HomeMy WebLinkAboutCARGILL EXPANSION - PDP/FDP - FDP130043 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-CONCEPTUAL REVIEWBased on our conversation last week, here is an email summarizing our team's thougnt on Cargill.
1. See attached PDF - Would it be worth submitting a PDP Subdivision Plat first, prior to submitting the PDP? This
would achieve several things. It would take all of the existing and put it on its own lot, with all of the future
improvements on separate lots. This would separate the proposed new building from the existing, therefore not
triggering the required improvements. The second thing is TDR fees — if we came in with a PDP for lots 2 and 3,
for example, we would only be paying based on the acreage for those two lots and not the entire 30+ acres.
2. Possible Modifications:
• Build -to line - would staff consider a contextual setback?
• Street -like private drive. You mentioned that we may have to do this? I'm not sure why.
• Gated entryways to private drives
• Allowing a vehicle use area between the building and the street
• Street system block size — I would think this only applies to residential developments with public streets.
Thanks for looking into this with engineering and other planning staff.
Cathy Mathis, APA
TB I Group
444 Mountain Avenue
Berthoud, Colorado 80513
970.532.5891 office
970.344.6358 direct
Cathy(&TBGroua.us
2
Noah Beals
From: Noah Beals
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:39 AM
To: 'Cathy Mathis'
Subject: RE: Cargill Options
Hello Cathy,
1. Separating the Plat from the Site through two different Review processes would result in paying certain fees
twice.
When combining a plat with a site plan the Plat boundaries do not need to meet the boundaries of the Site Plan
of the PDP as long as the site plan is contained within the boundaries of the plat.
It is possible that the PDP site plan only contain LOT 2 and LOT 3 and therefore not triggering further
improvements to LOT 1
2. Possible Modifications:
• Contextual Setback, We are not sure what is to be gained with a contextual setback both structures on
the block face sit closer to the street than the location that is being proposed for the new building. Also
a contextual setback does not approve vehicle use areas in-between the building and the street.
• Street -like Private Drive would be necessary if the block standards in the LMN zone district were
applicable and the applicant did not want to provide public streets.
• Gated entryways to private drives are prohibited and this standard would be applicable if the proposal
included street like private drives.
• Vehicle use areas are prohibited by at least two standards. In the build -to -line section which does allow
for exceptions to the build -to -line but not the vehicle use area. In the LMN section for nonresidential
uses it restricts vehicle use areas parking and services uses to the side or rear yards. These standards do
apply.
• Block standards for this limited permitted uses are not applicable and no modification for this standard
is necessary.
Sincerely,
Noah Beals
City Planner
City of Fort Collins
970 416-2313
970 224-6134 Fax
From: Cathy Mathis fmailto:cathy(&tbgroup.us]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:25 AM
To: Noah Beals
Cc: 'Steve Stadelmaier'; 'Patricia Kroetch'; 'IanShuff
Subject: Cargill Options
Hi Noah,
1