HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA - PDP/FDP - 26-97 - CORRESPONDENCE - (23)b. Will future access be able to be provided through this development to the
small square parcel of land at the southwest corner of this property, if
necessary? If not, how could the property be accessed?
C. Issues about lighting, potential noise, and screening relating to the
residential neighborhoods to the west must be addressed with this
development request.
d. Additional screening along the Mason Street frontage is needed, in the
form of low shrubs in conjunction with the 1.5' high earthen berms. There
should be an overall screen up to 2' in height for the majority of the
frontage.
The Revision Comment Sheets received from the Zoning and Traffic Operations
Departments are attached to this letter.
At this staff review meeting the item was be discussed and it was determined that the
project probably is not yet ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision
due to the significant concerns regarding the project design. You may contact me at
221-6341 to schedule a meeting with the appropriate staff people if you feel the need to
discuss these comments.
4veSine,y,,lt
Project Planner
cc: Current Planning Director/Bob Blanchard
Engineering/Sheri Wamhoff
Stormwater Utility/Basil Hamdan
Zoning/Peter, Gary, Jenny
Transportation Planning/Kathleen Reavis
Advance Planning/Clark Mapes
Northern Engineering
King Surveyors, Inc.
Project File
rA
IF
2. Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering Department had several comments to offer:
a. There must be a minimum 12' wide public access easement along the
south property line to allow for the future 8' wide bicycle/pedestrian path
from Mason Street to the railroad corridor. This is set forth in Sections
3.2.2(C)(6), 3.6.4(B), and 3.6.5(B) of the LUC. Kathleen Reavis of
Transportation Planning is also involved in this aspect of the
development review. There is a variance procedure available for this
requirement but it is doubtful that staff would support a variance.
b. It may be possible to gain some additional room for the wider access
easement by shortening the parking space depth to 17' (from 19', as
shown) and narrowing the driveway width to 24' (from 25.7', as shown)
along the north side of the development, and then moving the building
and other site improvements to the north accordingly.
C. The final curb line along the south side of the property should be set back
outside of the public access easement and the lighting and landscaping
should be designed accordingly. Both the light pole placement and the
landscaping, as shown, will not allow for a future trail to be constructed in
the easement. The cost to remove, relocate these improvements in the
future would be extremely high. Also, is there enough space for a future 8'
wide trail, lighting, and landscaping in the 12' wide easement?
d. There are some proposed earthen berms along the Mason Street frontage
that are shown on the Landscape Plan but not the grading plan. There are
some existing concrete weirs along the Mason Street frontage that could
conflict with the landscaping as proposed. These weirs are shown on the
utility plans but not the Landscape Plan. What do the weirs look like?
e. There is an existing ditch lateral on -site that belongs to the New Mercer
Ditch Company. It has been stated by the applicant that this lateral has
been abandoned. This must be substantiated by a letter from the ditch
company or they will have to sign the subdivision plat and utility plans.
Additional comments are forthcoming on Engineering's Revision Comment
Sheet.
3. Comments from the Planning Department are as follows:
a. Is the intent to allow autos to pull through the customer parking spaces in
the first tier south of the building? For safety reasons, it may be better to
have curb stops, or something of that nature, to control traffic movement.
Commu, _y Planning and Environmental . :vices
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
February 4, 1998
Dana Lockwood
Lockwood Architects
420 S. Howes Street, Suite 101 B
Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Dear Dana,
Staff has reviewed your revision documents for the Pedersen Auto Plaza, Project
Development Plan (PDP) and Final Compliance (FC) development proposal that
were submitted to the City on January 7, 1998. This item was discussed at the weekly
Staff Review meeting on February 4th, and staff would like to offer the following
comments:
1. Basil Harridan and Glen Schlueter of the Stormwater Utility had several
comments to offer, primarily relating to on -site storm water detention and water
quality issues:
a. Generally, there appears to be too much pavement being proposed on
this site. The parking and display areas are excessive, essentially
extending from property line to property line, and do not leave sufficient
space for adequate storm water detention. Your engineer used a method
of calculation that has the detention volume significantly lower than the
City's calculation, done with the "rational" method. On -site detention as
proposed is not adequate.
b. Because of the nature of the proposed uses, all auto -related with 248
parking or display spaces, water quality measures should be provided for
the off -site storm water flows into Mason Street. There would appear to be
no space available to provide these measures on -site. Section 3.4.3 in the
Land Use Code (LUC) sets forth the requirements for provision of water
quality measures.
Additional comments are forthcoming on Stormwater's Revision Comment
Sheet.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020