HomeMy WebLinkAbout210-212 W. MAGNOLIA ST., URBAN LIVING LOFTS - MOD #2 - 24-05/B - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)have a particular problem with what's proposed, but whether it's "equal to or better than", or
"nominal, inconsequential" a decision needs to be made so that something unique is found
to apply to this property in order to preclude a precedent being set.
I will schedule a hearing once Peter and I have had a chance to review your revisions. I
would recommend emailing them to us and then scheduling a follow-up meeting if needed
instead of another formal round of review. If you have any questions regarding these issues
or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to call me at (970) 221-6750.
Sincerely,
Anne H.Aspen
City Planner
Page 2
STAFF PROJECT REVIEW
City of Fort Collins
JCL ARCHITECTURE Date: 08/16/2005
201 S COLLEGE AVE, STUDIO 205
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
Staff has reviewed your submittal for 210-212 W. MAGNOLIA ST., URBAN LIVING LOFTS
AT MAGNOLIA ST MODIFICATION OF STANDARD #2 - TYPE I, and we offer the following
comments:
ISSUES:
Department: Current Planning
Topic: zoning
Number: 3
Issue Contact: Anne Aspen
Created: 8/16/2005
[8/16/05] Major revisions are needed to this modification request. It does not follow what
we discussed in our meeting:
+The LOS argument which appears to be your primary argument will not mean anything to
the decision maker and does not advance your case. Get rid of it entirely.
+As we discussed in our meeting, there is some history behind the specific code section to
which you seek a modification. This code section came from Larimer County Urban Street
Standards (LCUASS), which specifies dimension "G" as a ONE WAY DRIVE WIDTH or
single loaded drive width. When it got transferred into the Land Use Code, the ONE WAY
DRIVE WIDTH part dropped out inadvertently. As I told you, this is an error that staff will
change in future LUC supplements. Meanwhile, you need to interpolate to show what the
one way drive width would be at the angle parking you are providing. Right now you are
showing 90 degree parking on one side and I think 70 on the other, which would be a 20
feet minimum for that dimension by code. Once this is clear, then your argument that it is
nominal and inconsequential starts to make sense, since 18.8 is 94% of what is required.
The references you cite (Parking Structures and Graphic Standards) can bolster your claim.
+Now that the center spaces are at 90 degrees, you should also address in the request or
be prepared to answer at the hearing questions that may arise about the possibility that
someone might pull out and go the wrong way in the one way drive (use enhanced striping
or signage perhaps.)
+Please, please use spell check and grammar check!!!
Department: Light & Power Issue Contact: Doug Martine
Topic: General
Number: 1 Created: 8/11/2005
[8/11/05] No Comments
Department: Zoning Issue Contact: Peter Barnes
Topic: zoning
Number: 2 Created: 8/16/2005
[8/16/05] I'm not sure if the "nominal, inconsequential" standard is the appropriate one to
use. Is a deviation from 24' to 18.67' nominal or inconsequential? I think it's hard to make
that argument. If the argument is made, then we might as well change the code. I don't
Page 1