Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND - ODP - 49-02A - CORRESPONDENCE -Project: Planner:�— fnglnter: ziLlwc z � /71 TrafTicOperations: ��� ove Items Requested land Plat I UdIIq I Drainage R t Other Items Required Redlined Items Being Returned Site I Land I Plat Utility Drainage R t Other Items Being Returned lonecring Stormwater Water/Hastewatc TrafRc Operations Trans. Planning x' Transfort Hatural Resources Park Planning Other. Hate: All rtdlined items should be returned with Me resubmittal/ rtrisions. No Text 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, G Steve Olt City Planner Page 7 0 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. 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 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-25/5H392 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 TIS (i.e. neighborhood to the west). Page 6 ..ice 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 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. Page 5 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 POP 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 POP for any bridge or utility crossing of the canal. Topic: floodplain Management Number: 4 9/8/03 Floodplain Management Comments Susan Hayes Created:9/9/2003 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 Department: Engineering Topic: Transportation Issue Contact: Marc Virata 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 OUP 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. - 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW 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 Topic: Ditch Easement Issue Contact: Steve Olt Number: 13 Created: 9/16/2003 Please see the attached letter from Don Magnuson, Superintendent of the Lrike 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 ci 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 OUP. 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