Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARADIGM PROPERTIES - ODP - 29-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - (4)Department: Engineering Topic: genera/ Issue Contact: Marc Virata 11 ' Access out to Prospect Road directly from the property will not be allowed. [10/23] The Developer has indicated on Note #28 that access to Prospect Road is not permitted "at this time". Remove "at this time". An ODP is not designed to be "flexible" with regards to access points unless the ODP were to be amended through a re -submittal and approval process. 37 In discussions with CDOT, an additional note should be added noting that the I-25 northound exit ramp location and alignment will likely shift east with interchange improvements, which could require additional right-of-way from the site. 38 Note # 10 indicates a 15' utility easement alongside internal streets. Only 9' of utility easement is the minimum required on all streets except Prospect Road, which is 15'. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Drainage 41, A drainage study is required as part of the submittal requirements. The previously submitted "Conceptual Storm Drainage Report" addresses in general terms the onsite drainage plan, except that it needs to be revised to match the latest ODP layout. It also does not address the offsite flows onto the site nor how these flows are routed through the site and back into the existing flow path. There is. approximately 3900 cfs in the 100-year event that passes through. If channelization is proposed the downstream and maybe the upstream landowners may need to be involved to make a channel possible. Also the report does not address the outfall system for the proposed detention/water quality pond. The runoff path needs to be analyzed from the site to a "natural drainageway" and all needed improvements and easements should be identified. Topic: F/oodpiain Comments 40 10/23/02 1. The response to the comment concerning the floodplain is not appropriate. Michael B. Smith, Utilities General Manager, has adopted the revised Boxelder Creek Master Plan. The new floodplain map is based on the rainfall standard adopted by Page 4 C. There are Adequate Public Facilities issues and concerns associated with the Frontage Road and Prospect Road. d. The developer(s) will be responsible for traffic signals installed in this area. 47 Mike Scheid of the ELCO Water District indicated that they have been in contact with the developer to insure that adequate fire service will be provided for this development. 48 Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) indicated that PSC has a 4" gas main along the west edge of the, Frontage Road _right-of-way adjacent to the Paradigm Properties. 49 For clarification on the Overall Development Plan (ODP), parcel designations (numbers or letters) should be added to each of the 12 parcels identified to be developed into the various land uses proposed. 50 On the ODP, please revise the Project Notes accordingly: a. Note #2 should read that "Hotel/motels are defined as lodging establishments and are commercial uses in the City's LUC". This note could be completely eliminated since the LUC determines the nature of land uses. b. Note #4 indicates that there are no floodplain or floodways on the site. The City's Stormwater Utility indicates that this statement is not correct. C. Note #6 indicates that no wetlands or wildlife corridor exist on the site. Has this been officially determined? d. Note #20 - incorrect spelling for "sight" distance easements. e. Note #25 should read that "If the property is found to be within a floodplain then critical facilities will be required to be constructed with access a minimum of 18 inches above the flood level. The no -rise requirement of the floodplain is to be enforced". There will be no residential uses in this development. f. Note #28 should read that "No direct vehicular access to East Prospect Road from this development will be permitted". Page 3 33 The City's Street Oversizing Department indicated that this development does not meet the street oversizing criteria for participation. Note: This comment is just being reiterated forgeneral information. Please continue to try to contact Matt Baker of the Engineering Department directly at 224-6108 if you still have questions for him. 34 Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department offered the following comments: a. The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Matt Delich (dated May, 2002) is acceptable and meets the requirements of the Lorimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Section 4.3.3(A). This is a Master TIS only. The project will be required to submit additional transportation studies with the PDP & Final compliance applications. b. The Prospect Road/northbound Interstate 25 ramp currently has unacceptable operation. The Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements will come_ into play in the future when a PDP is submitted. C. No access to and from this property will be granted on East Prospect Road between the northbound Interstate 25 ramp. and the southeast Frontage Road to the east. d. The applicant will need to work with both the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the City in determining the configuration of interchange improvements. Note: These comments are just being reiterated in conjunction with Eric's new comment ##46. 46 Eric Bracke of the City's Traffic Operations Department offered the following comments: a. The 2nd access (middle) on the Frontage Road, between the proposed retail and sit-down restaurant uses, will be denied by the City. The City will not allow the access on the "inside" of the curve on the Frontage Road. b. , No TIS has been re -submitted to the City for review. Page 2 City of Fort Collins Hattman Associates c/o Ric Hattman 145 West Swallow Road Fort Collins, CO. 80525 STAFF PROJECT REVIEW 10/31/2002 Staff has reviewed your revisions re -submittal for PARADIGM PROPERTIES OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, #29-01A, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General 27 Webb Jones of the East Lorimer County Water District (ELCO) indicated that they currently provide water service to the existing motorcycle dealership located on the proposed Paradigm Properties site. Water service is delivered through an 8" water line_ located in the southeast frontage road. Fire flow available to the existing and proposed improvements will be approximately 1,000 gallons per minute. Potable water service will be provided by ELCO upon. installation of all necessary water system improvements, compliance with District development requirements, and payment of all applicable development fees and charges. Note:. This comment is just being reiterated forgeneral information. 28 Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) offered the following comments: a. PSCO will need 15' wide utility easements on both sides of and adjacent to all interior streets and 20' wide utility easements along the southeast Frontage Road and East Prospect Road. b. Any relocation of existing PSCO facilities will be at the property owner's/developer's expense. Note: These comments are just being reiterated forgeneral information. Page 1 This completes staff (and outside reviewing agencies) review and comments at this time. Comments numbered 37and higher are new comments in response to the re - submittal documentation. This proposal is subject to the 90-day revision re - submittal requirement (from the date of this comment letter, being October 31, 2002) as set forth in Section 2.2.11(A) of the Land Use Code. Be sure and return all of your red -lined plans when you re -submit. If you have any questions regarding these issues or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at 221-6341. Yours Truly, 4tevt�- , t City Planner Page 7 6.. Please add the following notes to the plan. These notes are all based on previous comments. • Any "residential' structures (this includes the proposed hotels) in the floodplain must have the lowest floor, including basement or crawl space, elevated 18" above the 100-year flood level. • Any non-residential structures in the floodplain must either have the lowest floor including basement or crawl space elevated 18" above the 100-year flood level or be floodproofed 18" above the 100-year flood level. • Critical facilities (including the proposed gas station) are not allowed to be built in the 100-year floodplain. To remove this site from the floodplain, the pumps, valves, manholes to tanks, etc. would have to be elevated 18" above the flood level, similar to a structure. Please see Chapter 10 of City Code for the definition of critical facilities. 7. A floodplain use permit and $25 permit fee will be required for each structure that is built in the floodplain. To obtain a CO, an elevation certificate or floodproofing certificate will be required to be submitted and approved. Topic: Water Quality 26 Water quality should. be incorporated into the design of detention ponds at PDP submittal. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Genera/ 42 In addition to.the City reviewing the design of the SE Frontage Road, CDOT will also need to review the designs and give their approval. 43 Strike the words "at this time" at the end of note #28. 44 Please be aware that as the POP proposals are submitted more detailed analysis of the transportation system will be required. This may lead to off -site improvements. 45 Note #10 states that a 15 foot utility easement will be provided on each side of the R.O.W. Please note that only a.9 foot easement is required for commercial local streets. Page 6 City Council in 1999. There is no intention by City staff to change the floodplain mapping since it is based on the currently adopted rainfall standard. Based on City Code Section 10-20b, this development must comply with all of the floodplain regulations. Please acknowledge this floodplain and that the development will comply with the adopted floodplain regulations. 2. Under the LUC Section 2.3.2 (H), (6) & (7) which are part of the "ODP Review Procedures" the site "features" need to be shown and addressed as to how they can be incorporated into the site design. The OUP must also be consistent with the Drainage Basin Master Plans which includes the floodplain. Therefore the proposed floodplain modifications need to be modeled in enough detail to show that the ODP site uses in their proposed locations still allow the safe passage of the Boxelder flows through the site without a negative affect (no -rise) on other properties. The modeling of the floodplain is part of the required drainage study. 3. Project Note #8. The existing contours should be based off of the City's vertical datum, not the U565 vertical datum. Please see the August 12, 1998 memo from Wally Muscott, City Surveyor, concerning the City's vertical datum and the benchmarks and corresponding elevations. The City's datum is based on NGVD 1929 without the 1984 adjustment. It is critical for any information used for floodplain purposes to be on the City's vertical datum. Please review and revise the existing topography and the note to be based on the City's datum. 4. Please list the benchmark number and elevation that was used for surveying. 5. Many of the Project Notes are not accurate concerning the floodplain: • #4 states that there are no "No floodplain or Floodways on the site". This is incorrect. The site is in the Boxelder.Creek Floodplain. See comment #1, above. • #25 is misleading and inaccurate. Again, the site is in the Boxelder Creek Floodplain. See comment #1 above. Please have this comment read: " The property is entirely within a floodplain. The no -rise requirement is to be met as part of the PDP. A hydraulic analysis by a professional engineer will be required for all changes (fill, construction of buildings, culverts, channels, etc.) to the existing site." Page 5