The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRICHIE'S EXPRESS CARWASH - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 15-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - MODIFICATION REQUESTPrior to forwarding a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board, the plan needs to prove the unfeasibility of meeting the above referenced criteria and the narrative needs to address and cite all applicable standards. It seems that the most likely avenue of justification would be Section 2.8.2(H)(1), such that the plan needs to address the purpose of all sections of the above referenced Land Use Code sections equally well or better than a plan, which complies with all code standards. In regard to the required public hearing, the Planning Director has not set a date with the Planning and Zoning Board. This date is subject to a revised application being submitted which addresses the above referenced items. Please contact me at 970.221.6750 if you should have any questions or concerns related to this information. Sincerely, Ronald G. Fuchs City Planner cc: Cameron Gloss Dave Stringer Tim Blandford City File #15-00 DAMy Documents\Planning DocumenARichies Express #15-001Richie's Express Mod Itr 1.doc Page 3 of 3 4. Exhibit "C" has been omitted from your documentation. 5. Exhibit"Y has been cropped off. 6. The buildings noted in subsection (1) provide direct pedestrian connection points to the frontage road as well as connections to College Avenue. 7. As noted with Exhibit "H" Eastern Mountain Sport directly to the east of the this proposed development provides a pedestrian linkage to College Avenue as does the complex housing Swenson's further south. 8. Page 6 section (2) refers to Exhibit "D" outlines an easement is claimed to restrict the ability to meet the build -to line. The easement is not shown with "Exhibit D", nor does it appear an easement twenty feet from the property line would negate the ability to meet build -to lines (as shown — Exhibit "E"). How does the 20' easement restrict the ability to provide a direct pedestrian connection way to College Avenue? 9. Additional information will need to be provided and documented to justify a lot in excess of 160 feet is exceptionally narrow as noted on Page 6 section (3). 10. Review of the Conclusion on Page 6 neither the plan nor the narrative adequately addresses how the plan is equal to or better than a plan complying with Land Use Code criteria and standards or how the proposal meets the spirit, intent and purpose of City Plan. As specified in the LUC Section 2.8.2 Modification Review Procedures, the Planning and Zoning Board shall review, consider, and approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for a modification of standards based on compliance with LUC 2.8.2(H). Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code states that in order for the Board to grant a modification, they must find that the proposed plan: a) is not detrimental to the public good; b) does not impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code; c) satisfies the criteria of either (1) (2) or (3) of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The modification inquiry of Land Use Code Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (B) General Standard; Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (C) Development Standards (1) Safety Considerations; Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (C) Development Standard (5) Walkways. (a) Directness and continuity; Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements (1) Pedestrian/Vehicle Separation; Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (E) Parking Lot Layout (1) Circulation Routes; Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (E) Parking Lot Layout (4) Landscaped Islands; Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (E) Parking Lot Layout (5) Points of Conflict; Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (F) User Needs; Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking (H) Drive-in Facilities; Section 3.3.1 Plat Standards (B) Lots (2); Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility (D) Building Orientation; Section 3.5.3 Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (A) Purpose; Section 3.5.3 Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway; Section 3.5.3 Mixed - Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (B) Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and Parking (2) Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings; Section 3.5.3 Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings (D) Character and Image (3) Facades; and, Section Division 4.17 Commercial District (C) (A) Purpose, is incomplete. In order for staff to complete a review of the modification request and forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board, revisions to the narrative listing each criteria and a response how the each criteria request is meeting the purpose of such and plans must be submitted for review. Page 2 of 3 August 14, 2000 Mr. Vaughn Furness Jim Sell Design 153 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mr. Furness: This letter is in response to your inquiry and to follow-up on your application as outlined in the Land Use Code procedures. It is the intent of the modification review process to review the request based on code criteria and forward a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Land Use Code stipulates that the Director has the ability to deem an application complete and/or determine what additional information is needed to adequately review a modification request. This letter is to offer some insight as to what additional information or clarification is desired to review your request. Based upon the application submitted and preliminary routing, the Engineering Department, Natural Resources Department, Transportation Planning Department, and Current Planning Department can not support the request because the proposal has not demonstrated that strict adherence to Land Use Code standards would make the project infeasible. To assist the Planning and Zoning Board in focus on the modification of code standards, a plan meeting all code standards must be submitted in order to deem this application complete. The plan submitted referenced as Strict Code Site Plan does not meet code build -to lines and incorporates vehicular ways between building faces and streets. Furthermore, the plan does not show how the facility will link the building and pedestrians to College Avenue. Further, the plan referenced as Strict Code Site Plan makes note of potential pedestrian conflicts adjacent to Foothills Parkway in such areas as egress and ingress into this site and adjacent development. This is contrary to the Preferred Site Plan. Even though there is no reduction in the number of access points along Foothill Parkway and the southwesterly most access point has an increased drive width, a potential pedestrian conflict still exists. Hence, the Strict Code Site Plan is not a plan designed in strict accordance to code standards. The narrative should be modified to address the criteria by which the Planning and Zoning Board must review a modification request. The following issues should be addressed in your revised submittal: 1. The narrative refers to an appeal to the Planning and Zoning Board. The narrative is actually a letter of justification for a request of modification, since there has not been a final determination by the review body. 2. Actual code language and standards need to be cited within the document; copies of the code will not suffice. 3. Most items listed as A. — G. on pages 4 and 5 would be required by the City and State regardless of the development proposal and/or are not relevant to this review. Page 1 of 3