Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS ODP - 4-04B - CORRESPONDENCE -Project: CSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS ODP-TYPE II Overall Development Plan This is a request for the CSURF Research Campus Overall Development Plan to include 142.477 acres of parcel I and II of the annexation known as the SW Corner of I-25 and E Prospect Rd. The first phase of this project will include the northern most 25 acres of Parcel II that will accommodate an industrial use. Development of the rest of the site will be determined by market absorption. Located at the southwest corner of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This is currently zoned E-Employment District. Project Type: Project Desc: File ID: 4-04B Planner: Ted Shepard DMS Project Num: CP072046 ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date 1 Utilities [10/23/07] There is a major underground electric substation tie circuit, encased in concrete, that exists along the frontage road. Included in this line are 2 large concrete vaults at the point where the frontage road curves toward the east. The planned water and sewer mains appear to conflict with this power line, and their location needs to be adjusted. Also, the planned water and sewer mains south of the frontage road need to be relocated to be within the roadway to provide a location for power lines necessary to serve development of this site. Active 1 Doug Martine 10/23/2007 2 Stormwater [10/30/07] Please show the Erosion Buffer limits around Boxelder Creek on the ODP. No development should occur within the erosion buffer zone. The roadway into the site looks to be close to the buffer zome at the entrance off Prospect Road, the alignment of the road should be done in a manner that swings that road away from the buffer zone as soon as physically possible. The site proposes to match developing release rates from the site to the existing hydrographs in the 2, 10, 50 and 100 year conditions. This method is acceptable to the City and meets our master planning requirements for the site. Active 1 Basil Hamdan 10/30/2007 3/7/2011 Page 1 Project: CSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS ODP-TYPE II ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date 3 General [10/31/07] The following comments are from Denise Weston of Transportation Planning I recommend that the southern pedestrian crossing be moved further south, beyond the most southern driveway to avoid pedestrian/vehicular conflict. Also, this crossing needs to be created at a 90 degree angle across the roadway, minimizing the distance that the pedestrian is in the roadway. The northern end of the pedestrian trail, as shown on the plans, does not indicate if there is a roadway crossing at that location. It is not an advisable roadway crossing location. A preferred location would be just south of the Rest Area exit/frontage road intersection. There is a bridge over Box Elder Creek in that location and the pedestrian access could continue west along the southside of the bridge to the Rest Area location, allowing a pathway to the picnic tables, etc. behind the Rest Area. Currently, there isn't any ped access up to the Rest Area from the roadway or from the bridge crossing but at least a connection in that location would get them across the frontage road with limited vehicular conflict. In addition, the northern pedestrian access path should be continued all of the way north to Prospect Road, even if it just continues parallel to the frontage road on the east side. Currently, there isn't any pedestrian access on Prospect Road in that location but a connection would be established for the future. Confirm that the south/western edge of the pedestrian trail is designed to have some access or connectivity to the proposed City trail in that area. The frontage road modification is acceptable, but confirm that coordination with CDOT has occurred or is ongoing on this alignment. If coordination has not begun, transportation planning would be happy to assist in initiating something. Active 1 Sheri Langenberger 10/31/2007 3/7/2011 Page 2 Project: CSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS ODP-TYPE II ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date 4 General [10/31/07] I know that the pedestrian alignment is somewhat conceptual – you even have a note to that effect, but we still need to make sure that it gets closer to what we want and can accept. At the south end the pedestrian crossing will need to be done at a 90 degree angle to the street and will need to be beyond the last access point shown. Most likely will be at the south side of that access driveway. At the north end of the site – if a mid block crossing is to occur (which generally makes sense to provide a connection to the rest area and the picnic tables and grounds there) the crossing will need to be on the south side of that driveway – which will also be the south side of your proposed access point. The sidewalk will also need to connect out to prospect, but this maybe able to be done with just the street sidewalk rather than a trail. Depends on if you see a trail connection out that way as well. Active 1 Sheri Langenberger 10/31/2007 5 General [10/31/07] Need to show where the driveway to the north into the rest area is located. We will want the proposed driveway to the east to either align or have adequate separation – especially since there are a high number of trucks that use the access to the rest area. Active 1 Sheri Langenberger 10/31/2007 6 General [10/31/07] The access point shown on the inside curve into parcel II maybe very problematic. The inside of a curve (especially this tight of one) is tough to do. The amount of sight distance easements and restrictive landscaping that would be needed to achieve a safe access point will a lot. It would be best to delete this access point or move it over to a straighter part of the roadway. Active 1 Sheri Langenberger 10/31/2007 7 General [10/31/07] Is one access point into parcel I going to be adequate? Active 1 Sheri Langenberger 10/31/2007 8 General [10/31/07] Need to better clarify the number of employees anticipated to be employed in the first phase of development and how that actually splits out between shifts and work. This will help greatly with considering the traffic impacts. Active 1 Sheri Langenberger 10/31/2007 3/7/2011 Page 3 Project: CSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS ODP-TYPE II ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date 9 General [10/31/07] The TIS needs to identify the amount of traffic anticipated on the frontage road (in its new alignment) so a street classification for this roadway can be determined at the time of the first PDP submittal. That way we will know what the road section needs to be and how much row will need to be dedicated. With the PDP – will need to evaluate the pedestrian level of service and if a connection to the rest area any other destination maybe needed. The rest area would be a good lunch destination (with the picnic tables and such that they have). The conceptual land use plan that is in the TIS does not match the ODP that was submitted. Active 1 Sheri Langenberger 10/31/2007 10 Fire [11/5/07] WATER SUPPLY Fire hydrants, where required, must be the type approved by the water district having jurisdiction and the Fire Department. Hydrant spacing and water flow must meet minimum requirements based on type of occupancy. Minimum flow and spacing requirements include: Commercial, 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 300 feet to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter; residential within Urban Growth Area, 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter; residential outside Urban Growth Area, 500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spaced not further than 400 feet to the building, on 800-foot centers thereafter. These requirements may be modified if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 97UFC 901.2.2.2 Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 11 Fire [11/5/07] SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS This proposed building(s) shall be equipped with approved, automatic fire-sprinkler systems. Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 12 Fire [11/5/07] FIRE LINE REQUIREMENT Buildings that are required to be fire sprinklered shall have a minimum 6-inch fire line unless hydraulic calculations can support a smaller fire line. Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 3/7/2011 Page 4 Project: CSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS ODP-TYPE II ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date 13 Fire [11/5/07] FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION Fire department connections shall be installed remote from the buildings, and located on the street or fire lane side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. If possible, a fire hydrant shall be located within 100 feet of the FDC. PFA Bureau Policy Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 14 Fire [11/5/07] KNOX BOX REQUIRED Poudre Fire Authority requires a “Knox Box” to be mounted on the front of every new building equipped with a required fire sprinkler system or fire alarm system. 97UFC 902.4; PFA BUREAU POLICY 88-20 Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 15 Fire [11/5/07] HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Toxic, corrosive, or reactive materials, or flammable/combustible liquids (as defined in the Uniform Fire Code) if used, stored, or handled on site, must have a Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis (HMIA) completed and supplied to the Planning Department and the Fire Department. (What do you have? How much? How do you prevent it from being a public threat?) FCLUC3.4.5 Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 16 Fire [11/5/07] CUL-DE-SAC A dead-end street cannot exceed six-hundred-sixty (660) feet in length. The turn-around at the end of the street must have an outside turning radius of fifty (50) feet or more, and an inside turning radius of twenty-five (25) feet. Short fire lanes are permitted to facilitate a second point of access when the street is longer than 660 feet. All structures beyond the 660-foot limit shall be fire sprinklered if a second point of access cannot be provided. FCLUC 3.6.2(B)(C);3.6.6(I); 97UFC 902.2.2.3 Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 17 Fire [11/5/07] OCCUPANT LOAD SIGN Any room having an occupant load of 50 or more where fixed seats are not installed, and which is used for assembly purposes, shall have the capacity of the room posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. Such sign shall be maintained legible by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent and shall indicate the number of occupants permitted for each room use. 97UFC 2601.16.1 Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 3/7/2011 Page 5 Project: CSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS ODP-TYPE II ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date 18 Fire [11/5/07] REQUIRED ACCESS A fire lane may be required. If required, this fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane must meet the following general requirements:  Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete) capable of supporting fire apparatus weights. Compacted road base shall be used only for temporary fire lanes or at construction sites.  Have appropriate maintenance agreements that are legally binding and enforceable.  Be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.  Maintain the required minimum width of 20 feet throughout the length of the fire lane. If a fire lane cannot be provided, the building shall be fire sprinklered. 97UFC 901.2.2.1; 901.3; 901.4.2; 902.2.1 Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 19 Fire [11/5/07] ADDRESS NUMERALS Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of six-inch (6) numerals on a contrasting background. (Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). 97UFC 901.4.4 Active 1 Carie Dann 11/05/2007 20 General [11/7/07] Provide sctions that depict the type of buffers that will be used to protect the natural resources on the site. Resolved 1 Dana Leavitt 11/07/2007 21 Zoning [11/8/07] no issues Active 1 Gary Lopez 11/08/2007 22 Stormwater [12/3/07] Erosion buffer zone was shown, but no floodplain boundaries were shown, please show both on ODP. No other issues. Active 2 Basil Hamdan 12/03/2007 23 Fire [12/5/07] PFA has no further comments or concerns at this time. Active 2 Carie Dann 12/05/2007 3/7/2011 Page 6 Project: CSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS ODP-TYPE II ID Topic Issue Status Round Comment By Initial Date 24 traffic [12/6/07] Background conditions at the overpass are projected to fall below LOS standards. Due to the development's proposed staff work hour schedule, their traffic impacts do not coincide with the normal peak hours. To maintain that characteristic, at least to a time when the overpass is rebuilt, a condition should be placed on the development to maintain non-peak hour shifts. Active 2 Ward Stanford 12/06/2007 25 traffic [12/6/07] Even though this development does not trip the APF criteria (2%), it should be noted that congestion at the intersections may increase. Left turn lane depth may prove inadequate and cause spillback into the through lanes. Active 2 Ward Stanford 12/06/2007 26 traffic [12/6/07] In current conditions the LOS at the intersections is acceptable. Short range background traffic projections without this project do indicate that the west bound and east bound through movements will fall below LOS standards. The addition of an east bound right turn lane to serve the south bound I-25 on-ramp is one way to mitigate and improve the LOS. Active 2 Ward Stanford 12/06/2007 3/7/2011 Page 7