 the rest stops? 23 MR. GRAHAM: They generally don't. I would 24 expect that that would not be something that we have much 25 -- that we have -- you know, I'm not sure how the permits 1 backlog than you're possibly expecting. 2 MS. WILKINSON: It's something that we did 3 consider in the course of our analysis. Because of the 4 limitations of the bridge, we're not in a position to put 5 in those left -turn lanes, then, that would have those 6 left -turn lanes go up and over the bridge. 7 As a part of our analysis, there's a couple of things 8 we can do. Because the through traffic is so minimal at 9 the moment, our analysis is showing that there is not a 10 significant backup that occurs regularly because of that 11 kind of a situation. If we found in later years once the 12 signals have gone up and that that's occurring, then we 13 can always look at altering the phasing of those signals. 14 Because you only have three approach lights at that 15 signal, you can look at altering the phasing and doing 16 sprints and some sort of a split phasing where you're 17 allowing those lefts to go together with the throughs. So 18 you're actually giving them a green arrow instead of just 19 a permissive turn. So I think there's a couple of 20 different things that we can do, in terms of signal 21 timing, if that were to become an issue. The analysis 22 that we did, at least initially in these first about 10 23 years or so, doesn't indicate that to become a real 24 substantial problem. 25 MR. TORGERSON: I guess I had a question for 1 the best way to capture traffic through Fort Collins. I 2 mean, where it's located it's south of 287, 14, it 3 captures I-25 traffic going north and southbound. And so, 4 for them to move their facilities, they've recently 5 upgraded their facilities as well, to do the weigh-in 6 motion, so it'doesn't accomplish the same thing moving 7 further north. So we have considered it, and it's 8 considered not feasible. It doesn't work with the way the 9 Port works. 10 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. I have a couple other 11 traffic questions. On the road that's Prospect eastbound, 12 will there be an opportunity -- will that be wide enough 13 so if someone is at the traffic light waiting to go east, 14 that cars will also be able to get on to the interstate, 15 or will that back up? 16 MS. WILKINSON: Are you talking about the 17 intersection at the western frontage road or at one of the 18 ramp terminals? 19 MS. SCHMIDT: At one of the ramp terminals. 20 MS. WILKINSON: The western ramp terminal 21 wouldn't need a left-hand turn lane because that's the 22 traffic that's coming off of I-25. And on the east side 23 of the interchange, the width of the bridge limits us to 24 just a single approach lane. 25 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. So what I see happening 1 So we have a rest area that we combined at Sterling 2 on I-76 that's functioning well. Trucks are using it. 3 That particular one is also combined with a rest area. 4 And they're finding that it is drawing traffic to the 5 Welcome Center as well. So I think there are going to be 6 those truckers who will pass because it's not quite as 7 convenient as driving directly off the interstate. There 8 are going to be those who drive beyond it. But it's not a 9 significant number. 10 As far as talking to trucking associations, the State 11 of Colorado Department of Transportation talks with the 12 Colorado Motor Carriers Association fairly regularly, so 13 we keep in pretty close touch because what we do effects 14 them greatly. And they understand what we're doing here 15 as a general program. 16 Other things with the rest area: We're putting 25 17 spaces in. And not all truckers use our facilities. If 18 you drive down the road to Johnson's Corner, they just 19 made an incredibly large expansion on their truck stop to 20 draw truckers in. So we're not the only facility. So 21 those who drive by ours will be captured by other truck 22 stops down the road. 23 MS. CRAIG: Okay. Cause I have noticed, 24 especially late at night, that on both sides your rest 25 area is used quite a bit by truckers. And the change of, I MS. WILKINSON: Currently? 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah. 3 MS. WILKINSON: Very few. It's less than 2 4 percent. And then our truck percentages, again, they'll 5 vary depending on the time of day and the time horizon 6 once the rest area gets there. 7 MR. TORGERSON: Sally? 8 MS. CRAIG: I'm not sure if I need to direct 9 this question to you or if I need to direct it to 10 Mr. Graham. Since the trucks are going to be the ones 11 that are impacted the most from taking this off the 12 interstate and making it, you know, worrying about the 13 turns, the signals, etc. etc., how much time did you spend 14 discussing this with them? Was this -- did you try to 15 talk to truckers? Did you try to -- I know -- I'm not 16 sure if they have an association, or if there's a way that 17 you can get your message out to them. But I would be very 18 interested on their perspective of what you're doing. And 19 I'm wondering what CDOT did in that regard. 20 MS. WILKINSON: I think it's -- we talked about 21 the possibility as rest areas become single -sided areas 22 and not double -sided areas that are what we call 23 off -system, so they don't have direct on- and off -ramps 24 off the interstates, that there is always the possibility 25 that there will be somewhat fewer trucks utilizing the I MS. WILKINSON: So you think that -- 2 MR. GAVALDON: And maybe July should have been 3 used because tourism has gone down a little bit in August 4 because everyone's going back to school. So, you know, we 5 may disagree but -- 6 MS. WILKINSON: So it would be your 7 understanding that the percent of trucks is 50 percent 8 higher in August than it is in April? 9 MR. GAVALDON: No, I'm saying your volume -- 10 your numbers you used in April should be 50 percent 11 higher. But that's just a difference of numbers there. 12 So I'm just concerned that moving this, and with the 13 traffic study, I think we're missing the magnitude of 14 impact that this is having on the current crossover of 15 Prospect Road from I-25. And I'm really having to 16 struggle in whether to support this idea. I'll just leave 17 it like that. 18 MR. TORGERSON: Jerry, I think Bridgette has a 19 follow up question. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: I was just wondering if you know 21 right now how many trucks go off northbound and use that 22 ramp off Prospect. Cause I would imagine that a lot of 23 them exit on Harmony or Mulberry or use the rest stop. I 24 drive by that area but it's usually on the weekends. And 25 I have never noticed, although I've noticed the traffic 1 MS. WILKINSON: Especially in the summer months. 2 And so we recognize that and included it in our analysis. 3 One of the other things that I think I heard in one of 4 your comments had to do perhaps with the length of trucks 5 and whether they're singles or doubles. And in all of our 6 analysis in each of the turning movements, and this is a 7 little bit unusual for a typical traffic study, but we 8 knew this was a little bit more specialized, for every 9 single one of the turning movements, we calculated what 10 the truck percentage would be of the volume of that 11 turning movement. 12 So for instance, all the people that are traveling 13 northbound and coming off onto the Prospect Street 14 interchange and making that left-hand turn, we figured out 15 what the percentage of trucks would be in that particular 16 movement. And we included that in our analysis because, 17 you're absolutely right, it's very important to make sure 18 that you include and accommodate for that length. 19 Generally a truck is about the same length as at least 20 three cars -- 21 MR. GAVALDON: How about a triple? 22 MS. WILKINSON: I'm sorry? 23 MR. GAVALDON: A triple? 24 MS. WILKINSON: Well, it's something that we 25 take -- we have an average of about what general truck 1 supporting this because I think the State should pay their 2 fair share of growth development. And it's not for the 3 traffic engineer, it's for you. I'd like to know why the 4 State's not willing to help us out to make this road far 5 more safer than it is. Can you help me with that? Any 6 comment on that? 7 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, I think Martina -- we rely on 8 our traffic studies to make the determinations that we did 9 for the interchange. And I think Martina would be better 10 able to address your question.-4 11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. Thank you, sir, I 12 appreciate your time. 13 MS. WILKINSON: I think there's a couple of 14 things there in your comments. Maybe you can help me 15 better understand what some of them were. I know one of 16 your comments had to do with the increased -- 17 MR. GAVALDON: I can't hear you at all, ma'am. 18 MS. WILKINSON: I'm sorry. One of the comments 19 that you had, had to do with the increase of traffic by 20 20 percent. And you felt like that should be an increase of 21 50 percent. 22 MR. GAVALDON: 50 percent by the magnitude 23 factor. 24 MS. WILKINSON: The 20 percent that we increased 25 our traffic by is to increase our volumes of the car 1 approved it. And we believe that that is the direction 2 that the State of Colorado is going. We are consolidating 3 rest areas throughout the State, and we're kind of at the 4 cutting edge up here in Northern Colorado. But it's 5 consistent with our plan. 6 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. You said earlier that this 7 is one of the busiest rest stops; is that true? 8 MR. GRAHAM: It's a high volume rest area. Yes, 9 you could say it is probably one of the busiest rest 10 areas. 11 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, so going back to where you 12 want to move it to, and the overpass at Prospect not going 13 to be wider, and you think you're going to signalize it 14 and improve it. But no other entity or property owner can 15 develop except only CDOT because they're putting in 16 traffic lights. But if CDOT would pitch in and help pay 17 for the widening of the road, then we can allow these 18 other folks to develop. Are you willing to do that? 19 MR. GRAHAM: We're not taking -- the 20 improvements that we're putting in there are not for -- 21 they are for the facilities that we are putting in place. 22 It's not our intent to improve the interchange for other 23 developers in the area. 24 MR. GAVALDON: Okay. I can understand your 25 point, but to me seeing the State getting away with not 1 MR. GRAHAM: Well, as a part of this program, I 2 mean, it's more than just -- we've got the facilities that 3 have been upgraded, but they're not built to a newer 4 standard. It's -- the turns on the rest area -- the 5 highway, when it was designed, was built back in 1965 and 6 the design -- 7 MR. GAVALDON: -- 1958 under the Interstate Act 8 by President Eisenhower, huh? 9 MR. GRAHAM: Yes. But they were built to an 10 older standard. And at that time, they were designed to a 11 70 mile -an -hour design speed. We're at higher design 12 speeds now. If you go to the ramps, as they go, it's a 13 quick exit. We are limited -- the location is limited. 14 It's close proximity to Harmony Road, so we're limited to 15 acceleration lanes to get off of the -- to get back onto 16 the interstate. To get off, it's a quick exit. 17 We just don't have the geometrics there to make 18 expansions practical. Also, combining the two rest areas 19 into one site, it's easier for us to manage, it's easier 20 for us to perform maintenance on, we won't have to travel 21 from both sides. So there's just some savings there. 22 It's just easier to police one site rather than two sites. 23 MR. GAVALDON: Secondly, have you looked at 24 doing some geometric changes to the deacceleration and the 25 acceleration lanes versus trying to move them to another a 1 percent additional traffic, I think, is really an excellent 2 trade off for the City and the community. 3 Now what these improvements do not do, is that they do 4 not accommodate a huge regional mall in the northeast 5 corner. They do not accommodate substantial huge 6 developments on the east part. They do accommodate 7 regional growth over the course of probably the next 10 8 years or so. But beyond that point, I think everybody 9 recognizes that the interchange will need to be rebuilt 10 whether or not the rest area is there. But in the 11 meantime, we see this very much as being an interim 12 solution that can benefit the community here. It's a 13 safety improvement, and then it allows the rest area 14 traffic to have access. With that, thank you. 15 MR. TORGERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone in 16 the audience that would like to speak to this item before 17 the Board? Okay, seeing none, I'll close public input and 18 bring it back to the Board for questions. Jerry? 19 MR. GAVALDON: Would the project manager from 20 CDOT come down. And then I'll have questions for Ward. 21 MR. TORGERSON: Actually, it's on, he's just not 22 speaking into it. 23 MR. GAVALDON: Can you hear me now? Okay, sir, 24 blunt question. Why isn't CDOT willing to participate in 25 the widening of east Prospect overchange? 1 So the arrival rates for trucks vary anywhere between 2 one every 2 to 3 minutes during the peak in the middle of 3 the afternoon, to one every 20 minutes or so in the middle 4 of the night. So if we add rest area traffic to this 5 interchange, the impacts that we're looking at in terms of 6 total volume during the peak morning or the peak evening is 7 about 2 to 3 percent additional traffic in the morning, and 8 7 to 8 percent additional traffic in the evening peak. 9 By comparison, and a lot of people have asked, well, 10 you know, how does this compare to other developments that 11 have been proposed in this area? And again, we're looking 12 at maybe 1,100 vehicles per day that are coming into the 13 rest area. For instance, some of the other developments 14 that have been proposed in that area, like the Paradigm 15 Development, was looking at 11,000 vehicles a day. And the 16 mixed use development that is on the northeast corner -- 17 that was proposed on the northeast corner of that 18 interchange -- was looking at over 18,000 vehicles a day. 19 So in comparison, the volumes -- the additional volumes 20 that we're looking at is really on the order of about 10 21 times less than some of these other developments that have 22 come in, that have been under consideration. 23 The improvements that we're talking about, and I think 24 you mentioned some of those, are three traffic signals, one 25 at each of the ramp terminals. The northbound ramp 1 signal up, then that level of service goes from a level of 2 service F to something like a level of service B. 3 So perhaps you're asking why on earth would we want 4 to take an interchange that's currently failing and then 5 add rest area traffic to it. And that's certainly a 6 question that we asked ourselves when we first began the 7 project about 2 years ago. 8 The existing Poudre'River rest area -- we took quite 9 a bit of time to go out and do a number of traffic counts 10 out at the rest area to try to get a better idea of 11 exactly the kind of traffic that's coming in, the kind of 12 traffic that's going out: what are trucks, what are cars, 13 and what's their distribution throughout the day. We did 14 what's called a 72-hour count out there where we lay the 15 tubes across the off -ramps. And it's a classification 16 count that tells us which cars or which are trucks that 17 are coming into the rest area. We chose the days that we 18 did that for by talking to CDOT and talking to the 19 caretaker that lives out there, to identify the peak days 20 during the week when the rest area traffic is the highest, 21 and that generally is from Thursday to Saturday. And 22 those are the three days we chose to do those counts. 23 We also recognize that when we did the counts, that 24 those were taken in April. And we looked at a lot of the 25 automatic traffic counters that are along I-25 to try to 1 little bit of clarification. And then, certainly, we can 2 sort of expound upon that once you get to your questions. 3 The existing interchange, and it's shown here on the 4 aerial, is one that's a relatively tight diamond 5 configuration of an interchange. The ramp terminals are 6 about 550 feet apart. The benefit of this particular 7 interchange is that the frontage road locations have been 8 relocated out to a regular spacing of a frontage road. 9 So, unlike an interchange, such as the one at 392 in 10 Windsor, those frontage roads have been relocated so that 11 they provide adequate spacing for future signalization of 12 the interchange. 13 The bridge across the interstate currently is a very 14 narrow two-lane bridge. It is only 26 feet in width, and 15 we're not currently proposing to widen that bridge. It's 16 not a part of this project. 17 The existing traffic at the interchange -- west of 18 the interchange -- is running about 18,000 vehicles a day. 19 East of the interchange you're only seeing about 2,000 to 20 3,000 vehicles a day, so there's a huge difference in the 21 traffic -- in the existing traffic that you're seeing at 22 the interchange. 23 When we run a capacity analysis on the intersections 24 that are at the ramp terminals, especially the 25 intersection that's on the east side, the northbound ramp 1 project is to -- we will abandon our old facilities and 2 return those back to native conditions. And, of course, 3 that's right on the Poudre River Corridor. So the 4 southbound rest area site, then, will become property of 5 the City of Fort Collins. So the site that we're going to 6 has 12 acres, and we're going to be exchanging those for 7 the 27 acres that we presently are occupying. 8 Cameron pretty much went through with what's going on 9 the new site. We've worked extensively with City staff 10 here for the last couple of years, basically, to make sure 11 that we've been compatible with City ideals. And we want 12 to be a good neighbor, so we've basically have done what 13 we can to meet the goals of City staff. 14 And so -- and we're pretty proud of this rest area 15 site because it actually is going to be a very 16 nice -looking site. It's going to be compatible -- maybe 17 improve what's already out there at the existing Welcome 18 Center. And we -- the existing land is managed by natural 19 resources, and we went before their Board. And they 20 approved this site and thought that it was a good match. 21 So, some of benefits to the City, in addition to 22 getting the new natural area, we're going to be putting 23 the signals up at the intersection as we had discussed. 24 And that's about a half a million dollars of improvement. 25 And just overall, that's just -- just that in itself is 1 you specifically raised in the work session. 2 There are several public improvements that relate to 3 traffic on the site. First, there will be a signalization 4 at the ramps themselves as you come off of I-25 and get 5 onto I-25. There will be signals there. The northbound 6 approach on the ramp terminal will be re -striped to help 7 channelize traffic for a left turn into the site. And 8 there will also be some pavement improvements along both 9 Prospect and the frontage road. We do have design 10 standards for these roadways, and they would be fully 11 meeting all of those design standards. And that would 12 include provision for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 13 Our traffic operations staff has looked at the study 14 in great detail. Ward Stanford from our staff is here to 15 answer any questions that you have, but from our 16 perspective, this is an interim measure. It addresses the 17 immediate needs of this facility. I think the staff 18 acknowledges that there are additional issues about that 19 interchange that, over time, will need to be addressed as 20 development occurs. We don't see these improvements, as I 21 just mentioned, allowing additional development in the 22 immediate future and helping those along the way without 23 these interchange improvements. 24 So with that, the staff has concluded that all three 25 criteria are met, and we're recommending that you approve I State Transportation Commission. And they will decide 2 whether they would like to uphold the decision of the 3 Board or conduct a public hearing and take a separate 4 action. 5 I have an aerial photograph behind me that, I think, 6 pretty clearly shows the site. It's, as I said, on the 7 south side of the road about a quarter of a mile west of 8 I-25. It fronts onto the I-25 frontage road. You have 9 parking for 53 automobiles, and 9 recreational vehicle 10 spaces, and 25 truck spaces. There's also a couple of 11 other buildings that are shown on the site plan. There's 12 a maintenance building with a garage, and there are also 13 some picnic shelters. They would front and be adjacent to 14 the wildlife habitat in the City of Fort Collins, a 15 natural area which is located to the west and south of the 16 site. And there's some landscaping you see shone in the 17 landscape plan that would provide a buffer to that area 18 and provide a transition to that habitat. 19 Three criteria that we use to evaluate this project: 20 First is the location, and when we say location, it's 21 relative to specific site conditions and then within the 22 Fort Collins community. Based on City Plan and the 23 specific implementing plan of City plan, in this case I-25 24 sub -area plan, staff believes that the location is 25 appropriate. This does provide an attractive gateway into 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Held August 26, 2004 At City Council Chambers 300 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Relocation 27-04 Commission members present: Mikal Torgerson, Chair Jerry Gavaldon Bridgette Schmidt Sally Craig Jennifer Carpenter Dave Lingle Judy Meyer Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 17 area as well as a separate structure for an equipment garage. The site is located south of Prospect Road and west of 1-25. Zoning is RC and POL — River Conservation and Public Open Lands. Staff Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Please see the verbatim minutes for this item. Project: Spring Green Out -of -City Utility Request Description: Request to extend City sanitary sewer service fro an existing main serving the LaPorte Area to a 5 cre County property known as the Spring GrepnPD, a 27-unit residential development, and o er County residences currently served by se systems. The property is generally located n and east of Overland Trail and south o e Poudre River and abuts the Fort Collins wth Management Area and LaPorte Sanitation trict boundaries. Staff Recommendation: NOTE: Member Carpenter decked a conflict obis item. Current Planning Directo ameron Gloss gave the sta resentation, recommending approval. He stated th this is a request for the Board's re mmendation to the General Manager tility Services for City water and sewer service to be provided to a property lying o ide the City limits, in the south end of the LaPo)ltqarea. The site is known as th pring Green PD, a 27-unit residential project current nder review in Larimer C nty. The General Manager of Utility Services is the person o has the sole discre ' n to make this decision but in the case where more than one unit is king for se e, the application is referred to the P&Z Board and the Water Board for r ommendations. The Water Board did examine this request and made a unanim s recommendation of approval. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes August 26, 2004 Page 16 create an overall effect and, unless there is an overriding reason why the project work somewhere else, we need to stick to the plans. She stated that the Board tiqnied other groups that have come in to change an employment area to all h Sh stated that she would not be supporting the motion. Member gle stated that he struggled with the employment issue a64ell and did think he was not ing to support the modification. However, listening t e testimony and input from the c munity has led him to look at the 25% not a firmly and as it may be a moveable numbe , rimarily because it wasn't based on aq thing to begin with. He stated that he apprecia d the information regarding the potential sites and could see why this site was ideal in t s of its level ground annialkability to other services. Member Schmidt stated that a loi f the se distance, as they are across Harmo Roa would be feasible for this type of projec . may not really be within walking added that there are other sites that Chairperson Torgerson noted that t criteria whether there are other sites is not really one the Board should be ng; it is really a after of whether it is detrimental to the public good and whetherjt4mpairs the intent an"urposes of the Land Use Code. Member Gavaldon sta* agreement with Chairperson T Chairperson Torg6rson stated that it is probably a pretty gray area as to whether or not this is truly a econdary use, given the fact that the cottages will ha access to many of the assist living services. It certainly does not appear to be detrimen to the public good pd it obviously addresses a community need. For those reasons, C irperson T rg6rson stated that he would be supporting the modification. The motion was approved 5-2 with Members Schmidt and Craig voting in the negative. Project: CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Relocation, Site Plan Advisory Review, File #27-04 Project Description: Request for a site plan advisory review for construction of a CDOT rest area on approximately 16.02 acres to replace the existing two rest areas located along 1-25 just north of the Harmony Road interchange. The proposed project will have a 2,659 square foot building housing restrooms and a lobby Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call: Lingle, Gavaldon, Meyer, Schmidt, Craig, Carpenter and Torgerson. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Aspen, Wamhoff, K. Moore, Buffington, Stanford, Leman. City Planner Steve Olt, standing in for Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss, reviewed the Discussion Agenda (there were no items on the Consent Agenda): Discussion Agenda: 1. #29-03A 317 and 325 Cherry Street, Modification of Standard. 2. #28-04 Human Bean Drive -Through Coffee Shop, 799 N. College Avenue, Modification of Standard 3. #27-04 CDOT Poudre River Rest Area Relocation, Site Plan Advisory Review ITEMS CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 19, 2004 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HEARING: 4. #13-82CTOakridge Business Park, Continuing Care Senior Campus, Modification of Standard. Recommendation Item: The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to the General Manager of Utility Services on the following item: 5. Spring Green Out -of -City Utility Request. (CONTINUED TO 8/26/04 PER APPLICANT) Member Gavaldon asked that the continued items be heard last. Chairperson Torgerson stated that, since this is a special meeting, and the items that were continued were from a regular meeting, the continued items should be heard last. Chairperson Torgerson, Member Gavaldon, and Member Carpenter declared conflicts on Item #1, 317 and 325 Cherry Street, Modification of Standard. Vice -Chairperson Meyer acted as Chairperson for this item.