Planning and Development Services
Planning Division 15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Ste. 2300 Aurora, Colorado 80012 303.739.7250
April 20, 2017
Matt Runyon Northstar Commercial Partners 1999 Broadway, Suite 770 Denver, CO 80202
Re: Initial Submission Review – Citadel on Colfax – Master Plan and Replat Application Number: DA-1422-08 Case Numbers: 2017-6017-00; 2017-3017-00
Dear Mr. Runyon:
Thank you for your initial submission, which we started to process on Monday, March 27, 2017. We reviewed it and attached our comments along with this cover letter. The first section of our review highlights our major comments. The following sections contain more specific comments, including those received from other city departments and community members.
Since several important issues still remain, you will need to make another submission. Please revise your previous work and send us a new submission on or before Thursday, May 11, 2017. Your administrative decision date is tentatively set for Wednesday, June 21, 2017.
Note that all our comments are numbered. When you resubmit, include a cover letter specifically responding to each item. The Planning Department reserves the right to reject any resubmissions that fail to address these items. If you have made any other changes to your documents other than those requested, be sure to also specifically list them in your letter.
As always, if you have any comments or concerns, please give me a call. I may be reached at 303-739-7857.
Sincerely,
Sarah Wieder, Planner II City of Aurora Planning Department cc: Kristoffer Kenton, Galloway & Company, 6162 S Willow Drive, Suite 320, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Margee Cannon, Neighborhood Liaison Gary Sandel, ODA Filed: K:\$DA\1422-08rev1.rtf
Initial Submission Review
SUMMARY OF KEY COMMENTS FROM ALL DEPARTMENTS
Make revisions to the Cover Sheet of the Master Plan (see Item 2) Submit the Replat with the next submission of the Master Plan so the review process is not delayed (see Item 2) Revise and add to the Land Use Summary table (see Item 3) Provide street cross sections for all streets within the development (see Item 5) Clarify language and add triggers within the Public Improvements Phasing Plan (see Items 5, 11, 12 13 and 14) Make all requested changes and additions to the Landscape Plan (see Item 9) Indicate whether the internal streets will be public or private streets (see Item 11) Provide the street connection to K-Mart in the first phase and review comments on the Traffic Study (see Item 12) Show a symbol reflecting the locations of fire hydrants on all street cross sections (see Item 13) Show hydrant locations and conceptual meter locations (see Item 14) Coordinate with Jacque Chomiak on a site visit to inventory the trees for tree mitigation purposes (see Item 15) Review all comments from PROS regarding land dedication and park development fees (see Item 16) Dedicate all on-site easements with the Replat and consider having a Master License Agreement (see Item 17) Coordinate with RTD on the location of the bus stop (see Item 19) Review and respond to all comments from Xcel Energy (see Item 20) Review comments from Aurora Public Schools regarding school land dedication requirements (see Item 21) See attached comments from CDOT regarding issues with the proposed traffic signal and access (see Item 22) Respond to all additional redline comments
PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
1. Community Questions, Comments and Concerns 1A. Referrals were sent to fourteen (14) registered neighborhood organizations and forty (40) adjacent property owners. No written comments were received. A neighborhood meeting is not required because no concerns or issues were raised, but you are welcome to hold one if you would like to update neighbors on your Master Plan. If you would like to schedule a neighborhood meeting, please coordinate with Margee Cannon, Neighborhood Liaison, at 303-739-7287 or [email protected].
2. Completeness and Clarity of the Application 2A. Make minor changes to the Letter of Introduction per redline comments. 2B. Revise the labeling on the Vicinity Map on the Cover Sheet. 2C. Change all references of a “Master Site Plan” to just a Master Plan for consistency purposes. 2D. Update the legal description of the property on the Cover Sheet to match the Replat. 2E. There are multiple references to “TOD” throughout the Master Plan and Design Guidelines. Please remove these references as this is not property is not designated as a transit-oriented development. 2F. There are several errors within the Signature Block, including the incorrect developer and incorrect year. It is also blurry. Please revise this with the next submission. 2G. Consider changing the numbering of sheets in the Sheet Index so they are simpler to reference. See redline comments. 2H. The bus route and fire station noted on the Cover Sheet are incorrect. Please revise with the next submission. 2I. Provide information regarding the depth of utilities along Colfax Avenue with the next submission. If they are deep enough (at least 2 feet), street trees can possibly be installed along Colfax Avenue. 2J. Please fill out the Mineral Rights Affidavit and supply this document to your Case Manager. 2K. Submit the Replat with the next submission of the Master Plan. Please coordinate with Real Property to ensure that all requested materials are uploaded as well.
3. Zoning and Land Use Issues 3A. In the Land Use Summary on the Cover Sheet, please include the present zoning classification (Sustainable Infill and Redevelopment District) and the overall site acreage. 3B. Planning Area 1 is identified as “Restaurant” in the Land Use Summary, but “Retail” on the Overall Site Plan. Please ensure that this is revised so they are the same. 3C. Revise the language in the Design Guidelines on Page 30 as all service areas are required to be screened, regardless of whether it is visible from a public right-of-way.
4. Waivers 4A. Based on the first review, it does not appear that any waivers are being requested from the Sustainable Infill and Redevelopment (SIR) District or the general Zoning Code. Staff appreciates that this Master Plan is meeting all applicable requirements and standards. 4B. For future reference, please note that if waivers are requested that are greater than 10 percent with any future Site Plan application in the development, a public hearing will be required at Planning Commission per Section 146- 405(G).
5. Streets and Pedestrian Issues 5A. There are no street cross sections provided for Street “A” or the street that runs between Planning Area 7 and Planning Area 8. Please provide this with the next submission. 5B. Clarify what “Developer’s Responsibility” means in the Public Improvements Phasing Plan. Does this mean the property owner? Metro District? Northstar Commercial Partners? Please clarify. 5C. The open space trail does not appear to be included in the Public Improvements Phasing Plan. Please add this. 5D. See comments from Traffic Engineering (Item 12) regarding the connection to the K-Mart property and the phasing for this street. 5E. Show the access movements onto Sable Boulevard, similar to how you are showing access movements along Colfax Avenue. 5F. RTD is not in favor of the proposed bus stop location. See Item 21 for additional information. 5G. Some of the proposed streetscapes may not comply with the city’s typical street standards like is stated on Page 13 of the Design Guidelines. Please include a caveat to this requirement. See additional information from Civil Engineering (Item 11) regarding public versus private streets within the development.
6. Parking Issues 6A. Please ensure that the parking you are showing adjacent to the Central Park accounts for handicap accessible parking spaces. These will be required. 6B. On Page 27 of the Design Guidelines, it states that “quantity of parking stalls is to comply with the City of Aurora Parking Codes.” However, the Sustainable Infill and Redevelopment (SIR) District does not have minimum on-site parking requirements per Section 146-735; parking requirements are determined based off a parking analysis provided by the applicant demonstrating their parking needs. Please revise this language as such. 6C. There is a design standard on Page 27 of the Design Guidelines that states that “no surface parking lot should be more than 50 percent visible from the street.” Does this apply to all streets within the development or only some streets? Please clarify.
8. Signage Issues 8A. Provide a signage plan within the Design Guidelines that identifies potential locations for project identification signs and joint monument signs. In addition, please include a detail of what these signs could look like (i.e. materials, height, theme, etc.). Because this is a Master Plan, signage should be planned for at a high level. 8B. Please refer to Section 146-1613 when considering signage for the site. This site falls under the “Mixed-Use Main Street” category. The intent is to combine signs and have them located in strategic areas throughout the development so that there is adequate signage for tenants, but not an overabundance.
7. Architectural and Urban Design Issues 7A. Some of the images in the Design Guidelines are blurry. In addition, staff recommends making the document 11” x 17” so that each section can fit on one page to improve the overall formatting and organization. Please revise as necessary. 7B. Please ensure that you are using consistent language throughout the Design Guidelines in relation to “standards” versus “guidelines.” There are some places where “shall” is being used for a recommendation instead of “should.” A thorough review of the document would be helpful to make sure that everything is in the proper location from your perspective. 7C. Include details of the fence types or styles that will be allowed on the Site Amenities sheet in the Master Plan, or within the Design Guidelines. 7D. Consider adding a minimum height requirement (such as 20 feet) along the Colfax Avenue street frontage to give it more of an “urban feel.” This is a standard requirement west of I-225 along Colfax Avenue and within transit- oriented developments. 7E. In the “Multi-Family Development” section, add that all apartments are required to be elevator-serviced as a design standard. 7F. It is unclear what the intent of the “Public Art” section is within the Design Guidelines. This is not a transit- oriented development site like is stated on Page 24. If you wish to provide public art, please coordinate with Roberta Bloom at [email protected]. 7G. Add an additional section to the Design Guidelines regarding sustainability. At least one element of sustainability is required within this zoning district per Section 146-737. 7H. The “Service Areas” and “Fences, Loading & Screening” sections include very similar information and standards. Please either differentiate them or combine them into one section. 7I. Typically, a designated city staff member also sits on the Design Review Committee. Please 7J. Please upload the illustrative renderings on Page 10 as a separate file with the next submission. These will be helpful to include as an exhibit in the administrative decision report on the future. 7K. Why is EIFS the only material that is called out as allowed under the “Row Home / Town Home” and “Multi- Family Development” sections? Is the intent to have EIFS as the primary material for residential buildings? Please either call out other preferred materials or remove this statement from those sections. 7L. Staff recommends having masonry brick as an acceptable primary material to provide more options for future projects.
9. Landscaping Issues (Kelly Bish / 303-739-7189 / [email protected] / Comments in bright teal) 9A. See and address all redline comments related to landscaping in the Design Guidelines. 9B. Provide a street cross section for the southern half of Street “B” on Sheet A100. 9C. Keep all the city-required landscape notes together on Sheet L0.0. 9D. Provide the landscape tables demonstrating compliance with code requirements. 9E. Dimension and label all proposed street and non-street frontage buffers. 9F. Specify a specific grass within the masses of ornamental grasses along the street frontage on Sheet L1.1. 9G. Provide the required detention pond landscaping. 9H. Dimension and label the southern buffer adjacent to the single-family homes. 9I. Consider adding a note to the landscape plans regarding the use of the tree grates so that future maintenance includes enlarging the openings as the trees grow in order to accommodate the trunks of the trees. 9J. Because Street “A” is being included as part of Phase 2, the streetscape should be designed for this just like the other streets.
10. Addressing (Cathryn Day / 303-739-7357 / [email protected]) 10A. Please provide a digital .shp or .dwg file for addressing and other GIS mapping purposes. Include the parcel, street line, easement and building footprint layers at a minimum. Please ensure that the digital file provided in a NAD 83 feet, Stateplane, Central Colorado projection so it will display correctly within our GIS system. Please eliminate any line work outside of the target area. Please contact me if you need additional information about this digital file.
REFERRAL COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
11. Civil Engineering (Kristin Tanabe / 303-739-7306 / [email protected] / Comments in green) 11A. Please clarify whether the internal streets will be public streets. If they are public streets, see redline comments on Sheet A201 regarding specific standards. 11B. Add a note on the Public Improvements Phasing Plan that states that the drainage channel improvements are required prior to any development occurring on the site. 11C. The Public Improvements Phasing Plan should consider each phase independent of the other. Market conditions can cause development of Planning Areas out of order. The phasing should address improvements needed for each area to be developed. 11D. See comments on Sheet C101 regarding minimum and maximum slopes. 11E. Add a note indicating whether the storm sewer system is public or private and who will maintain it. 11F. A drainage easement is required for all detention / water quality ponds. Show and label drainage easements.
12. Traffic Engineering (Victor Rachael / 303-739-7309 / [email protected] / Comments in orange) 12A. The street connection to the K-Mart site should be in Phase 1. 12B. Remove crosswalks where indicated per redline comments. 12C. Provide clear views of pedestrians for vehicular traffic. Any proposed plants in the sight triangle must comply with the city’s vertical requirements. Upsize or revise plants as necessary and add a note regarding compliance with Roadway Specifications, Section 4.04.2.10. 12D. Show all sight triangles were indicated per redline comments. 12E. Staff will meet with CDOT to discuss the issues they have brought up about access and traffic signals. Once staff meets with CDOT and understands their perspective, there will likely need to be a joint meeting between the city, CDOT and the developer.
13. Fire / Life Safety (Neil Wiegert / 303-739-7613 / [email protected] / Comments in blue) 13A. On all street sections, show a symbol reflecting the location of the adjacent fire hydrant in the appropriate location. See redline comments. 13B. Label all proposed street types per redline comment on Sheet A100. 13C. Include fire hydrants in the Phasing Sequence notes. 13D. See all redline comments on the Public Improvements Phasing Plan and add all requested notes. 13E. Show all proposed fire hydrant locations on the Utility Plan. 13F. Add the requested note to Sheet L0.0 regarding landscape material placement relative to fire hydrant locations.
14. Aurora Water (Anthony Tran / 303-739-7376 / [email protected] / Comments in red) 14A. Include flow arrows and slope labels on Sheet C101. 14B. Label existing and proposed pipe materials and existing pipe sizes on Sheet C102. Include the flow direction arrows for sanitary and storm sewers. 14C. Show hydrant locations and conceptual meter locations in landscaped areas. 14D. Show and dimension all proposed utility easements on Sheet C102.
15. Forestry (Jacque Chomiak / 303-739-7178 / [email protected] / Comments in purple) 15A. There will be many trees impacted by development of this site, however, there is a homeless population that requires relocation before entering the site. The inventory of the trees will be completed as soon as this occurs. Please work with me to set up a time for a site visit. Completing a visual look at the site, due to species and size of trees on the site, relocation is not an option. The use of tree equivalents is not permitted to mitigate for tree loss. Any tree that is removed from this site should either be replaced within the landscape or be mitigated through payment to the Tree Planting Fund. 15B. Please show a tree mitigation chart on the Landscape Plan taken from the Landscape Manual (Page 29). If payment will be made into the Tree Planting Fund, add another column to the chart indicating the payment amount that will be made. If trees will be planted on the site, please show a symbol indicating trees that are specific to tree mitigation.
16. PROS (Chris Ricciardiello / 303-739-7154 / [email protected] / Comments in purple) 16A. Population Designation: Staff will require additional information regarding proposed residential housing within the subject development – housing unit types, the total number of proposed dwelling units, and quantity of specific dwelling unit types – before the proposed population for the development may be calculated. A population calculation shall be employed specifically assigned to Transit Oriented Development at 2.02 persons per proposed unit to determine the population of the Citadel on Colfax. 16B. Land Dedication and Park Development Fees: To provide adequate parks equipped with appropriate facilities, the City Code enumerates requirements for park land dedication and park development fees. These allow PROS to purchase land (or have it dedicated to the city) and to construct new facilities. When a development includes residential units and involves re-zoning, these requirements are applied. 16C. Explanation of Park Land Dedication Requirements: The city’s park land dedication policy is set forth in Section 48(b) of Chapter 147 (i.e., the Subdivision Ordinance) of the City Code. It specifies that park land shall be dedicated in accordance with the following standards: 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks; 1.1 acres per 1,000 residents for community parks; and no open space land dedication will be required because the subject development is a Transit Oriented Development and is exempt from the open space land dedication requirements. Land dedication requirements and the proposed method of how they will be satisfied shall be explicitly presented in the Master Plan submittal. For subdivisions qualifying as TOD development, PROS allows as an incentive the use of a predefined per-acre value for cash-in-lieu payments based on the average cost for COA open space acquisitions. This value at the time of application is $45,800 per acre. The cash-in-lieu payment for land dedication shall be paid at the time of first subdivision platting. 16D. Park Development Fees: Park development fees will be calculated per current City Code requirements. These fees are based on the park land area (land dedication acreage for Neighborhood Park and Community Park) required to serve proposed new residents and a cost per acre for construction of facilities designated annually by PROS. Current PROS standards designates Park Development Fees as follows: $166,930 per acre for Neighborhood Park and $167,770 per acre for Community Park. Park development fees shall be paid per unit at the time of building permit issuance. 16E. TOD Designation: The location of the proposed project at the southeast corner of Sable and Colfax has been determined to be within the service area of the 13th Avenue Station. Incentives available to TOD projects will be applicable to Citadel on Colfax. 16F. PROS Requirements Caveat: The timing for implementation of the project may affect the ultimate amount of fees collected and other payments imposed to satisfy park-related obligations. If aspects of your project change, such as the number of dwelling units proposed, the park land dedication requirements may also change. 16G. Colfax Medians: If the existing landscape medians are impacted by roadway improvements associated with the subject development, the applicant shall coordinate proposed median impacts with PROS.
17. Real Property (Maurice Brooks / 303-739-7294 / [email protected] / Comments in magenta) 17A. Label the lots, blocks and tracts on the Overall Site Plan. 17B. Any on-site easements should be dedicated by the Replat. Follow the Subdivision Plat Checklist when preparing the Replat and please meet with Maurice or Darren prior to submitting. Any off-site easements need to be dedicated by separate documents. 17C. Please be aware that a Master License Agreement may be needed. 17D. Include all right-of-way widths of the existing or proposed streets.
18. Revenue (Glenna Owens / 303-739-7393 / [email protected]) 18A. Any applicable fees will be determined when the Replat is reviewed with the next submission.
19. RTD (Brian Thye / 303-299-2722 / [email protected]) 19A. I reviewed the proposed bus stop relocation (Colfax & Altura) with our Service Planning Department. The bus stop should remain at the intersection with Altura since this will be a signalized intersection in the future and is more suitable for pedestrian crossings.
20. Xcel Energy (Donna George / 303-571-3306 / [email protected]) 20A. Public Service Company of Colorado’s (PSCo) Right of Way and Permits Referral Desk has reviewed the master plan for Citadel on Colfax. As always, thank you for the opportunity to take part in the review process. To ensure that adequate utility easements are available within this development, PSCo requests 6-foot wide utility easements dedicated on private property adjacent to the front lot lines and 8-feet on the rear lot lines of each lot in the subdivision or platted area identified as single-family lots. If there are alley-loaded lots, PSCo requests 6-foot wide utility easements for natural gas facilities including space for service trucks to drive and 8-foot wide utility easements for electric facilities including transformers, pedestals, and cabling. Ten-foot wide utility easements are required on private property adjacent to all public streets and around the perimeter of each commercial/industrial and multi-family lot in the subdivision or platted area including tracts, parcels and/or open space areas. 20B. PSCo requests that the following language or plat note be placed on the preliminary and final plats for the subdivision: Utility easements are dedicated to the City of Aurora for the benefit of the applicable utility providers for the installation, maintenance, and replacement of electric, gas, television, cable, and telecommunications facilities (Dry Utilities). Utility easements shall also be granted within any access easements and private streets in the subdivision. Permanent structures, improvements, objects, buildings, wells, water meters and other objects that may interfere with the utility facilities or use thereof (Interfering Objects) shall not be permitted within said utility easements and the utility providers, as grantees, may remove any Interfering Objects at no cost to such grantees, including, without limitation, vegetation. Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) and its successors reserve the right to require additional easements and to require the property owner to grant PSCo an easement on its standard form. PSCo also requests that all utility easements be depicted graphically on the preliminary and final plats. While these easements should accommodate the majority of utilities to be installed in the subdivision, some additional easements may be required as planning and building progresses. 20C. 31-23-214 (3), C.R.S., requires the subdivider, at the time of subdivision platting, to provide for major utility facilities such as electric substation sites, gas or electric transmission line easements and gas regulator/meter station sites as deemed necessary by PSCo. While this provision will not be required on every plat, when necessary, PSCo will work with the subdivider to identify appropriate locations. This statute also requires the subdivider to submit a letter of agreement to the municipal/county commission that adequate provision of electrical and/or gas service has been provided to the subdivisions. 20D. Please be aware PSCo owns and operates existing natural gas and electric facilities within the proposed project area. The property owner/developer/contractor must contact the Builder's Call Line at 1-800-628-2121 or https://xcelenergy.force.com/FastApp (register so you can track your application) and complete the application process for any new gas or electric service, or modification to existing facilities. It is then the responsibility of the developer to contact the Designer assigned to the project for approval of design details. Additional easements may need to be acquired by separate document for new facilities. As a safety precaution, PSCo would like to remind the developer to call the Utility Notification Center at 1-800-922-1987 to have all utilities located prior to any construction.
21. Aurora Public Schools (Josh Hensley / 303-365-7812 / [email protected]) 21A. The school land dedication obligation for the proposed Citadel on Colfax mixed use development will depend on the approved number and type of residential units. The estimated school land requirement based on 170 multi- family low density and 100 multi-family high density residential units is 1.445 acres in accordance with Section 147- 48 of the Aurora City Code. The school land obligation may also depend on whether veteran supportive housing is intended for veterans with families. Aurora Public Schools generally does not request school land dedication for residential housing that excludes school age children provided there are assurances through zoning, community covenants or other mechanisms that all units will age restricted when built and in the future. Aurora Public Schools will accept cash-in-lieu of land valued at market value for any school obligation related to this development. Cash-in- lieu of school land dedication is due before platting. See attached document.
22. CDOT (Marilyn Cross / 303-512-4266 / [email protected]) 22A. Please see attached comments from CDOT Region 1.
AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS - STUDENT YIELD 4/18/2017
Citadel on Colfax - April 2017
Dwelling Type Units Yield Ratio Student Yield SFD 0.7 0 MF-LOW 170 0.3 51 MF-HIGH 100 0.145 15 TOTAL 270 66
ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCHOOL K-8 TOTAL HIGH SCHOOL K-12 YIELD RATIO STUDENTS RATIO STUDENTS STUDENTS RATIO STUDENTS TOTAL SF 0.34 0 0.16 0 0 0.2 0 0 MF-LOW 0.17 29 0.08 14 43 0.05 9 51 MF-HIGH 0.075 8 0.04 4 12 0.03 3 15 TOTAL 36 18 54 12 66
ACRES PER ACRES SCHOOL TYPE STUDENT YIELD CHILD REQUIRED ELEMENTARY 36 0.0175 0.6370 MIDDLE 18 0.025 0.4400 HIGH 12 0.032 0.3680 TOTAL 66 1.4450
CitadelColfax_April2017 4/18/2017 STATE OF COLORADO Traffic & Safety Region 1 2000 South Holly Street Denver, Colorado 80222 Project Name: Citadel on Colfax Highway: Mile Marker: Print Date: 4/14/2017 040 Traffic Comments: Paul Scherner 4317
As described in the State Highway Access Code, CDOT will not allow a traffic signal per Page 6, Item 8 in the Recommendations ; "The intersection of E. Colfax Avenue and Altura Boulevard/Site Access should be signalized once traffic signal warrants are met." Full access can be obtained for the site via Sable Blvd. CDOT may consider 3/4 access, both directions on Colfax at Altura Blvd. Trip distribution and assignment will need to be modified to reflect this change.
Permits Comments: Contract Maintenance area. We would only permit Access. We do need to make sure handicap ramps meet latest Standards. M.S. 4/3/2017
Vicinity map and primary site plan (sheet A100) should clearly label and name the existing streets this project is planned to align with. I.e. label Altura & Eagle Streets. Prefer in parenthesis to add those names to the NS streets planned internal to this development for reference.
The turn arrows added to sheet C100 do not align or match with the throughturn movement recommended by figure 9C within the TIA.
This type of mixed land use development promotes and anticipates additional foot traffic. The two full turn movement locations proposed connecting to Colfax suggests the need for additional phase time on (new) signals for pedestrian crossings of US 40. This needs to be discussed. Ideally, given the midblock location between Sable & Chambers and the attractions on the north side of the highway, a grade separated pedestrian crossing would be more efficient for both vehicular & foot traffic and much safer.
CDOT also anticipates high volume of bus ridership along this corridor and the land use will generate a warrant for a midblock stop, given the light rail (transfer) station is 1 mile to the west. The new outside auxiliary lane will actually function as a bus lane. Such stop & go movement will effect traffic progression for the throughturn movement and it is recommended if a bus stop is to be considered, it needs to be discussed for safestrategic location or design between the access points.
While US 40 along this property frontage is NRC access classified, CDOT will require further analysis of the proposed left turn movement spacing, to demonstrate that backtoback auxiliary left turn lanes can be built fully to code standards for the posted 35 mph ideally with no variances or waivers necessary.
Sheet C100 does not offer any hint when the cross connection to the commercial site to the east will occur and the existing western rightin/out access (to Kmart site) would be closed. Please correct the mixed message between the TIA & Site plan sheet C100. Page 3 of the TIA says "The west RIRO K-mart Access will be closed by 2021" Then on page 5, it says: "this access will perform at a LOS C through 2037." And on sheet C100, there is no indication of what phase this connection and closure will occur. As previously discussed, CDOT is not supportive of adding more points of conflict (access locations) along Colfax and the previous understanding was to close one in exchange for the other.
It is noted that street trees are proposed along Colfax. From examining other properties along the south frontage of US 40 nearby, and on the utility plan, a multiple number of buried utilities are laterally located which will need to either be relocated or protected inplace (no Alta survey was provided). Furthermore, not entirely clear where the stream drainage goes; is it into a pipe that will run laterally west inside CDOT ROW? If my guess is correct, this may be problematic to enhancements planned along the roadway edge or potentially (based on size & depth) could require frequent maintenance access by being inside the shared ROW. A drainage plan should be delivered and foward to our Design Residency to review and followedup with a discussion. All work in CDOT ROW, including landscaping, is by permit from this Region office.
All privately owned signs oriented to highway 40 need to comply with the state rules of outdoor advertising.
If a resubmittal is made with corrections for CDOT, we ask that a letter be included to indicate ifwherehow the issues ID have been addressed.
RS 040417
We should discuss what is acceptable for access
I am glad to see E Street connecting to Sable as we wanted all along. This will reduce the potential for a signal at "B" Street
Sable is a full movement access where "C" Street can connect and not be placed on Colfax.
Brad