Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutK 2 INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 1 JB EXCAVATION PDP - 51 91C - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS (3)Response to comments made at staff project review Issues: Current Planning 3 Comments: This property is presently operating as Colorado Customs RV & Marine Response: Correct 4 Comments: Len Hilderbrand of Excel Energy (Public Service) indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. Response: This is good. 5 Comments: A copy of the comments received from Jenny Nuckols of the Zoning Department is attached to this comment letter. Please contact Jenny, at (970) 221-67670, if you have questions about her comments. 1. Comment: Missing sheet L2 of landscape plan — can't do thorough review without it. Response: Sheet L2 along with sheets L1 and L3 have been re- submitted. 2. Comment: No plat sheet. Please provide one with the basic lot of information. Site and landscape items should be on their own plans/sheets. Response: The plat sheet has been submitted. 3. Comment: Planning — shouldn't legal description be lot 1, K-2 Ind PK _ PDP — not PUD. Response: Legal description has PUD. 4. Comment: In the 3' concrete walk raised or flush with the parking lot, if raised, needs an HC ramp from the HC space. Response: The concrete walk will be flush with the parking lot. 5. Comment: Provide a bike rack near the entrance to the building. Response: Bike rack has been added. 6. Comment: Remove topo lines from final site and landscape plans. Response: Topo lines have been removed. 7. Comment: Please verify through planning if the gravel drive and storage area lot are acceptable. Response: This issue is being addressed with planning with this submittal. 8. Comment: Are the building envelopes or footprints being shown? Show distance to property lines for each building. Response: These items have been added for this submittal. 9. Comment: Need evaluations for both buildings. Response: They have been added. 6 Comments: Rick Lee of the Building Inspection Department stated that a copy of the various codes that the Fort Collins building department will enforce is attached to this comment letter. With limited information provided please be aware that the Access Aisle serving the accessible parking space should be a smooth hard surface. This may require that the new walk be increased to 60" and be provided the whole length of the parking space per Section 502.3 of the 1998 ANSI 117.1. Please contact Rick, at (970) 221- 6760, if you have any questions about his comments. Response: A designated 60" walk the whole length of the parking space has been added with this submittal. There will also be HC pavement markings and HC sign. 7 Comments: Beth Sowder of the Streets Department indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. Response: None 8 Comments: Craig Foreman of the Parks Planning Department indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. Response: None 9 Comments: A copy of a letter from Mayo Sommermeyer of the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company is attached to this comment letter. Response: Acknowledged 10 Couunents: Copies of the Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes — COMMENT SHEET and General Information received from Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, is attached to this letter. Response: Both compliance standards marked by Laurie D'Audney on her comment sheet, do appear on sheet L3 of the landscape plan. We do not plan any improvements to the existing buildings at this time, other than paint. Exterior colors will be very similar to those used on the exterior of the near by Anhueser Busch plant. No work or maintenance will occur in the fenced area, only storage. 11 Comments: Alan Rutz of the Light & Power Department offered the following comments: A. The applicant will be required to obtain a permit from the affected ditch company to cross the Larimer & Weld Canal. B. The applicant will also be required to obtain easements from the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company for electric line extension to the project site. C. Coordinate transformer location(s) and power requirements with Light & Power. D. Due to the location of this site and easement & permit requirements, please contact Light & Power as soon as possible. Please Contact Alan, at 224-6153, if you have questions about these comments. Response: Comments are acknowledged 12 Comments: Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority has indicated the PFA has -no- --- comments due to no new structures with this project. Response: None 13 Comments: W. Dean Smith of the Boxelder Sanitation District indicated that they have no concerns or continents regarding this development proposal. Response: None 14 Comments: Response: 15 Comments: Response: 16 Comments: Response: 17 Comments: Webb Jones of the East Larimer County (ELCO) Water District offered the li,llowing comwcnts: A. ELCO currently provides water service to Lot 1, K-2 Industrial Park from a 2 ''/2" water line located in the easement shown on the Site Plan. The existing 2 ''/z" water line serving the property is not capable of supplying a fire hydrant. B. ELCO has a 6" water line in county Road 48 and a 24" water line on the north side of the Larimer & Weld Canal, approximately '/a mile north of the site. Please contact Webb at the water district if you have questions about these comments. Comments are acknowledged Doug Moore of the Natural Resources Department indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. None GayLene Rossiter of Transfort has indicated that they have no concerns or comments regarding this development proposal. None Mark Jackson of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: A. Provide bike parking near the main entrance to the building. B. Contact the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Access Management staff to discuss access issues/requirements off of the frontage road system. C. Transportation Planning would recommend that the applicant contact Ken Waido of The City's Advance Planning Department to get information on the I-25 Corridor Subarea Plan and how or if it might affect this property in the future Please contact Mark at 416-2029 if you have questions about these comments. Response: Bike paring has been added. CDOT, Gloria Hice-Idler, (970) 350-2148, will not require any changes to the existing access. I have contacted Ken Waido of the advanced planning department. 18 Comments: Response 19 Comments: Dave Stringer of the Engineering Department offered the following comments: A. If this property is platted as a County subdivision then the applicant should please submit a reproducible mylar of the plat to the City Engineering Department. If it is not platted, then the property will need to be platted in the City. B. A cover sheet is needed for the utility plans. C. Is the road along the south side of the property a public right of way (ROW) or access easement? If it is ROW then the proposed perpendicular parking on the north side at the office building will not be allowed. Please contact Dave at, 221-6750 if you have any questions about these comments. A reproducible mylar of the plat will be submitted to the City Engineering Department. A cover sheet for the utility plans has been submitted. The road along the south side of the property is an access easement. Basil Hamdan of the Storm water Utility offered the following comments: A. Please include a cover sheet for the utility plans, including all Necessary components with the next submittal B. Please show the 100-year floodplain and BFE on the subdivision plat and on the drainage plan. C. Please clarify the condition of the berms on the site. Are the berms existing or are they being added to the site with the landscaping? If they are new to the site, please include a copy of the AYRES report stating "no rise" with the next submittal. If they are existing then show them on the grading plan. Please contact Basil, at 224-6035 if you have questions about these comments Response: Cover sheet for the utility plans has been submitted. The 100-year flood plan and BFE has been added to the subdivision plat and the drainage plan. The berms on the site are existing. They have been added to the grading plan. Police 2 Comment: Plans do not indicate lighting. Some type of down lighting desirable for north and south entrances. Security lighting for area between buildings. Response: ?hare, m �' a. Q-k i b t r. 5'fiv a�-t� I �� l��S ate' 130'tkn Ew'k'cm►tiLa.s Oft 7'" F-rov::"cL7 Rd,.' M%ev-e. tern Q-AI Iv.1 (=1ao a 1�9hTS- 9 40. 0,4 SaLtt� S rdQ otC SAoja v,e4,Y -M,& v-ooF I;nQ ov% %IoOa �,9k� be'twaaw i'hQ SK0/� @xd©F,el6! c-ro !►gWt'up ka- doors. AwdowQ.ov►`tke5ok7k.:.g�`de e�y'ke� .e G C :. d u c_.ti co t L. Q v`ei AIP I, Lt.4 . Response and Redline Comments/Questions Planning — Landscape plan Question: Where are the street trees? Answer: In areas where street trees would be required are existing 15 to 25 year old pines. Adding canopy trees would take away from the naturalistic design we are attempting to achieve. There are now only partial views of the mountains looking west where street trees would be required. Adding them now would eliminate any remaining view. Part of the initial design was to preserve a view of the mountains. There is already a high congestion of existing trees, both pine and deciduous, between the frontage road and the first building. All remaining trees for required planting will be of the street tree variety. Planning — Siteplan Question: Gravel surface doesn't comply with section 3.2.2 (P) (3) (d) of the land use code. Answer: In May 2000 I met with Peter Barnes and the pavement vs. gravel issue was discussed. My concern was that pavement would get torn up the first time a piece of heavy equipment with steel tacks was unloaded and parked. Mr. Barnes asked me how much traffic would be going in and out of the storage yard. I told him that since our heavy equipment stays on jobs or travels from job to job, there would be one trip per day or less in and out with our transport tuck. He said, "with that small amount of vehicular usage, in his opinion, we would not need to change form the washed rock surface to pavement in the storage yard area. Also, there will be no public access to the gravel fenced storage area. Planning — Siteplan -Question:— What's with this property? Answer: We are in the process of negotiating for the purchase of -this -- property. Presently our proposed project lies in side the existing property lines. Planning — Siteplanes Question: Any fence on the east property line? Answer: There is an existing tree screen east of Fort Collins feed's property line. I contacted Steve Woodward with Ft. Collins Feed (970) 482- 8001 and he said and I quote "The area from the tree screen to our east property line is a wetland designed to st8re the overflow from the agriculture ditches running through our property." He said the area would never be developed. Given this, it would seem unnecessary to duplicate with another screen along our east property line.