Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEDERSEN AUTO PLAZA - PDP - 26-97 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)27. What do the numbers on the Site Lighting Analysis map mean? Are they foot- candle designations? If so, they would appear to exceed the allowable foot- candles as specified in Section 3.2.4 of the LUC. Also, Section 3.2.4(D)(5) defines permitted light sources. 28. Based on staff s comments during their review, it would appear that better explanation of the proposed uses and how the site is going to function (circulation patterns, etc.) is needed on the Site Plan. 29. A red -lined copy of the Site Plan is enclosed with this letter indicating some Project Note revisions that should be made. 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 new development review process and schedule there is no revision date mandated by the City. The amount of 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 to the project planner no later than the third weekly staff review meeting (Wednesday mornings) following receipt of the revisions. At this staff review meeting the item will be discussed and it will be determined if the project is ready to go to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision. If so, will be scheduled for the nearest Board hearing date with an opening on the agenda. Please return all drawings red -lined bye staff with submission of your revisions. The number of copies of revisions for each document to be resubmitted is on the attached Revisions routing Sheet. You may contact me at 221-6341 to schedule a meeting to discuss these comments. Si rely, A p e .Olt l � Project Planner cc: Engineering/Sheri Wamhoff Stormwater Utility/Matt Fater Zoning/Gary Lopez Water & Wastewater/Roger Buffington Traffic Operations/Eric Bracke Advance Planning/Clark Mapes Northern Engineering King Surveyors, Inc. Project File 16. What is the status of the apparently land -locked small piece of land at the southwest corner of this site? Who is the owner and how will they gain access to the property? 17. A handicapped ramp is needed to the sidewalk on the west side of Mason Street at the intersection with Kensington Drive. 18. The perimeter landscaping as proposed along the north and south property lines is not sufficient for the required screening of the large parking areas on this site. Please review Section 3.2.1 of the LUC. 19. The turning radii into the site at the entry drive are too big. 20. On -site detention is required for this development and the allowable release rate into Mason Street is 0.5 cubic feet per second. Water quality measures should be addressed. 21. Ideally, Kensington Drive should continue west to the railroad tracks and a recirculation street should be provided to improve the overall traffic congestion in the area. Has the potential for a shared access with the United Building Center to the south been fully investigated? Please contact Fred Jones of the Traffic Operations Department to discuss this issue. Fred can be reached at 221- 6820. 22. How many bicycle parking spaces are being provided on -site? Section 3.2.2(C)(4) of the LUC requires that a minimum number of spaces be provided, equal to 5% of the total number of automobile parking spaces (not including auto display parking). 23. A note should be added to both the Site Plan and the Building Elevations regarding screening of mechanical equipment. Please review Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC for information on location and buffering of outdoor storage areas/mechanical equipment. 24. What colors are the building materials going to be? Is the stucco all one color or will there be some variation? For clarity on the East Elevation, the batten seam metal roof on the tallest portion of the building should be labeled as it is on the North Elevation. 25. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have limited knowledge of architectural terms. Assumedly, the layman's term for the storefront system (on the Building elevations) is glass. 26. What does the west elevation of the building look like? All four elevations should be available for review. 10. The Mapping Department offered the following comments: a. The Easement Approval statement on the subdivision plat refers to a 75' U.S.B.R. easement. This easement is not shown on the plat. b. On the subdivision plat there is a 6' wide utility easement shown within a 15' wide utility easement along Mason Street. Why are both needed? 11. Roger Buffington of the Water/Wastewater Department offered the following comments: a. Adjust water/sanitary sewer services and connections to be perpendicular to mains in Mason Street. b. Adjust landscaping or utilities to meet the distance separation requirements. C. Show all utilities on the plans. d. See red -lined copies of the Utility and Landscape Plans for additional comments. e. The irrigation P.O.C. must be downstream from the water meter. Please contact Roger at 221-6681 if you have questions about these comments. 12. A copy of the comments received from Sheri Wamhoff of the Engineering Department is attached to this letter. 13. A copy of the comments received from Matt Fater of the Stormwater Utility is attached to this letter. The following comments were given at the Staff Review meeting on November 12th: 14. Additional landscaping is required along the Mason Street frontage. There is some relatively low berming proposed in this area, as well as shrub bed plantings at the property corners and entry to the site; however, the required amount of landscaping for adequate screening of large parking areas is not being provided. Please review Section 3.2.1 of the LUC. 15. There is a potential for a future off -road trail along the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. A bicycle/pedestrian path along the south property line, from Mason Street to the tracks, should be considered. 5. A copy of the comments received from Sharon Getz of the Building Inspection Department is attached to this letter. 6. Eric Bracke of the Streets (Transportation) Department stated that the Site Plan and Transportation Impact Analysis do not address the Burlington Northern Corridor Project. Please contact Eric at 224-6062 for additional information about this project. 7. Doug Martine of the Light & Power Department stated that street trees must maintain minimum clearances to planned street lights, being 40' for shade trees and 20' for ornamental trees. A marked -up Landscape Plan, showing street light locations, is enclosed with this letter. 8. Clark Mapes of the Advance Planning Department offered the following comments: a. This is a good site for the proposed land use. b. There is agreement with the letter explaining the "build to" line, Section 3.5.3(B)(2). C. The letter does not, however, mention "Orientation to a Connecting Walkway", Section 3.5.3(B)(1). This is the one single -most important standard in the LUC. It is as important as the look of the building as an object. This requires a modification to the standard. Given the use and existing context, it probably is not a big deal. But the precedent could be an issue with the Planning and Zoning Board. d. The letter mentions people walking to the site but not from the site, which is equal in importance. Also, the point is not the current individual user; rather, it's the long-term street front and a more balanced transportation system in the future. Not only does the plan avoid any acknowledgment of this standard, the sidewalk connections that are shown are squeezed hard by parking and driveways. e. A Landscape Plan, with suggested pedestrian improvements, is enclosed with this letter. Staff could more readily support a modification to the standard with this kind of pedestrian treatment on the front of the site. Please contact Clark at 221-6225 if you have questions about these comments. 9. A marked -up Landscape Plan, with comments from Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, is enclosed with this letter. I d. The "service and employee" and "display" parking areas will have to be broken up with additional landscape islands to create no more than 15 stalls (maximum) in a row. e. The variance from the parking criteria as described in the Planning Objectives is not required. The proposed customer, employee, and handicapped parking spaces totals 88 (4 handicapped), which is adequate. The City does not enter service vehicle and display parking into the calculation. Convey this parking breakdown from the Planning Objectives to the Site Plan, which presently does not define it enough. f. Mark the crosswalk from the customer parking areas. g. Show a pedestrian crosswalk across the main entrance. Is there a way for customers parked on the north side to get to the entrance without walking through the parking lot, behind parked cars? h. Do not show the wall sign locations on the building. This property is not in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District and, therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board is not charged with reviewing the signage. The applicant is basing their entire "allowed" parking on 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building as a vehicle servicing/maintenance facility. The entire building is not to be used for that only. They can only use the 5/1,000 for the actual floor area that is devoted to that operation. The rest of the floor area would have to be calculated as either 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet for office use or 4 per 1,000 square feet for retail use. Therefore, the 174 parking spaces "allowed" would appear to be inflated. Please contact Peter, Gary, or Jenny at 221-6760 if you have questions about these comments. 4. Roger Frasco of the Poudre Fire authority offered the following comments: a. The HMMP and HMIA have been received and are OK. Storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials must be according to the 1991 Uniform Fire Code. b. The building will have to equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. C. The proposed fire hydrant location is OK. d. The access to and through the site, as shown, is OK. Commi �y Planning and Environmental Current Planning City of Fort Collins November 19, 1997 Dana Lockwood Lockwood Architects 420 S. Howes Street, Suite 101 B Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Dear Mr. Lockwood, rvices Staff has reviewed your documentation for the Pedersen Auto Plaza, Project Development Plan (PDP) and Final Compliance (FC) development proposal that was submitted to the City on October 15, 1997, and would like to offer the following comments: 1. This development proposal, being a portion of Tract B of the Fossil Creek Commercial Plaza, is a Type II, Planning and Zoning Board review under the City's new Land Use Code (LUC). 2. A copy of the comments received from Susan Peterson of U.S. West is attached to this letter. 3. Representatives of the Zoning Department offered the following comments: a. - The Site Plan needs to include building dimensions and distance to the closest property line. b. The building orientation does not meet Division 3.5, Sections 3.5.3(B)(1) and (2) of the LUC: (1) There is no direct pedestrian route to the entrance. (2) The building is 75' from the front property line at its closest point. A 25' maximum distance may be required, depending on the status of Mason Street (smaller than full arterial or larger than minor arterial). C. Auto sales will probably be done here. The summary indicated only service and administration for the dealership. There is "showroom" and "display parking" shown on the Site Plan. 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020