Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGOLDEN MEADOWS BUSINESS PARK - PDP - 14-03 - CORRESPONDENCE - TRANSPORTATION ISSUESteve Olt - Re: Golden Meadows Busin ''ark 2nd Filing If the decision is to forego the bike/ped connection to the east, will this be presented to P&Z as alternative compliance or is it being interpreted that a connection isn't required? With the connection no longer being an issue, it's ready as far as I'm concerned. >>> Steve Olt 06/18/03 08:47AM >>> Marc, At staff review last Wednesday we did say that the item could be scheduled for public hearing, depending on your determination regarding the ultimate edge of right-of-way (your comment #36). With regards to a pedestrian connection to the vacant property to the east, we (staff) did not talk about this as still a concern. This kind of a connection, based on the site layout and bank drive-thru use at the east end of the property, would be difficult and not really functional. Tom did, however, say that a pedestrian connection north - south through the middle of the parking lot (where there is a landscaped island) should be provided. This connection should be shown on the plans that go to public hearing. Do you have your red -lined plans ready to forward to the applicant? Steve >>> Marc Virata 06/18/03 08:30AM >>> I missed out on the discussion of Golden Meadows Business Park 2nd Filing. My comments were minor and from the comments I've read, it seems that they've addressed a good amount of concerns. I also read that the item is looking to be scheduled for hearing. Just curious with regards to a hearing. They didn't address providing a bike/ped connection to the east on this round. If we're still pushing for this, do we think this is something that can be figured out after hearing or is it something they should have accounted for prior to a hearing? If we're still wanting this connection, the incorporation of it into the plan set might become a design concern because of the detention pond and drive through in proximity to where a connection can be made. Other than this connection issue, I'm quite content with getting the project to hearing. Steve It - Re Golden Meadows Busin 13ark 2nd Filing From: Marc Virata To: Steve Olt; Tom Reiff Date: 6/18/03 10:58AM Subject: Re: Golden Meadows Business Park 2nd Filing Tom, It sound like the interpretation Trans Plan has is that 3.6.3(F) is not applicable. With that being the case, and in talking with Dave, Engineering has no reason to be requiring (or asking for) the bike/ped connection. I'll go ahead and drop this from my DMS comments. Steve, Dave was thinking that perhaps an interpretation on 3.6.3(F) might be beneficial. It might reduce confusion on applicability on instances such as this. Thanks, Marc >>> Tom Reiff 06/18/03 10:36AM >>> Marc, I talked to Mark J. about the walkway connection and he doesn't feel comfortable about requiring the connection. Perhaps we leave the comment in as a suggestion that should be explored, but not require it. TR >>> Marc Virata 06/18/03 09:55AM >>> Tom, We had concluded (City Staff as a whole) during the first round that Section 3.6.3(F) of the LUC is applicable - a street connection is required to the east because the area south of the Granger building is potentially developable land. The thought was that a public street connection itself doesn't make sense because of the size of the parcel and the close proximity of it to Harmony Road. Eric was okay without having a private drive connection between the two properties, so it was thought that a bike/ped connection would work as alternative compliance to 3.6.3(F) in lieu of the full street connection. If the position is that the code can't require it, that's certainly fine, though I believe we've made the bike/ped connection an issue the previous round. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Marc >>> Tom Reiff 06/18/03 09:22AM >>> Marc and Steve, I have picked this project up from Mark and found no mention on the ped connection to the east in his first round of review. I'm not sure if either of you were asking for the connection in round 1? However, in my opinion there is very little in the code that can require this connection. It would definitely make sense for a walkway, especially if the lot adjacent to them develops, but it sounds like the developer wants his own little disconcerted world. TR >>> Marc Virata 06/18/03 09:06AM >>> The right-of-way comment will actually be to remove the additional dedication. This is similar to Timberline Village in that there isn't a need to get additional right-of-way since the future edge of pavement will still be within the existing right-of-way and the 80' setback handles the landscape/pedestrian issue. This just saves having to go through CDOT with an A -line change, which makes things complicated.