Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPALMER DESIGN CENTER - PDP - 47-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)Please contact me at (970)221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments, if necessary. Si erely,�o teve Olt Project Planner cc: Engineering Zoning Stormwater Water/Wastewater Transportation Planning Advance Planning Stewart & Associates Northern Engineering The Lighting Agency File 27. A new soils report for this development is required. The current report was done about 6 years ago for the Little Caesars Pizza project on this site. Transportation Planning 28. Secure, convenient bicycle parking is needed for the south building. The one as shown on the Site Plan is too detached and nowhere near an entry to the building. It appears to be an afterthought. 29. Good, direct, logical pedestrian connections to the surrounding areas are needed. This would especially apply to Palmer Design Center, Phase One to the south, the existing office buildings to the east, and the vacant property to the southeast. Planning 30. The lighting plan is not in compliance with the requirements as set forth in Section 3.2.4 of the LUC. There are about 50 points on the photometric plan that exceed the maximum 10 foot-candle level allowed by Code. 31. Additional comments are on red -lines plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 71 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. Please return all red -lined plans and reports with your revisions when they are submitted to the Current Planning Department. 15. Eric Bracke of the Traffic Operations Department stated that the median in East Horsetooth Road will have to be modified to prevent left ins and left outs to and from this site. 16. Jim Hoff of the Mapping & Drafting Department stated that the control and outer boundary monuments need to be described on the subdivision plat. The following comments and concerns were expressed at the weekly Staff Review Meeting on October 14, 1998: Stormwater 17. An off -site drainage easement is needed from the detention pond on this site to the parking lot on the property to the east. 18. The drainage report for this development needs to analyze the outfall pipe and downstream system. 19. This site is responsible for detaining the stormwater for 1/2 of the adjacent streets and the drainage report and plans do not presently address this requirement. 20. No water quality measures are being provided in the detention pond, which is a requirement for this development plan. 21. The aforementioned comments are very significant to the City's ability to accept the drainage report for this development. Engineering 22. An additional 7.5' of right-of-way for East Horsetooth Road must be provided and dedicated on this property. 23. A 6' wide detached sidewalk (not 5' as shown on the Site Plan) is required on this property along the south side of East Horsetooth Road. 24. The appropriate legals and exhibits for the vacation of right-of-way on Mitchell Drive must be submitted to the City for review. This information should be brought to the Current Planning Department for distribution. 25. No water and sanitary sewer services to the south building are currently being shown on the utility plans. 26. The Larimer County Canal No. 2 Ditch Company must sign the utility plans. e. Show the locations of existing transit stops, or distances and directions to them from this site. Please contact Kathleen, at 224-6140, if you have questions about these comments. 12. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department stated that street trees must maintain a 40' minimum clearance to the planned streetlight as shown on the attached plan. 13. A copy of the Water Conservation Standards for Landscapes - COMMENT SHEET received from Laurie D'Audney, the City's Utility Education Specialist, is attached to this letter. 14. The comments received from Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning are as follows: a. There is a lot of custom design thought in this plan. The reasons behind the building and parking arrangement are apparent. It is assumed that the Mitchell Drive access location is set and is critical to this development plan. b. The way to meet the `build -to' and `connecting walkway' standards in Section 3.5.3 of the LUC would be to lump the buildings to the north part of the site and the parking to the south. This is not considered to be better in terms of the public street frontage. However, the plaza in front of the south building must serve the purpose of the street sidewalk. This means the connection to the street sidewalk needs to be more direct as indicated on the enclosed Site Plan. It should not detour around the last extra parking stalls. There is an opportunity to enhance this as indicated to more clearly serve as an equal or better alternative to the street sidewalk. C. It is clear that modifications to several standards in Section 3.5.3 will have to be requested and justified. Staff would support modifications due to the given access point on Mitchell Drive, the size of the site, the limited amount of additional streetfront building presence that could be gained by asking that the south building be placed in accordance with the standards, and the existing street context which is likely to remain for some time. The expression of staff support assumes a more direct south sidewalk treatment, as noted above. Please contact Clark, at 221-6225, if you have questions about these comments. d. The lot line dimensions on the Site Plan should match the subdivision plat. The west lot line on the Site Plan is shown in Mitchell Drive but, according to the plat, the property line is really the dashed line down the middle of the sidewalk and that should be dimensioned. The one in the street should be removed from the Site Plan. Please contact Jenny, Peter, or Gary, at 221-6760, if you have questions about these comments. 7. A copy of the comments received from Basil Hamdan 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. 8. A copy of the comments received from David Stringer 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. 9. A copy of the comments received from Roger Buffington of the WaterAVastewater Department is attached to this letter. Additional comments can be found on red -lined plans that are being forwarded to the applicant. 10. General Note 9 on the Site Plan should further commit to the rooftop and ground -mounted mechanical equipment's compliance with Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC, which states that it shall be screened from public view from both above and below by integrating it into the building and roof design, to the maximum extent feasible. 11. Kathleen Reavis of the Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments: a. Provide for future pedestrian connections across the canal to link the new design center site with the existing site along Mitchell Drive and future development to the southeast. b. Provide enhanced crosswalks across the driveway entrances and as connections to the existing office building complex to the east. C. Provide a sidewalk around the detention pond (southern) to connect to Continental Plaza. d. Move the bicycle rack closer to the building entrance that faces Mitchell Drive. within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150' from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This fire lane shall be visible by painting and signage, and maintained unobstructed. A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. Any building not meeting this criteria shall be fire sprinklered. NOTE: The buildings are out of access and are required to be fire sprinklered. b. Address numerals shall be visible from the streets fronting the property and posted with a minimum 6" high numerals on a contrasting background (example: bronze numerals on brown brick are not acceptable). C. The proposed buildings exceed 5,000 square feet and must be fire contained or fire sprinklered. d. Fire hydrants are required, with a maximum spacing of 600' along an approved roadway. Each hydrant must be capable of delivering 1,000 gallons of water per minute at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Hydrants shall be of an approved type as defined by the water department and the fire department. No commercial building can be greater than 300' from a fire hydrant. Please contact Ron, at 221-6570, if you have questions about these comments. 5. A copy of the comments received from Sharon Getz of the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 6. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. The placement of the 6,332 square foot building is greater than the maximum allowable 15' front setback from Mitchell Drive as set forth in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) of the LUC. A request for a modification to 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. A bicycle rack for the south building needs to be closer to the building entrance. C. Show distances between the buildings and the property lines on the Site Plan. Commur Planning and Environmental c Tices Current Planning City of Fort Collins October 20, 1998 Frank Vaught VF Ripley Associates 1113 Stoney Hill Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80525 Dear Frank, Staff has reviewed your documentation for the PALMER DESIGN CENTER, Project Development Plan - #47-98 that were submitted to the City on September 16, 1998, and is offering the following comments: 1. This property is located on the east side of Mitchell Drive at the intersection of Mitchell Drive and East Horsetooth Road. This property is in the C - Commercial Zoning District. The proposed retail 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 south building on this development plan would not appear to comply with either of these criteria and, therefore, would need modifications to the standards. 3. A copy of the comments received from Susan Peterson of U. S. West is attached to this letter. 4. Ron Gonzales of the Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments: a. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion if a building hereafter constructed or moved into or 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020