HomeMy WebLinkAbout3425 S. SHIELDS ST. MIXED-USE - PDP - 28-07 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)Anne Aspen - trees in grates 007.jpg Page 1
14OLLY' "n
.............. .............
yti
t t tt t
Gl
4
Page 3 of 12
> and you would lose 2 parking spaces. This would meet the code without
> modifications though.
> If you are unable or uninterested in either of these options and you
> wish to continue on with the proposed plan, you will need to apply for
> two additional modifications, for sections 3.2. 1 (E)(5)(c) and (e). You
> will need to have a landscape expert make a compelling case that these
> trees would survive and thrive at the anticipated growth rate for this
> area. We would need to review the design details associated with this
> proposal to evaluate if it would result in a King Sooper's type of tree
> or a Marriott type of tree.
> Because of the implications this may have to the site and the
> possibility of needing modifications, you will definitely need to
> address this prior to the hearing. I hope this he! 1ps y ou understand the
> issues in more detail and that you will be able to respond with an
> alternative plan. I hope you will consider one of the better options.
> Dana and I are willing to meet with you if you want to go into the
> design details in greater depth.
> Sincerely,
> Anne
>
file://C:\Documents and Settings\AAspen\Local Settings\Temp\GW)OOOO1.HTM 10/18/2007
Page 2 of 12
> +health of trees:
> There is serious concern all around about the health of trees that are
> in just 9sf cutouts. I did a site visit to see examples. The Safeway
> site is not applicable. They have trees in grates in a sidewalk with
> curb and gutter. The King Soopers showed me exactly what I would expect
> of this design --the trees i! n sma 11 cutouts are all either dead, dying or
> seriously stunted. Their counterparts in landscaped islands are very
> healthy. Look at the attached photos for a comparison. The Marriott
> trees are stunning but I would have to research how they managed to
> survive as well as they did. Either they were existing trees that were
> paved around or they received special treatment (root guards?) when they
> were young. This is atypical at best.
>
> +curbs or grates?
> The plans seem to show curbs around the trees, but in our meeting, you
> referred to them as grates. If they're curbs, at only 1 * feet out from
> the tree, the trees will be subject to a lot of damage from cars hitting
> them, especially the big SUVs so many drive, plus your ability to take
> advantage of drainage for irrigation will be curtailed. If grates,
> there will be no protection from cars and the trees will certainl! y die.
> My understanding of your goals is: line of trees to screen between the
> residential and commercial uses, take advantage of parking lot drainage
> to irrigate the trees and maximize parking. In consulting with staff
> here, your best alternatives to meet your goals and the standards of the
> Land Use Code are:
> +create a bioswale between the rows of parking: you can create a
> crusher fine or waffle grass paver lined bioswale with use the overhang
> dimensional standards in Section 3.22(L)(4). Parking spaces in those
> two rows would be 17 feet with curbstops at the head of each. You can
> use curbstops with the bottom hollowed out to maximize drainage from the
> parking lot. Right there, you have gained 4 feet with no sweat. If you
> reduce the commercial front walkway by 2-3 feet, you'll have a 6-7 foot
> swale. Since there are no trees in grates proposed on the! comme rcial
> walkway and you can redesign the ramp to function without interrupting
> the through flow, it'll be 9-10 feet clear --wider even than most
> sidewalks in downtown, our highest pedestrian traffic district. A
> bioswale protects the trees, allows you to take advantage of the
> drainage for irrigation, allows a row of screening trees, preserves all
> of the parking, meets all code standards and would involve little effort
> to redesign.
> +add landscape islands: a less than perfect alternative would be to
> provide two landscape islands at least 8'x10', one on the east parking
> row and one on the west (they can be staggered), add a canopy tree to
> the south landscape island, and swap out one of the ornamentals in the
> north island for a canopy tree. This solution allows you to have the
> row of trees to separate the uses, but you will have to put curbs around
> the! isla nds which will make it challenging to use runoff for irrigation
file://C:\Documents and Settings\AAspen\Local Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 10/18/2007
Page 1 of 12
Anne Aspen - Re: 3425 S. Shields
From: <c.matkins@comcast.net>
To: "Anne Aspen" <AAspen@fcgov.com>, "Joanna Frye" <joanna@vfavfr.com>
Date: 10/18/2007 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: 3425 S. Shields
CC: Linda Ripley <lripley@vfavfr.com>, "Dana Leavitt" <DLeavitt@fcgov.com>
Anne,
Thank you for exploring these options with your peers, we very much appreciate your suggestions and
the combined expertise from City staff. Similar in layout to the bioswale, we are interested in pursuing
an island (with curbs) that is designed in a north -south orientation. This will allow us to include the
residential/commercial screening we are trying to achieve, while increasing the open area available to
the tree roots. As you pointed out, this layout will result in losing a couple of feet of the commercial
front walkway. However, in this approach we would not be incorporating any east -west island ... this is
to preserve our parking capacity. Will this scenario still require a modification to the 15-parking spot
requirement? If so, we would ask for consideration to be given to our efforts to preserve the existing
pine tree near the commercial building as an approach that exceeds the benefit of a! ny ea s-
west island. If we need to install east -west islands, then we'll likely have to regain these two spots by
removing the existing pine tree we have worked diligently to save.
On a sidenote, BCS is most interested in the bioswale design that you've described. However, we need
more time to develop that design and won't have anything ready for review prior to submission for the
public hearing packet (tomorrow). I would like to keep that option on the table, though as we work
through final design ... I'm assuming this would be a preferred design from the City's perspective, too.
I have asked Joanna to proceed with the 'north -south' island design so that our hearing packet reflects the
improvements that you've suggested. I've asked her to email both you and me PDFs of the new site plan
with this concept shown. If it's acceptable, she'll print a hard copy and deliver to you tomorrow. Sound
ok?
After considering your input, I think you've made some good suggestions; helpful to the overall quality
of our project. thanks again,
Chris
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Anne Aspen" <AAspen@fcgov.com>
> Chris and Joanna,
> I've reviewed the landscape issue we discussed further and consulted
> the hearing officer and two other staff members, both of whom are
> Landscape Architects. All of them independently said it wouldn't meet
> code and came up with serious concerns about this aspect of your
> proposal.
> Some of the salient points that came up are:
file://C:\Documents and Settings\AAspen\Local Settings\Temp\GW)OOOOI.HTM 10/18/2007