Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARDWALK CROSSING FILING 2 MINOR SUBDIVISION - 76 93 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSPROJECT COMMENT SHRRT City of Fort Collins DATE:17 November 1993 DEPARTMENT: PROJECT: 76-93 BOARDWALK CROSSING FILING 2 - MINOR S/D PLANNER: Steve Olt Please respond to this project by Friday, December 3,1993. No Problems ® Problems or concerns (see below) Review of these plans should not be construed as a commitment that telephone facilities sufficient to serve this project are presently available. U S WEST will provide telephone service in accordance with the rates and tariffs on file with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The owner is responsible for provision of all conduit, ditch, and street crossings for telephone facilities within the project, and the owner provides terminal room space (usually 41X41) and power for the main terminal at one building, generally in a janitors' closet or utility room. The owner's vendor provides all facilities beyond the main terminal. Many vendors, including U S WEST, are available to install the facilities beyond the main terminal. Contact the U S WEST engineer for conduit specifications for the main telephone entrance cable. Susan M. Peterson Manager Network & Technology Services 303-224-7473 Date: �/ 'm73' �-� Signature: �--' CHECK IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE 0 PLAT COPIES OF REVISIONS: 0 SITE0 LANDSCAPE 19 UTILITY COMMUNITY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 NORTH COLLEGE P.O.BOX 580 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522-0580 (303)221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Steve Olt December 2, 1993 Page 3 of 3 Boardwalk Crossing Sheet 5 of the Plans shows a 12 foot decel lane, including the gutter pan. Access dimensions are exclusive of curb and gutter, including only the travel portion of the roadway; thus, the lane width would be 10 feet. I recommend an 11 or 12 foot lane be provided. The north radius of 50' exceeds the minimum 40, dimension required for 15 mph turns in. The south radius of 30' is acceptable to the Department. An.access permit will be required, and should be initiated with the City as the issuing authority. DRAINAGE Drainage appears to be from north to south, and west to east, and to be handled by the city's storm drain system. PLANTINGS No address has been made of landscaping. I am not familiar with the City's standard submittals for M/S. If subsequent submittals include landscaping, I should be provided an opportunity to review that plan. We allow landscaping within the ROW. Any plantings must not impair sight distance at any highway access and must not present a safety hazard. Trees are not normally permitted in the ROW. UTILITIES The Plan indicates that new utility lines and connections are proposed within the state highway ROW. Prior to any such utility work, Mr. Henry Rangel of this office should be contacted at 350-2111 regarding the need for a Utility Permit. My comments are based upon the submittals as received November 19, 1993, and upon telephone conversations with Mr.. Matt Delich on December 2, 1993. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Boardwalk Crossing proposal. Again, let me stress that the access design and location warrants further discussion and review. Please contact me at 350-2163. I would be available to meet with the City at some time next week in regard to these issues. Sincerely, TerG. Jones Region Develop lop /Access Coordinator TGJ xc: D. Yost J. Springer file Mr. Steve Olt December 2, 1993 Page 2 of 3 Boardwalk Crossing the south of the proposed REI development. An existing BEST Store lies south of this property. Placement of the proposed access along the south property boundary would require a different development plan for the site. The SCACPlan states that minor adjustments in the location of the RI/RO access points may.be allowed, and repositioning of those access points can be treated as a design variance if the design standards of the SHACode are met. The TIS provides an analysis of the proposed right deceleration lane which is approximately 50 feet short of the standard length, and has a taper of 1/2 the standard length as required by the Code. An explanation for the acceptability of that less than standard decel design is provided in the TIS. I have reviewed that analysis, and find it to be in accordance with the "green" book, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. As the proposed design does fit within the AASHTO Standards, I would further consider the design through discussions with the City. The 180 foot deviation from the "allowed" location appears to be in excess of a "minor adjustment"; however, if we determine that the design is acceptable, and if it is determined that the desired location is more practical in regard to safe movement of traffic along the highway, and if this property could not be served by an access which would agree with the location shown in the SCACPlan, I would consider this change of access location. It is true that the taper for deceleration cannot be moved to the north, due to the proximity of the site to Boardwalk. However, overall access design could more closely agree with the Code if the access were moved to the south border of the property. The TIS and Plans do not address.an acceleration lane which could be required. The access is proposed to connect to Mason, west of the property; however, the property does not extend to Mason. There may be constraints with the properties west of Boardwalk Crossing which would influence the placement of access. Those factors should be addressed. I assume, since the access serves more than one property that it is to become a public access. I recommend further discussion of these issues prior to application for access and development approval. My comments are made in regard to the information provided for review. Should the property owner have ownership or interest in any other adjoining property along the highway, that information must be provided, as it may influence may comments in regard to access. r STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T Region 4 - QT 1420 2nd Street P.O. Sox 850 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850 (303) 353-1232 Larimer Co., SH 287 Boardwalk Crossing, Filing 2. (REI Access Proposal) Between Boardwalk and Troutman, North of BEST Store, West Side Fort Collins December 2, 1993 - Mr. Steve Olt - Plannina Department City of Fort'Collins r PO Box 580 Fort Collins CO 80522 Dear Steve, I have reviewed the Boardwalk Crossing - Filing # 2, Minor Subdivision proposal. The submittal included a Traffic Study (TIS) for the proposed REI recreational equipment store to be located in portions 1,2, and 3 of the property. The future use of por-tions,..4.and .5.has not been provided. Also included were a set of,-Utility.Plans_'(7. shts ) .which provided `iztility,-drainage and access.. drawings, and `a .Plat. I `c,iffer:^-the following `'comments: ROW The ROW width.west:_of SH 287,centerline�is -not indicated: The portion of 287.which falls within the City of Fort Collins normally requires a 120-foot total ROW width in anticipation of future highway needs based upon projected traffic volumes. The plat shows ROW to be dedicated with the platting of the subdivision which corresponds to widths necessary for the roadway improvements proposed. The proper ROW dedications shall be determined as the development and access questions are resolved. ACCESS The Traffic Study refers to a 1982 study by Leigh, Scott, & Cleary. I have not reviewed that prior study, and am evaluating this access proposal based upon the references made in the current TIS. The Trip Generation analysis for REI appears to be reasonable. No address was made in regard to the traffic which could be generated with full development of the property. The TIS recognizes that the proposed location of the right- in/right-out access does not agree with the location of an access which was. to be allowed according to .the South College Access Control. 'Plan (SCACPlan).' The`•access'as requested is approximately-180 feet- north - df--'the designated approximate.,location.,for. a. future RI/RO access point. The ;proposed access is'.located appr`okimatel'y, 150 fe,eC north of the aouth, property .line for Boar"dwal]c' Crossing;`.' arid' just to trees and street lights. Please return the red -lined plan with your revisions. 5. The Poudre Fire Authority has stated that the building will require an automatic fire sprinkler system. The location and size of the fire service water line must be shown on the utility plans. 6. The property owner shall maintain all landscaping in the public right-of-way. 7. The Engineering Department's comments are as follows: a. The soils report that was submitted was originally prepared in 1985 and must now be updated. The pavement design for the deceleration and right turn lane must meet the City's 1986 street design standards. b. The right turn.lane needs to be evaluated/designed per the criteria of the .State Highway Access Code. The original design with K.F.C. was done prior to the current code. The City needs to see how the existing improvements at the intersection of Boardwalk Drive fit with, or would need modification to, the current access code requirements. Your engineer needs to provide an analysis of the design as it pertains to the code, noting any variances needed or modifications of existing improvements, etc. C. An access permit application is needed. 8. A copy of the NOTICE TO DEVELOPERS, a form that will provide the City with the information needed to prepare your Development Agreement, is enclosed with this letter. This form should be filled out and returned to Mike Herzig or Kerrie Ashbeck of the Engineering Department as soon as possible. 9. A red -lined copy of the utility plans with the Water/Wastewater Department's comments has been forwarded to Stewart & Associates. The red -lined plans should be returned with revisions. Comments have not yet been received Transportation. These departments' you as soon as they are received. Th will be scheduled with the Director determined that there are no issues significantly change the plan. Si c rely, t ve Olt Project Planner e from the Stormwater Utility or comments will be forwarded to administrative public hearing of Planning as soon as it is about this request that could Commun `-, Planning and Environmental '``-vices - - Planning .LCpartmenf City of Fort Collins December 13, 1993 Eldon Ward Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort collins, CO. 80525 Dear Eldon, Staff has reviewed your submittal documents for Boardwalk Crossing, Filing 2 - A Minor Subdivision and would like to offer the following comments: 1. A copy of the comments received from Teresa Jones of the Colorado Department of Transportation is enclosed with this letter. I have had a telephone conversation with her since receiving the CDOT comments and she informed me that she had not seen a Site Plan for the proposed REI FORT COLLINS use on Lot 3 of the plat. She indicated that CDOT had some concerns about the location of the proposed access to the site from South College Avenue, the geometrics of the deceleration/right turn lane, and the overall recirculation patterns for the entire Boardwalk Crossing Subdivision. I have sent her copies of the Site and Landscape _Plans for review. Additional comments will be forthcoming. 2. The Mapping Department comments are as follows: a. The outer boundary monuments must be described. b. The monument at the east 1/4 corner is not as described. C. The monument at the northeast corner of Section 35 does not meet State Statutes. d. A copy of a red -lined plat, with comments, has been forwarded to Stewart & Associates. This red -lined copy should be returned with revisions. 3. A copy of the comments received from U.S. West is enclosed with this letter. 4. The Light & Power Department has shown their planned South College Avenue street light locations on a red -lined Landscape Plan that is enclosed with this letter. They indicate that the street trees must be adjusted accordingly. Light & Power has a minimum 40, horizontal separation requirement between street 28"1 North C011C e AVCnuC • 1'.0. I')"\ SO • I-OZI Collins. CO 80532-05SO • (303) 22'1-n17