The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II - PDP - 54-98 - CORRESPONDENCE -Parked vehicles may overhang a landscape area or walkway with a corresponding two -foot (2') reduction in paved stall length if a curb or wheel stop is provided. CLEAR I7 WMwWAY o¢. RP6luIRED LP-IDSoA7PE / / AREA —, G4R$ O1�Z WHEEL S"TnFS 19 s AIL II LENGTH AC40Mw1oDATED i Parked vehicles may overhang both sides of a landscape area at least 7 feet wide or a walkway at least 8 feet wide, as described above. 7' 8 Mn 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. 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 _] 11. 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. 12. There should be convenient pedestrian connections to the developments to the north and east of this site. Also, more detail on the properties to the north and east is needed on the Site Plan. 13. y The bicycle parking for the buildings on Lots 2 and 3 should be more centrally located for better access to all entries to the buildings. 14. The island along the south property line of Lot 2 should be 5' - 7' in width to allow for vehicular overhang (see attached drawing) since the parking spaces on both sides are only 17' in depth. This allows for overhang and landscaping. 15. The benchmark used by the applicant for drainage calculations is not the City's new benchmark that should be used. 16. The amount of parking shown for Lots 2 and 3 exceeds the allowable maximum of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable floor area for office uses. An alternative compliance request, for more parking, has been submitted to the City and is being reviewed. A meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 19th (at 281 North College) to discuss the request. 17. Are the owners/developers the same or different for (existing) Lot 1 and (proposed) Lots 2 & 3? 18. Planning Department comments are on red -lined Site, Landscape, Building Elevations, and Lighting Plans that are being forwarded to.the applicant. = _ 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 j. A minor amendment may be needed if the building elevations (and door/entry locations) change after final approval and recording of the plans. k. The overall building envelope must be clearly designated and dimensioned, and the covered entries must be within the envelope. Please contact Jenny, Peter, or Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 5. A copy of the comments received from Donald Dustin of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on the red -lined reports and plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. Please contact Donald, at 221-6589, if you have questions about his comments. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Jim Slagle of Public Service Company reiterated the fact that an adequate utility easement is needed through Lots 1 & 2 to get gas service to Lot 3. 9. Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, stated that surface plant materials are required in parking lot islands, in the form of shrubs and/or perennial flowers. 10. It appears that all of the site lighting is on or in close proximity around the buildings. What is the proposed light source? The LUC recommends high pressure sodium in almost all cases. Also, the LUC allows a maximum lighting level of 10 foot candles and there are several points up to 13.2 foot candles on Lot 2. 3. Susan Peterson of U. S. West stated that she needs a detail on the condensers to be placed encroaching on the utility easements, i.e.: maximum feet into the easement. 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. b. Locate the bicycle parking near the building entrances on Lots 2 and 3, more central to all entries. C. List the proposed building uses on the Site Plan. "Non -medical" is too vague. d. The applicant may want to consider 2 phases for the landscaping. Plant Note 7 on the Landscape Plan would commit the developer to installing all of the landscaping or securing all of the landscaping with a letter of credit, bond, or escrowing the money prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building to be completed. e. The 4 compact parking spaces on the west side of the lot will have to be labeled "employees - compact parking only". If not, they will have to be standard size stalls. f. Planting locations can vary somewhat, but the number of plants and species called for on the approved Landscape Plan are still needed. g. What are the colors on the building? They are not indicated on the building elevations. h. The landscaping on the north side of the building on Lot 3 seems a bit sparse, especially compared to the building on Lot 2. Commu- "y Planning and Environmental ' vices Current Planning City of Fort Collins January 13, 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 December 16, 1998, 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 (LUC) 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. L61 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 •Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 321-6750 •FAX (970) 416-2020