Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARADIGM PROPERTIES - ODP - 29-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - REVISIONS (4)We have return revised plans within the 90 day limit. We appreciated your concerns for our project and are working with you to make this a better project. Sincerely; Fredric Hattman Model Floodplain modifications to a detail to meet the no -rise criteria. - Floodplain modeling is provided with this revision. Contours - Existing contours have been revised to reflect the City Datum NGVD 1929. Benchmark information. - Benchmark information has been added within Drainage Study. Revise notes. - These two notes have been rewritten. Add notes. - These three notes have been added. Flood plain permit and elevation or floodproofing certificate are required for Certificate of Occupancy. - We understand and have added a note to such. WATER QUALITY 26 Water Quality detention will be required at PDP. - Understood. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 42 CDOT will need to review and approve Frontage Road design. - Understood. 43 Revise note. - Note 28 has been revised. 44 At PDP stages more detailed analysis of the transportation system will occur which may require off -site improvements. - Understood. 45 Revise note. - Note 10 has been revised. 49 I.D. individual parcels. Parcels are now individually labeled. 50 Revise ODP notes. The eight notes highlighted have been revised. 11 Direct Access to Prospect will not be allowed. - This note has been changed. 37 CDOT may require additional R.O.W. I have conferred with them and there is no firm direction at this time. A note to this potential happening is noted. 38 Utility Easement. - A new note has been crafted with input from both Transportation and Engineering. STORMWATER 41 Revise Drainage Report with respect to the current Basin Study - A revised Drainage Plan that incorporates the offsite flows, the route through the property for these flows, and how the flow is directed back into the existing flows. The outfall system and water quality detention is included within this plan. 40 Property is within the new Boxelder Creek floodplain. - We acknowledge that the property is within the floodplain as shown within this basin study. We note that a study is being undertaken by the City by Anderson and Associates that is outlining measures that can be taken to remove properties within this basin from he floodplain. This study is to be completed January of 2003 and recommended action to City Council on Capital Storm Drainage Improvements will be made by May of 2003. Until such time as improvements are made this property is 100% within a basin defined floodplain. Any development on this property will comply with the adopted floodplain and the adopted floodplain regulations that are in place at the time of said development. Add site features to plan. - The existing building is shown with its improvements to be incorporated into the drainage design. Prospect Road and northbound I-25 ramp currently has unacceptable operation and APF requirements will come into play at PDP submission. - The existing unacceptable operation of the road system is a Community and Regionally created problem and we believe all parties see this situation. The Owner is willing to contribute his incremental share of the infrastructural cost but the cost of these facilities is a Community responsibility. No access will be granted on Prospect Road. - We understand that access will only be allowed onto the Frontage Road. Applicant to work with C-DOT and the City as to the configuration of the interchange. - As our property is adjacent, we will work with these agencies concerning the improvements to their traffic system. 46 The middle access point on the west side of the Frontage Road will not be allowed. - This access point has been eliminated. No TIS has been re -submitted. - The access lay -out has been returned to the original lay -out and density has been slightly been reduced so no re -submittal is needed. A copy of the original report was delivered to Eric's office. Adequate Public Facilities issues and concerns are associated with the property with respect to the Frontage Road and Prospect Road. - We understand that there are issues that can be resolved within a reasonable time frame. Others are problems that are currently on site and are not caused by this property and its planned development. The Developer will be responsible for the traffic signal installation in this area. - The signalization of Arterial and arterial and arterial and collector are the responsibility of the City as per code. We see no situation that will need to be signalized outside of these scenarios and therefore should be the responsibility of the City or the State. GENERAL 47 Contact between the District and the Property Owner has occurred with respect to fire flows. - We acknowledge and are working towards a solution. 48 4" natural gas main exist on the west side of the Frontage Road. We already show this line on the plan. December 2, 2002 HATTMAN ASSOCIATES Steve Olt. City Planner City of Ft. Collins Architecture 145 W. Swallow Road* 970 . 223 . 7335 RE: PARADIGM PROPERTIES ODP RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER OF 10/31/02 Dear Steve; & Planning Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Fax 970. 223 . 0511 I have reviewed your letter and will respond to each item that you catalog in the order that they appear in your letter. CURRENT PLANNING: 27 Water service will be by ELCO. Water service and adequate fire flow will be provided with installation of improvements defined by the District. - We have contacted Mr. Jones and are investigating the methods of increasing the water pressure in this area. We will need to bore another line under I-25 to meet this need. 28 Excel Energy requires a 20 foot easement along the Frontage Road and a 15 foot easement on each side of all interior streets. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the Owners expense. - This is a conflict between the City and the Utility. We will provide Utility Easements for the property at the PDP phase to City Standards and to meet the needs of the Utility. 33 Street Oversizing Department indicates that the property does not meet the street oversizing criteria for participation. - I have discussed the situation with Matt Baker. It is his finding that at this time without Additional street improvements to Prospect Road that reimbursement from the Street Oversizing fund would not be available. At such time as the City Capital Improvement Project to Prospect is completed over the Poudre to Summitview 2003 / 2004 and from Sump -view to I-25 2004 / 2005 or this improvement by a private entity, reimbursement would be available. TRAFFIC 34 The submitted TIS is acceptable. This is a Master TIS and requires updates at each PDP. - This is understood.