Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARADIGM PROPERTIES - ODP - 29-01A - CORRESPONDENCE - (6)} Water quality should be incorporated into the design of detention ponds at PDP submittal Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: Gemral Number-19 Created:6/24/2002 Resolved All access to the site needs to come off of the SE Frontage Road. Number:20 Created:6/24/2002 Resolved CDOT will need to review and comment on the proposed overall development plan (ODP). There will most likely be multi -modal improvements necessary to the Prospect interchange. Please consult CDOT further to address and coordinate their future plans and upcoming studies regarding the 1-25 corridor. Number:21 Created:6/24/2002 Resolved The ODP needs'to include a legend with the following elements shown on the ODP; proposed access points off of the frontage road, major pedestrian routes (internal to the site and around the site), major bicycle routes (internal to the site and external around the site), limits of the development, and the 1-25 corridor. Furthermore, the ODP needs to provide the 'location of transportation connections to adjoining properties in such a manner as to ensure connectivity into and through the ODP plan site from neighboring properties for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicyle movement, as required pursuant to Section 3.6.3 (F) and Section 3.2.2 (C) (6)' this is outlined in the City's Land Use Code. f Number: 22 Created: 6/24/2002 Resolved The Se Frontage Road and Prospect will require improvements to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, inlcuding sidewalks and on -street bikelanes. J Number:23 Created:6/24/2002 Resolved done Number:42 Created:10/28/2002 Resolved In addition to the City reviewing the design of the SE Frontage Road, CDOT will also need to review the designs and giye their approval. Number-3 Created:10/28/2002 Resolved Strike the words "at this time" at the end of note #28. Number;,4 Created:10/28/2002 Resolved Please lea"see that as the PDP proposals are submitted that more detailed analysis of the transportation system will be r cared. This may lead to off site improvements. Numbey��t5 Created:10/28/2002 Resolved Note # states that a 15 foot utility easement will be provided on each side of the R.O.W. Please note that only a 9 foo asement is required for commercial local streets. Number:52 Created:3/4/2003 Pending Please be aware that comments only refer to the ODP submitted and not the Concept Plan included in the packet. More specific comments regarding the site plans and layout of the internal circulation system will follow with each submitted PDP. Number:53 Created:3/5/2003 Pending FYI - CDOT is in the process of entering the environmental planning stages for 1-25 up to SH-14 (Mulberry Street). Please coordinate with CDOT regarding interchange and Prospect Road designs and how they may impact your proposed development and stormwater issues. Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes Number:1 Created:5/24/2002 Resolved Warehouse use0re not allowed in the C zone as a principal use. They are allowed as an accessory use (e.g. a construction oice is permitted with an accessory warehouse space for their own use). Therefore, at time of PDP application ore specific information will be required as to the warehouse use. Page 9 Basin Master Plans which includes the floodplains. 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 USGS 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 floodplains 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." 1. Please add the following notes to the plan. These notes are all based on previous comments. 2. 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. 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 floodproofmg certificate will be required to be submitted and approved. Topic: Water Quality Number:26 Created:6/25/2002 Previous Page 8 5 2. Replace Note 30 on the plan with two separate notes distinguishing between residential and non-residential uses. • 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. 3. The hydraulic modeling has not been reviewed in detail. A full review will take place at time of PDP when more detailed site information is available. Site layout and sizing of the drainage channel may change based on further analysis. 4. The no -rise criteria applies at all property boundaries, not just Prospect Road. Please make sure this is clearly stated in the report. 5. The Boxelder floodway will be made public soon. If a berm is proposed to protect the existing structure you will have to prove no -rise to the floodway elevation. 6. The Boxelder/Cooper Slough Recommended Selected Plan is complete. At this time there are no improvements in the plan which will remove this property from the Boxelder floodplain. We encourage the owner to participate in the public review of this master plan. There is a scheduled open house on April 3, 5-7 p.m. at the Holiday Inn at Mulberry/I-25. Also, the master plan is not scheduled to be brought to City Council until Fall 2003, not May 2003 as stated in the applicant's Response to Comments letter. Department: Stormwater Utility Topic: Floodplain Comments Number: 40 10/23/02 Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Created:10/25/2002 Previous 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 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 ODP must also be consistent with the Drainage Page 7 Number:56 Created:3/11/2003 Pending Easements will need to be attained before PDP approval for the outfall of this site from the property to the location where the outfall drains into a "natural" drainage path, most likely the Poudre River. If this can not be attained, then development of this property would not be possible. An investigation of whether this will be possible should take place at the ODP stage, before much of an investment has taken place for this property. Number:57 Created:3/11/2003 Pending Please describe in the report the outfall for this site from the property to the location where the outfall can be described as a "natural" drainage path. A field visit showed that the outfall for this site went south to a culvert that went under the interstate to an unknown location, probably the City property to the west of the interstate, which would require an easement from the City Utilities Department. Department::mwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Easements Number.75 Created:6/25/2002 Resolved Develo ant of the property may involve the need to obtain off -site drainage easemeents for the conveyance of deve ped flows from the site, even if the rate of outflow is maintained at historic levels, since the volume of runoff will b creased by development. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Floodplain Number:3 Created:6/18/2002 Resolved 1. This property is located/threcently mapped Boxelder Creek floodplain. Please see the attached Floodplain Review Checklist for inforis required on the plat, drainage and grading plans, and in the drainage report. 2. Because a floodway isd, the floodplain is considered "no -rise". This means that you can not cause a rise in the flood level off of your property without obtaining easements from affected property owners. 3. In order to show q rise, you will need to convey the flows through your site and mitigate for any fill, buildings, etc. that are built in the fodplain. It may be possible to install a culvert at Prospect Road, construct a channel or channels through the site and then construct another culvert on the south side of the project at the frontage road. Other options may also be possible. 4. Any changes that are made to the floodplain (fill, construction of buildings, culverts, channels, etc.) will need to be modeled by a registered professional engineer to document no -rise. Please see the attached floodplain modeling guidelines for the requirements. A $300 fee is required if hydraulic modeling is necessary. 5. 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. 6. 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. Please refer to the gold handout that was previously given to the applicant regarding floodproofing requirements. 7. 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. %8. 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. Number:54 Created:3/11/2003 Pending 1. Please list the benchmark number and elevation that was used for surveying. If this is already on the plan it is too hard to find. (Previous comment.) Page 6 Water Supply: No commercial building can be greater then 300 feet from a fire hydrant. Fire hydrants are required with a maximum spacing of 600 feet along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1500 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. 97 UFC 901.2.2.2 Number:7 Created:6/18/2002 Previous Hazardous Materials: Corrosive, flammable liquids, reactive, or toxic materials (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. FCLUC 3.4.5 (C) Number:8 Created:6/18/2002 Previous Building Area: These proposed buildings exceed 5000 square feet and must be fire contained or fire sprinklered. 97 UBC Table 9B NOTE: 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. 97 UFC 902.4; PFA Policy 88-20 Number:9 Created:6/18/2002 Previous Required Fire Sprinkler System: The three story hotels shall be fire sprinklered. 97 UFC 1003.2.9 (As amended by Poudre Fire Authority) i Department: Police Issue Contact: Joseph Gerdom Topic: General Number:24 Created:6/24/2002 Resolved No Copments. Specific comments will depend on individual building/site design Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Basil Hamdan Topic: Drainage Number:41 Created:10/25/2002 Previous 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 four the site to a "natural drainageway" and all needed improvements and easements should be identified. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number:55 Created:3/11/2003 Pending The Boxelder Creek Drainage Master Plan requires detention for the 100-year storm to release at the 2-year historic rate, not the 100-year historic. Please revise report to state this. Page 5 Development of the property will require improvement of Prospect Road (arterial) and the frontage road to standards. Number:17 Created:6/19/2002 Resolved The TIS acknowledged lack of existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the area. There may, % the need for offsite improvements with development of the property in order to meet level of service criteria. Number: je Created: 6/19/2002 Resolved There May need to be additional public streets required within the property (connecting to the'public street that runs from the east edge to the south edge of the property) in order to satisfy addressing requirements. Number:3 Created: 10/18/2002 Resolved In disc Sions with CDOT, an additional note should be added noting that the 1-25 northound exit ramp location and alignment will likely shift east with interchange improvements, which could require additional right-of-way from the site. Number:38 Created:10/18/2002 Pending Note number 10 indicates a 15' utility easement alongside internal streets. 9' of utility easement is the minimum required on all streets except Prospect, which is 15'. [2/28/03] Note #9 indicates 20' utility easements along the frontage road will be provided. In talking with the applicant, apparently Xcel Energy required the 20' utility easement. I'd suggest changing the note to state that utility easement shall be provided in satisfaction of City and private utility requirements. It could perhaps be interpreted that anything less than or greater than 20' is inconsistent with the ODP. Number:51 Created:3/3/2003 Pending Remove the "Arterial Street" label from 1-25 as it is a highway, not a street. Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Janet McTague Topic: General Number:2 Created:6/3/2002 Previous There is an existing duct bank along the frontage road. Relocation of existing facilities, if necessary, is a developer expense. Department: PFA Issue Contact: Michael Chavez Topic: General Number:4 Created:6/18/2002 Previous Required Access: A fire lane is required. The fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. 97 UFC 901.3: 901.4.2; 902.2.1 NOTE: Standrad fire lanes shall have a minimum width of 20 feet with an inside turning radius of 25 feet and an outside turning radius of 50 feet. Buildings three stories in height must have access to a 30 foot wide unobstructed access roadway on at least one (1) side for aerial operations. Number:5 Created:6/18/2002 Previous Address Numerals: Address numerals shall be visible from the street fronting the property, and posted with a minimum of 6-inch numerals on a contrasting background. Bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable) 97 UFC 901.4.4 Number: 6 Created:6/18/2002 Previous Page 4 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". Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number- 10 Created: 6/19/2002 Resolved The Prospect bridge over 1-25 and the operation of this interchange is substandard. From a Transportation Services discussion, this Development is obligated to upgrade the//1�-25/Prospect interchange. The developer should consider perhaps partnering with rer properties in the area to help facilitate the upgrade of the interchange. Discussion ween the developer and the City, in conjunction with City discussion with CDOT should take place with regards to the interchange. Number:11 Created: 6/19/2002 Resolved Access out to Prospect Road directly from the property will not be allowed. [10/231 The Developer has indicated on Note 28 that access to Prospect Road is not permitted "at this time". Remove "at this time". An CDP is not designed to be 'flexible" with reTa rds to access points unless the CDP were to be amended through a resubmittal ar�d approval process. Number 12 Created: 6/19/2002 Resolved The roadway on the CDP that connects the eastern and southern edge of the main property should be labeled as a public street. Numb Created: 6/19/2002 Resolved There may be a benefit in moving the east -west portion of this potential internal street further north in order to reduce sight distance. Number:14 Created: 6/19/2002 Resolved Sight distance is going to be an issue with any proposed access points. Note that there will be a potential sight distance easement required from the property directly south based upon the proposed street access. Number:15 Created: 6/19/2002 Resolved Driveway accesses directly to the frontage road will not be allowed from the property (except for the parcel of land on the east side of the frontage road.) All driveways internal to the development should access the internal public street. This should be indicated as such on the ODP. Number:16 Created: 6/19/2002 Resolved Page 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). The TIS is a Master TIS and the project will be required to submit new transportation studies during the POP applications. b. The Prospect Road/northbound Interstate 25 ramp currently has unacceptable operation and the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements will come into play in the future when a POP is submitted. C. No access will be granted on 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 and the City in determining the configuration of interchange improvements. Number:35 Created:7/5/2002 Previous This site is within the Highway Corridor District and the Interchange Style section of the Prospect Road Streetscape Program document, which is an adopted element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This ODP and future POP's are subject to the standards and guidelines set forth in this document. Number:36 Created:7/5/2002 Previous Although the City's Fort Collins 1-25 Subarea Plan is not yet adopted there may be elements of the plan that have effects or impacts on this ODP and future PDP's. Number:46 Created:10131/2002 Previous Eric Bracke of the City 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 Transportation Impact Study has been submitted to the City for review C. There are Adequate Public Facilities issues and concerns associated with the Frontage Road and Prospect Road. d. The developer(s) will be responsibile for traffic signals. Number:47 Created:10/31/2002 Previous Mike Scheid of the East Larimer County Water District indicated that they have been in contact with the developer to insure that adequate fire service will be provided for this development. Number:48 Created:10/31/2002 Previous Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company of Colorado (Excel Energy) indicated that PSC has a 4" gas main along the west edge of the Frontaage Road right-of-way adjacnet o the Paradigm Properties. Number:49 Created:10/31/2002 Previous 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. Number:50 Created:10/31/2002 Previous 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 floodplains 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? Page 2 Selected Issues Report Citvof Fort Collins Date: 3/13/2003 PARADIGM PROPERTIES ODP - TYPE II (LUC) 29-01A SELECTION CRITERIA: Status = All V&11111*3 Department: Advance Planning Issue Contact: Clark Mapes Topic: General Number:39 ' Created:10/22/2002 Resolved Is the property in City Limits? Confirm. Submittal does not match zoning map Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic: General Number:27 Created: 7/3/2002 Previous Webb Jones of the East Larimer 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. Number 28 Created: 7/3/2002 Previous Len Hilderbrand of Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) offered the following comments: a. PSCO will need 15wide 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. Number' 29 Created, 7/3/2002 Resolved Ravindra Srivastava of the Boxelder Sanitation District indicated that they have no comments or concerns associated with the Paradigm Properties ODP. Number 30 Created: 7/3/2002 Resolved Dennis Greenwalt of AT&T Broadband (cable TV) indicated that they have no comments or concerns associated with the ,Paradigm Properties ODP. Number:34-' Created: 7/3/2002 Resolved Mike Spurgin of the Post Office indicated that they have no comments or concerns associated with the Paradigm Properties ODP. Number 32 Created: 7/3/2002 Previous Laurie D'Audney of the City's Water Conservation Department indicated that the required landscape water usage breakdown and note about the City reviewing the irrigation plansmust be included on the final development plans. Number: 33 Created- 7/3/2002 Previous The City's Street Oversizing Department indicated that this development does not meet the street oversizing criteria for participation. Number-, 34 Created- 7/3/2002 Previous Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department offered the following comments: Pace 1 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. The hydraulic modeling has not been reviewed in detail. A full review will take place at time of PDP when more detailed site information is available. Site layout and sizing of the drainage channel may change based on further analysis. 4. The no -rise criteria applies at all property boundaries, not just Prospect Road. Please make sure this is clearly stated in the report. 5. The Boxelder floodway will be made public soon. If a berm is proposed to protect the existing structure you will have to prove no -rise to the floodway elevation. 6. The Boxelder/Cooper Slough Recommended Selected Plan is complete. At this time there are no improvements in the plan which will remove this property from the Boxelder floodplain. We encourage the owner to participate in the public review of this master plan. There is a scheduled open house on April 3, 5-7 p.m. at the Holiday Inn at Mulberry/I-25. Also, the master plan is not scheduled to be brought to City Council until Fall 2003, not May 2003 as stated in the applicant's Response to Comments letter. Department: Transportation Planning Issue Contact: Tom Reiff Topic: General Number: 52 Created: 3/4/2003 Please be aware that comments only refer to the ODP submitted and not the Concept Plan included in the packet. More specific comments regarding the site plans and layout of the internal circulation system will follow with each submitted PDP. Number: 53 Created: 3/5/2003 FYI - CDOT is in the process of entering the environmental planning stages for I-25 up to SH-14 (Mulberry Street). Please coordinate with CDOT regarding interchange and Prospect Road designs and how they may impact your proposed development and stormwater issues. There are still some Stormwater Utility issues that have to be resolved prior to scheduling this item for a Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. It is not absolutely necessary to go through another formal resubmit and round of review; however, it is necessary to address and resolve Stormwater's concerns before placing this item on a P&Z agenda. Please work with them directly. 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. Y01T Truly, AteveOlt City Planner Page 3 Number: 60 Created: 3/ 13/2003 The Property Line, as shown on the ODP plan and in the Plan Legend, is mostly indiscernible. Number: 61 Created: 3/13/2003 The reference to Interstate 25 as an arterial street is incorrect. That label should be taken off the ODP. Department: Engineering Issue Contact: Marc Virata Topic: General Number: 38 Created: 10/18/2002 Note number 10 indicates a 15' utility easement alongside internal streets. 9' of utility easement is the minimum required on all streets except Prospect, which is 15'. [2/28/03] Note #9 indicates 20' utility easements along the frontage road will be provided. In talking with the applicant, apparently Xcel Energy required the 20' utility easement. I'd suggest changing the note to state that utility easement shall be provided in satisfaction of City and private utility requirements. It could perhaps be interpreted that anything less than or greater than 20' is inconsistent with the ODP. Number: 51 Created: 3/3/2003 Remove the "Arterial Street" label from I-25 as it is a highway, not a street. Department: Stormwater Utility Issue Contact: Wes Lamarque Topic: Drainage Number: 55 Created: 3/11/2003 The Boxelder Creek Drainage Master Plan requires detention for the 100-year storm to release at the 2-year historic rate, not the 100-year historic. Please revise report to state this. Number: 56 Created: 3/11/2003 Easements will need to be attained before PDP approval for the outfall of this site from the property to the location where the outfall drains into a "natural" drainage path, most likely the Poudre River. If this can not be attained, then development of this property would not be possible. An investigation of whether this will be possible should take place at the ODP stage, before much of an investment has taken place for this property. Number: 57 Created: 3/11/2003 Please describe in the report the outfall for this site from the property to the location where the outfall can be described as a "natural" drainage path. A field visit showed that the outfall for this site went south to a culvert that went under the interstate to an unknown location, probably the City property to the west of the interstate, which would require an easement from the City Utilities Department. Topic: Floodplain Number: 54 Created: 3/11/2003 1. Please list the benchmark number and elevation that was used for surveying. If this is already on the plan it is too hard to find. (Previous comment.) 2. Replace Note 30 on the plan with two separate notes distinguishing between residential and non-residential uses. • 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. Page 2 A,, STAFF PROJECT REVIEW Citvof Fort Collins Hattman Associates Date: 3/13/2003 c/o Ric Hattman 145 West Swallow Road Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Staff has reviewed your submittal for PARADIGM PROPERTIES ODP - TYPE II (LUC) 29-01 A, and we offer the following comments: ISSUES: Department: Current Planning Issue Contact: Steve Olt Topic. General Number: 33 Created: 7/3/2002 The City's Street Oversizing Department indicated that this development does not meet the street oversizing criteria for participation. 3113103: This comment is being carried over just for information for the applicant as any Project Development Plan submittal is prepared and submitted to the City for review. Number: 34 Created: 7/3/2002 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 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Section 4.3.3(A). The TIS is a Master TIS and the project will be required to submit new transportation studies during the PDP applications. b. The Prospect Road/northbound Interstate 25 ramp currently has unacceptable operation and the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) requirements will come into play in the future when a PDP is submitted. C. No access will be granted on 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 and the City in determining the configuration of interchange improvements. 3113103: This comment is being carried over just for information to the applicant as Project Development Plans are prepared and submitted to the City for review. Number: 58 Created: 3/13/2003 There is information on the Overall Development Plan (ODP) that is illegible due to overlapping of information. Number: 59 Created: 3/13/2003 The Concept Plan as submitted is for internal staff information only. It will not be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board for review and a decision. Page 1