HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND - ODP - 49-02A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (4)200 100 0 200 400
SCALE: 1" = 200'
PROSPECT BRIDGE EXHIBIT
INTERSTATE LAND
JOB NO. 39177.20
OCTOBER 6, 2003
SHEET 1 OF 1
J•R ENGINEERING
A Subaldiary of WMrian
X
20 EaM' PEd Pt sae 19D-FQi C*A co 8M
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 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: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).
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 redlined plans have
been included along with this second submittal.
Page 7
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
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
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 ODP, 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
Topic: General
Number:9 Created:9/10/2003
Will comment at preliminary plan.
So noted. Thank you.
Department: Stormwater Utility
Topic: Detention Pond Sizing
Number:11 Created:9/12/2003
Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom
Issue Contact: Basil Harridan
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 Canal 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
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
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:9116/2003
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 lhe 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
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:
cortY, @Op@
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`h, 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 orR.0.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. Ws. 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