Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II - PDP - 54-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (5)The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions Routing Sheet. Please return all red -lined plans and reports with your revisions when they are submitted to the Current Planning Department. Please contact me at (970)221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments, if necessary. Sincerely, Steve Olt Project Planner cc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Water/ Wastewater Transportation Planning Advance Planning Sear -Brown Group To-Slo Investments, LLC McClelland Partners, LLC Design Development Consultants Project File can be placed on a Planning and Zoning Board agenda. Please contact Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department, at 224- 6140, and/or Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department, at 221-6225, if you see the need to discuss this issue. Engineering 9. There is new language that is required on the subdivision plat (pertaining to construction, repairs, and maintenance) and this language must be past of the final plat that is submitted for recording. Please contact the Engineering Department, at 221-6605, for information on the new language. 10. There is a trickle pan on the utility and grading plans that needs to be relocated. 11. There are references to utility districts (other than the City) on the utility and grading plans. This would appear to be a carry over from another project and is not correct. The City will be providing water, sanitary sewer, and electric services to this development. Planning 12. The alternative compliance request for the on -site parking allowance appears to be reasonable, with just 3 parking spaces more than Iallowed being requested. However, the resolution of the need for a pedestrian spine through the site may further decrease the total number of spaces on -site. This completes the staff comments at this time. Additional comments will be forthcoming as they are received from City departments and outside reviewing agencies. Under the development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The time spent on revisions is up to the applicant. Upon receipt, the revisions will be routed to the appropriate City departments and outside reviewing agencies, with their comments due no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Administrative Hearing Officer (or Planning and Zoning Board, if necessary) for a decision and, if so, will be scheduled for the nearest open date. f. The Site Plan Land Use Data must clearly indicate that the use is limited to medical offices/clinics since the proposed parking is based on that kind of use and not on general office use. Please contact Jenny, Peter, or Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 5. A copy of the comments received from Mark McCallum of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Mark, at 221-6750, if you have questions about his comments. 6. A copy of the comments received from Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on red -lined plans that are, being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Roger, at 221-6681, if you have questions about these comments. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly staff review meeting on February 24, 1999: Stormwater 7. The utility and grading plans must show the swale along the north side of the north building. Transportation Planning 8. There should be pedestrian walkways connecting the new buildings on Lots 2 and 3 to the existing building on Lot 1 without having to walk exclusively in the driveways and parking lots. Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) of the LUC states, in part, that: Directness and continuity. Walkways within the site shall be located and aligned to directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian origin and destination, and shall not be located and aligned solely based on the outline of a parking lot configuration that does not provide such direct pedestrian access. A real pedestrian spine should be provided north to south through the existing and proposed parking lots, in accordance with the section of the LUC just previously cited. This issue needs to be resolved before the item 3. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated that canopy shade trees are needed in 4 landscape areas as identified on a red -lined portion of the Landscape Plan, attached to this letter. 4. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. The placement of the westerly building (Lot 2) is greater than the maximum allowable 15' front setback from McClelland Drive as set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) of the LUC, being that McClelland Drive is classified as smaller than a full arterial street. A request for a modification of this standard, meeting the requirements in Division 2.7 of the LUC, must be submitted to the City for review. The modification request will turn this item into a Type II, Planning and Zoning Board review. Although there is currently an "occupied" utility easement along McClelland Drive that effectively forces the building placement to be in excess of the required 15' distance from the west property line, the applicant still must submit a brief formal request for a modification of the [referenced] standard to initiate staff response and a recommendation to the Board. b. An overall total of 67 parking spaces is allowed (this being a maximum) for both Lots 2 and 3 with the proposed use. If 70 spaces are shown, 3 spaces will need to be eliminated or approved through the alternative compliance process [Section 3.2.2(K)(4) of the LUC]. C. There are only 10 new trees called for between both sites. It is doubtful that this development plan meets the "full tree stocking" requirements along some of the sides of the buildings, as set forth in Section 3.2.1(D)(1)(c) of the LUC. d. Is there any proposed exterior building lighting to be used? None is presently being shown. If lighting is proposed, it should be shown on the Site Plan (if applicable) and the Building Elevations. The exterior building lighting must be down directional and properly shielded to eliminate or minimize light spillage or glare off -site. e. Please show all existing trees/landscaping in the existing parking areas and drives. Is there existing landscaping along McClelland Drive adjacent to the existing building? Commun..y Planning and Environmental 5, . vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins March 5, 1999 Bud Frick W.J. Frick Design Group, PC 526 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO. 80524 Dear Bud, Staff has reviewed your revisions for the McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, Project Development Plan - #54-98 that were submitted to the City on February 3, 1999, and is offering the following comments: 1. This property is located on the east side of McClelland Drive, south of West Harvard Street, and north of West Swallow Road. This property is in the C - Commercial Zoning District. The proposed office uses are permitted in this District, subject to an administrative review (Type I) and public hearing for a decision. The Project Development Plan (PDP) must go to a public hearing before an administrative hearing officer for a decision unless any modifications of standards are required, which would automatically change the request to a Type II, Planning and Zoning Board review. 2. Section 3.5.3 Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings of the Land Use Code (LUCI sets forth the Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking. This section addresses orientation to a connecting walk and orientation to build -to lines for streetfront buildings. The westerly building (Lot 2) on this development plan would appear not to comply with the "build -to" line criterion and, therefore, would need a modification of the standard. The west end of this building is shown to be set back 22' -24' from the right-of-way of the adjoining street (McClelland Drive), which is classified as a minor arterial. Therefore, the building must be located no more than 15' from the right-of-way [Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) of the LUC]. A request for a modification of this standard is necessary and should be submitted immediately. The modification will require that the Planning and Zoning Board be the decision -maker on this project. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 380 • Fort Collins-, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020