HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED ODP - ODP160001 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (2)�
May 27, 2016
Kristin Turner
TB GROUP
444 MOUNTAIN AVE
Berthoud, CO 80513
.
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov com/developmentreview
p�sC ��S
� ��
� ES Ga
/�
RE: Gateway at Prospect ODP/APU (Addition of Permitted Use), ODP160001,
Round Number 1
Please see the following summary of comments from City staff and outside reviewing
agencies for your submittal of the above referenced project. If you have questions about
any comments, you may contact the individual commenter or direct your questions through
the Project Planner, Ted Shepard, at 970-221-6343 or tshepard@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary_
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Marc Ragasa, 970.221.6603, mragasa@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: Public streets next to Multi-Family development will need to be
designed/constructed with a cross section for a Connector Roadway. (Parcels
b, g, h, j, k)
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: More discussion is needed with CDOT to determine if the
Right-in/Right-Out movement on the frontage road will be allowed.
Response: Acknowledged. Per our previous meetings with CDOT we believe the RI/RO will be permitted.
Please notify of us of any referral comments that you receive from CDOT.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/2512016: How will parcels a, b and c get access? A connection to E Locus
Street will be needed. It may need to end in a culdesac. Please work with PFA
to determine if an access is needed from parcels south of the Cache La Poudre
Inlet Canal to the north. Show where this vehicle access will be located.
u
�
Response: There is no plan to develop parcels a, b and c at this time. We are planning on a pedestrian
connection at East Locust Street.
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Rebecca Everette, 970-416-2625, reverette@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/12/2016
05/12/2016: Thank you for delineating the approximate location antl extent of
the Cache la Poudre Inlet Canal, Boxelder Creek and the associated buffer
zones on the ODP, However, the delineation of these featureslbuffers gets lost
in all the linework. In particular, please show the 50' and 100' buffers in a more
prominent line weight or type.
Response: Adjacent line work has been shifted to avoid overlaps. In atldition, labels have been added to
clarify the line work.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated; 05/12/2016
05/12/2016: Please include a note on the ODP that indicates something similar
to the following, "This Overall Development Plan shows the general location and
approximate size of all natural areas, habitats, and features within its
boundaries and the proposed rough estimate of the natural area buffer zones as
required by Land Use Code Section 3.4,1(E), Detailed mapping of a site's
natural areas, habitats, and features will be provided at the time of intlividual
PDP submittals. General buffer zones shown on this ODP may be reduced or
enlarged by the decision maker during the PDP process."
Response: Note #3 has been added to sheet 2 under'Notes'.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/12/2016
05/12/2016: Please add the following statement to the notes on any sheets of
the ODP, Master Utility Plan and Master Drainage Plan that show the Habitat
Buffer: "Please see Section 3.4,1 of the Land Use Code for allowable uses
within the natural habitat buffer zones."
Response: Note #4 has been added to sheet 2 under'Notes'. A note has also been added to the Master
Utility and Drainage Plan regartling the Habitat Buffer.
Comment Numbe�
C�ent Originated: 05/12/2016
05/12/2016: Please delineate and label the buffer zones for the canal and
Boxelder Creek on the Master Utility Plan. Please also label the Cache La
Poudre Inlet Canal.
Response: The Habitat Buffers and labels are now shown on the Master Utility Plan.
Comment Number: 5
Comment Originated: 05/12/2016
05112/2016: Please note that one or more Ecological Characterization Studies
will be required prior to the submittal of any PDPs. A single ECS could be
prepared for the entire ODP at the time of the first PDP submittai, if preferred,
which could be updated or amended for subsequent PDP submittals.
Alternatively, you may submit individual ECS reports for each PDP submittal.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Light And Power
Contact: Todd Vedder, 970-224-6152, tvedder@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05/09/2016
05/09/2016: New development and system modification charges may apply. A
link to our online electric fee estimator is below.
http:Uwww.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investmen
t-development-fees/electric-development-fee-estimator?id=3
Response: Acknowledgetl.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/09/2016
05/09/2016: Contact Light and Power Engineering to coortlinate the
transformer and electric meter locations. Please show these locations on the
utility plans. Transformers need to have an 8' frontal and 3' side/rear clearance.
It also has to be 10' within a drivable surface and cannot be located under the
drip zone of any trees. Please reference our Electric Construction, Policies
Practices & Procedures to ensure requirements and policies are met.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/businesslbuilders-and-developers
Response: Acknowiedged.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/09/2016
05/09/2016: Please contact Light & Power Engineering if you have any
questions at 221-6700. Please reference our policies, tlevelopment charge
processes, and use our fee estimator at
http;//www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/buiitlers-and-developers/development-fo
rms-guidelines-regulations
Response: Acknowledgetl.
� J
Comment Number: 4
05/09/2016: Power is available along the frontage road.
Response: Acknowledged.
Department: Park Planning
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
�
Comment Originated: 05/09/2016
Comment Originated: 05125/2016
05/25/2016; As discussed in an earlier meeting with the Developer, a city park
is not desirable in areas a or b as shown on the ODP, as these areas are
isolated from the development by two canals, and located along the back side
of commercial/industrial area. We prefer the city park to be located within the
development (parcels g,h,i), providing easy access from residents antl visitors,
and encompassed with residentiai or natural amenities such as Boxelder
Creek.
Response: Updated comments were provided by Parks Planning following a meeting with Parks Planning
antl Planning on 6.9.16. Responses to the updated comments has been providetl in the `Parks Planning
Response Letter' included in this submittal.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/2512016: As the trail will be a public trail through this site, we encourage
separation between the buildings and trail. Currently, the conceptual site pian for
Gateway at Prospect Apartments does not provide the separation needed.
Also, it is desirable for the trail to follow Boxelder Creek, as shown in the 2013
Trails Master Plan.
Response: Updated comments were provided by Parks Planning following a meeting with Parks Planning
and Planning on 6.9.16. Responses to the updated comments has been provitled in the `Parks Planning
Response Letter' included in this submittal. The trail has been relocated to follow the Boxelder Creek as
weil.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: The development should provide trail connections through the
development to the existing homes to the west.
Response: Updated comments were provided by Parks Planning following a meeting with Parks Planning
and Planning on 6.9.16. Responses to the updated comments has been provided in the `Parks Planning
Response Letter' inclutled in this submittal. A pedestrian connection to the west is shown where the road
terminates in Sunrise Acres Second Subdivision. This road will not continue onto the Gateway at Prospect
property.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originatetl: 05/25/2016
05/2512016: �Trail connectivity to the city park is desirable.
Response: A pedestrian connection the park location has been added to the ODP.
�
C�
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated; 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: We encourage the Developer to set up a meeting with the Park
Planning & Development Department to discuss the location of the city park and
the alignment of the public trail as identified by the 2013 Trails Master Plan
through this property.
Response: Acknowledged. A meeting was held on June 9th, 2016.
Department: PFA
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
05/19/2016: FIRE LANES
Comment Originated: 05/19/2016
Fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of any building, or
facility as measured by an approved route around the perimeter. For the
purposes of this section, fire access cannot be measured from an arterial road.
All fire lanes or private roads serving as fire lanes shall be dedicatetl as an
Emergency Access Easement and be designed to standard fire lane
specifications. Code language provided below.
> IFC 503.1.1: Approved fire Lanes shall be provided for every facility, building
or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements
of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and
all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by
an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. When any
portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the
building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access, the fire code
official is authorized to increase the tlimension if the building is equipped
throughout with an approved, automatic fire-sprinkler system.
Response: Acknowledged. Additional detail will be provided at the time of the applicable PDP submittal
Comment Number: 2
05119/2016: FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
Comment Originated: 05/19/2016
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:
> Shall be designated on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement.
> Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum
overhead clearance.
> Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting
40 tons.
> Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
> The requiretl tur� radii of a fire apparatus access road shal� minimum
of 25 feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on
submittetl plans.
> Be visible by painting and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at ail
times.
> Additional access requirements exist for buildings greater than 30' in height.
Refer to Appendix D of the 2012 IFC or contact PFA for details.
International Fire Code 503.2.3, 503.2.4, 503.2,5, 503.3, 503.4 antl Appendix
D; FCLUC 3.6,2(B)2006 and Local Amendments.
Response: Acknowletlged. Additional tletail will be providetl at the time of the applicable PDP submittal
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/19/2016
05/19/2016: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND
SECOND POINT OF ACCESS
D106.2; Multiple-family residentiai projects having more than 200 dwelling units
shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads
regardless of whether they are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler
system.
Response: Acknowledged. Adtlitional tletail will be provitled at the time of the applicable PDP submittal.
Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/19/2016
05/19/2016: STRUCTURES EXCEEDING 30' IN HEIGHT (see 2012 IFC
definition)
Should any building exceed 30' in height, aerial apparatus access requirements
shall apply. Code language providetl below or see IFC Appendix D for further
information.
WHERE REQUIRED
> IFC D105.1: Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the
highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet, approved aerial fire apparatus access
roads shall be provided. For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface
shall be tletermined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the
intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever
is greater.
WIDTH
> IFC D105.2; FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; and Local Amendments: Aerial fire
apparatus access roatls shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 30 feet,
exclusive of shoulders, in the immetliate vicinity of the building or portion
thereof.
PROXIMITY TO BUILDING
> IFC D105.3: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition
shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet antl a maximum of 30 feet from the
building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, The
side of the builtling on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positionetl
shall be approved by the fire code official.
Response: Acknowiedged. Additional detail Gvill be provided at the time of the applicable PDP submittal.
•
Comment Number: 5
05/19/2016; AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
C�
Comment Originated: 05/19/2016
All multi-family buildings will require a full NFPA13 automatic fire sprinkler
system under a separate permit. Please contact Assistant Fire Marshal, Joe
Jaramillo with any fire sprinkler related questions at 970-416-2868.
Response: Acknowietlged. Acknowledged. Additional tletail will be provided at the time of the applicable
PDP submittal
Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 05/19/2016
05/19/2016; FIRE CONTAINMENT
Should the clubhouse exceed 5000 square feet, it shail be sprinkleretl or fire
containetl. If containment is used, the containment construction shall be
reviewed and approved by the Poudre Fire Authority prior to installation.
Response: Acknowletlged. Additional detail will be provided at the time of the applicable PDP submittal.
Comment Number: 7
Comment Originated: 05/19/2016
05/19/2016: HYDRANTS
A hydrant is required within 300' of any commercial building. Code language
provided below.
> IFC 508,1 and Appendix B: COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS: Hydrants to
provide 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure, spacetl not further than 300 feet
to the building, on 600-foot centers thereafter.
Response: Acknowledged. Additional detail will be provided at the time of the applicable PDP submittal.
Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 05/19/2016
05/19/2016: PREMISE IDENTIFICATION AND WAYFINDING
A preliminary plan for wayfinding within the site will be required at time of PDP.
Naming of the private drives is recommended to assist with addressing and
wayfinding. Monument signage may be required at intersections. Code
language provided below.
> IFC 505.1: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers,
building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible, visible from the street or road fronting the property, and posted
with a minimum of six-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Where
access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from
the pubiic way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure.
Response: Acknowiedged. Additional tletail will be provided at the time of the applicable PDP submittal.
Comment Numb��
05/19/2016: PHASING
�ment Originated: 05/19/2016
No portion of the phasing plan should create a dead-end road in excess of 660'
in length. At this time, it's unclear if the development of Parcel K is meeting
connectivity regarding a second point of access. More information is requested.
Code language provided below.
> FCLUC 3.6.2(B)2006; IFC 503.2.5 and Appendix D: Dead-end fire apparatus
access roads cannot exceed 660 feet in length. Dead-end fire access roads in
excess of 150 feet in length shall be provitled with an approved area for turning
around fire apparatus.
Response: Acknowledged. Additional detail will be provided at the time of the applicable PDP submittal.
Department: Planning Services
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
�;
✓ Comment Number: 1
Comment Originated: 05125/2016
05/25/2016: The site is challenged by existing water courses, four oddly
shaped zone districts and integrating the potential for a wide variety of land
uses so that the various land uses are not arranged in isolated pods. In
addition, the close proximity to I-25 requires mitigation to attenuate roatl noise
antl visual intrusion. In general, the O.D.P. needs to respond by establishing a
fundamental organizing principle that brings a measure of cohesiveness so that
a distinctive, mixed-use neighborhood is formetl.
Response: Acknowledged. The plan has been revised per comments as well as comments from
several meetings with Staff to refine the plan.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05125/2016
05/25/2016: Staff suggests that the design team focus on uniting the O.D.P.
with a framework of site plan attributes that takes advantage of Boxelder Creek
and by strategically locating the public neighborhood park. For example, an
east-west urban design attribute could be anchored by Boxelder Creek on the
east and the public park on the west. The east focal point captures the value of
the planned regional trail and helps mitigate the commercial aspects of the
project. The west focal point captures the value of the residential character and
views and could be located at the terminus of Boxelder Drive thus preserving a
vista to the west.
Response: Acknowledged. The park location has been added to the plan. Additional pedestrian
connections have been added to the ODP to create loops and direct connections to the park. While more
specific design isn't included as a part of fhis ODP, these attributes will create the framework for PDP and
FDP submittals.
y Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: The two focal points could be connected by a tree-lined
walkway/bikeway spine, or a local street that features a wide landscape median
like a boulevard. Such a local street could enhance connectivity to the regional
trail by protected bi�nes or by widened detached sidewalks. l�.irban
design element could connect all four zones and allow transitioning from
commercial uses to residential areas in a way that is seamless and not abrupt
and jarring.
Response: Acknowledged. We have included information about the frame work as part of this ODP.
Specific street and landscape design will be provided with PDP/FDP submittals.
✓ Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: The aforementioned boulevard could be alley-loaded which counts
as one of four required housing types in the L-M-N zone.
Response: Acknowledged.
� Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: Placing the public park in the west central area of the L-M-N
(Parcel g) helps emphasize the residential component of the O.D.P. as
opposed to the commercial areas and the impacts associated with being close
to I-25.
Response: A park location has been added to the ODP per a meeting the Parks Planning and Planning
on 6.9.16.
4� Comment Number: 6
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: A west central park could be the focal point for a north-south
bike/ped path that closes the loop formed by the regional trail and the trail along
the Cache La Poudre Inlet Canal.
Response; A park location has been added to the ODP per a meeting the Parks Planning and Planning
on 6.9.16. In addition, a N/S pedestrian connection has been atlded to the ODP to create a loop with the
regional trai�____ _
Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: Regarding �� four housing types, staff encourages that various
__—.,�g-#�esb�d'istributetl throughout the L-M-N zone. For example, corner
--- lots could be enlarged to accommodate two-family dwellings. Private alleys
could be dispersed. Staff recommends that three separate housing types not
be arranged in separate pods (with the exception of the multi-family).
�� � r; ,M, < T � ,✓ii J`rJ lN / ri 6� � �� r"J l lJ
(
Response: Acknowledged. At the time of PDP/FDP submittals, we will work to disperse housing types.
- Comment Number: 8 Comment Originatetl: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: This urban design framework can be used as a building block for
laying out a network of public streets, blocks, private alleys and lots.
Response: Acknowledged.
�Comment Number: 9 ; �,�� � ��, `f��, � h° �`' Comment Originated: 05/2512016
05/25/2016`�he-Bux le der Creek buffer should be enhanc,� to highlight the
regional trail and to mitigate the negative impacts of I-25, �
,� � �� r �,�r�� � �-�,
� __ �;� � . — � �
Response: Ackn�lgetl. Planting antl enhancements will be�idered at the time of PDP/FDP
submittals.
,,� 1
Comment Number,t 10 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: The 0. .. should make a stronger effort to connect the
multi-family area to both the residential neighborhood, the public park and the
commercial area, especially the future convenience center. Please explore
providing an off-street bike/ped path that connects the multi-family to the
neighborhood park. Otherwise, the multi-family area becomes an isolated pod.
Response: Additional pedestrian trails have been added to the ODP to provide a good network of
connections between various areas of the development. Specifically, there are connections between the
multi-family and the neighborhood commercial, a large 'loop' around the development and an east/west
connection from the proposed neighborhood park. �v a %� EN! � �'� d r ��-�'` °^'��
��f3iG
/ Comment Number: 11
Y
Comment Originatetl: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: In addition, please demonstrate how the multi-family area ties into
the convenience center as discussed in pre-submittal meetings. This will
require a bike/ped bridge over Boxeltler Creek.
Response: A petlestrianlbicycle connection is proposed along the bridge/adjacent to the ROW over
Boxelder Creek which would connect to the neighborhood commercial area. The walk would be expanded
from a typical 4.5' walk to a 6'-8' walk. We have had preliminary tliscussions with Engineering and they
are in support of this crossing.
Comment Number: 12
Comment Originated: 05/25I2016
05/25/2016: When considering the site plan for the multi-family, please make an
�; ' effort to front the buildings on public streets to the maximum extent feasible.
Buildings should be addressed off these streets and feature multiple entrances.
Floor plans should be arranged so that the fronts of the units, not back patios,
face the street. Parking lots should be to the rear or, to a lesser degree, the
side of the buildings. Inwardly focused apartment complexes that are not fully
integrated into the larger neighborhood tend to become isolated.
Response: Acknowledged. Atlditional information will be provided with the applicable PDP submittal.
Design considerations for future tlesign of the multi-family parcel has been also been included on the ODP.
Please reference `APU Parameters'.
Comment Number: 13
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
� 05125/2016: Where it's not possible to serve buildings by public streets, the
Street-Like Private Drive may be used as alternative. Please note that such
streets must include detached sidewalks for walkability, parkways and street
trees and may allow for either parallel or diagonal parking. Head-in (90-degree)
parking is not allowed on a Street-Like Private Drive. Such streets can be
named for addressing and emergency response.
Response: Acknowledged.
�Comment Number: 14 Comment Originatetl: 05125/2016
05/25/2016: The rr�family clubhouse should be as close to th�celder
Creek buffer as possible and the central point for a bike/ped trail system.
Response: The clubhouse was centrally located within the multi-family parcel to provitle the best possible
access to the majority of residents as well as for visibility from the access road into the property from
Prospect Roatl. This also allows for more green space adjacent to the Boxelder Creek. The schematic
site plan for the multi-family will be further refined at the time of PDP/FDP applications as well.
�, Comment Number: 15
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: Section 2.3,2(H)(4) requires an O.D.P. to provide for the location of
transportation connections to adjoining properties to ensure connectivity into
and through the O.D.P, from neighboring properties for vehicles, pedestrians
and bikes as per
Sections 3.6.3 (F) and 3.2.2(C)(6). Since no street connection is proposed
north into Sunrise Acres, a Motlification of Standard needs to be submitted.
Response: Acknowledged.
��' —
� -- -
�-� 1'` Cofnment Number: 16 � Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
�5/25/2016:Since th��exceeds 40 acres, the L-M-N zone requires the
lowin � _� �
Section 4.5(D)(3) - Neighborhood Centers.
✓
Access to Neighborhood Center. At least ninety (90) percent of the dwellings in
all development projects greater than forty (40) acres shall be locatetl within
three thousand nine hundred sixty (3,960) feet (three-quarter [3/4] mile) of either a
neighborhood center contained within the project, or an existing neighborhood
center,located in an a�acent development, or an existing or planned
Neiqhborhood Commercial District commercial pro'1ect, which distance shall be
measured along street frontage, and without crossing an arterial street.
Neighborhood centers shall meet the requirements contained in subparagraphs
(b) through (e) below.
Please indicate the location of the L-M-N neighborhood center and demonstrate
how it is functionally integrated into the larger neighborhood.
�r�� �('
�� ��c �r,V �
���j���� ��
�� � ����� �
�� t,ar
Response: The LMN neighborhood center could be located in both/either parcel I or m. The size of
parcels I antl m will allow for a variety of commercial development. While streets have not yet been
designed to determine exact distances, resitlential located in the farthest corner from the commercial
parcels is less than 3,000 feet away. Due to this, we believe we can achieve at least 90 percent of all
dwelling locatetl within %4 mile of the neighborhood center.
Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 05125/2016
05/25/2016: The O,D.P. narrative needs to address how the development will
comply with the Cooper Slough Drainage Basin Master Plan, per Section
2.3,2(H)(6).
Response: The information has been adtled to Planning Objectives.
✓ Comment Numb�8 �ment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: The O.D.P. would benefit from a Zoning Map detail that depicts
the four zone districts clearly without other line work. Otherwise, the four zones
get obscured on sheet 2.
Response: A zoning map has been atlded to Sheet 1.
,/ Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016; Sheet One would benefit from a Tract index/table that describes
the zone, the anticipated uses, the acreage, etc.
Response: A tract index table has been added to Sheet 1.
6 A�Y►�'AY --' ����� f���P'1��'.�d'di
� CommentNumber: 20 ��^� J-��� '�E ��"`'��' CommentOriginated: 05(25/2016 ��-��
05/25/2016: Sheet One needs a title block and must indicate that the O.D.P. is
an amendment of Interstate Lands Master Plan.
Response: A title block is provided along the right edge of each sheet. A larger title has been
adtletl to Sheet 1 as well.
✓ Comment Number: 21
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: Please increase the font size of the General Notes or double space
for readability.
Response: The general notes have been double spacetl.
v'Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: From Justin Green, Superintendent, Lake Canal: Lake Canal runs
along the North border of this project and nothing is mentioned or stated on the
drawings about access or easement for it. The Timnath inlet antl the Boxelder
Creek are mentioned but nothing about Lake Canal.
Response: Lake Canal is now noted on the ODP. Access for Lake Canal will not change from the
existing access.
✓ Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: From Justin Green, Superintendent, Lake Canal: 2. As you know
the city has just installed a siphon on Lake Canal so the creek can go over the
top. There is no mention of this structure in the notes or drawings.
Response: Lake Canal is noted on the ODP. Siphons and other structures have not been notetl on our
plans as the information does not pertain fo the ODP. Please clarify if a specific note is requested.
Justin Green, Superintendent, Lake Canal, 970-420-7503.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Heidi Hansen, 970-221-6854, hhansen@fcgov.com
Topic: Floodplain
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016
05/24/2016: Please remove Note 8 on Sheet 2 of the Master Drainage Plan as
it is incorrect. In Zc�,E, Base Flood Elevations have been det�ed.
Response: The floodplain notes have been revised to reflect the correct Floodplain designation.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016
05/24/2016: Please atld the following sentence to the end of Note 4: Building
and construction permits must meet the floodplain requirements based on the
regulatory floodplain in effect at the time of permit issuance. The revised
Boxelder Creek floodplain will not be regulatory until the LOMR is approved by
FEMA. Final fiood fringe antl floodway boundaries may differ from those in the
CLOMR.
Response: A note has been adtled regarding construction permits for work within the floodplain.
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty_@fcgov.com
Topic: Construction Drawings
Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05125/2016: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Topic: General
Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: ODP: There are line over text issues. See redlines.
Response: Revised.
Topic: Site Plan
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05125/2016: ODP: This is not amending the "Gateway At Prospect" ODP. If
the title is not changed, please atld "Amending Interstate Land ODP" to the title.
Response: Revised.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/2512016
05/25/2016: ODP: We suggest adding a larger title to the top of the sheets.
Response: A larger title has been added to the top of Sheet 1.
Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
05/25/2016: ODP: There is text that needs to be rotated 180 degrees. See
redlines.
Response: Revisetl.
�
Comment Number: 4
05/25/2016; ODP: Please darken the background line work.
Response: Revised.
Department: Traffic Operation
Contact: Martina Wilkinson, 970-221-6887, mwilkinson@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1
�
Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
Comment Originated: 05/27/2016
05/27/2016: The TIS has been reviewed and provides a good starting point for
further discussions. We are awaiting CDOT review and once complete, will
coordinate a meeting to discuss further.
Response: Acknowledged.
Comment Number: 2
Comment Originated: 05/27/2016
05/27I2016: The TIS lists'future' geometry, but doesn't clearly indicate what
improvements the development should expect to install with each (or at least the
first) phase.
Response: Figure 13 in the TIS shows the required lanes in red. This is for Phase 1, as noted on Table 2,
Trip Generation. Most of the require lanes are near/adjacent to the site (Prospect/Fronfage Road
intersection, Access A, Access C). A westbound right-turn lane is shown at the off-site ProspectlSummit
View intersection. It was our understanding that the roundabout, on the Frontage Road, was a given.
The eastbound right-turn lane at the ProspectJSB I-25 Ramps intersection is currently required. Left-turn
lanes are shown to be required (currently) on the I-25 bridge, but this improvement would be part of a larger
project as discussed in a scoping meeting. There is an expectation that additional TIS reports will be
prepared at each PDP, which will show the required geometry for that PDP.
Comment Number: 3
Comment Originated: 05/27/2016
05/27/2016: Please check the analysis and Level of Service of the Frontage
RoadlProspect intersection. The TIS reflects a LOS A, when in reality that
intersection creates up to a 1/2 mile EB queue almost daily.
Response: The actual delay experienced in the eastbound tlirection is acknowledged. The signal
phasing/timing at the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection may have been given more green time to
Prospect Road than that which currently exists. The actual signal timing at this intersection was not
available for the TIS.
Comment Number: 4
Comment Originatetl: 05/27/2016
05/27/2016: The collector level internal street network would be helpful to
discuss a bit more, and identify the classification (and cross section) expected
with the roatl network.
Response: Acknowledged. In a future 'amended' TIS, a section on street classification can be atlded. It
will include Prospect Road, the Frontage Road, and the public street'stubs' that intersect with Prospect
Road antl the Frontage Road. The cross section of a specific street classification should be in accordance
with LCUASS. Th� generally determines the need for turn la�beyontl the standard cross section of
a given street.
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/27/2016
The site wiil be served water by Elco. Please contact Mike Scheid, 493-2044
for further information. The will be served sewer by Boxeider. Please contact
Brenda Price, 498-0604 for further information.
Response; Acknowledgetl.
Department: Zoning
Contact: Marcus Glasgow, 970-416-2338, mglasgow@fcgov.com
Topic: General
Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 05/24/2016
05/24/2016: LUC 3.2.2(J) Minimum Average of entire landscape setback area:
Along lot line- 5ft
Along non-arterial street-10ft
Along arterial street-15ft
Minimum width of setback at any point is 5 ft.
Response: Acknowletlged.
Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 05/25/2016
0512512016: Please follow the design standards outlined in section 4.5(E)(4)
Design standards for multi-family dwellings in LMN.
Response: Acknowledged.