HomeMy WebLinkAboutED CARROLL MOTORS (3003 S. COLLEGE) - PDP/FDP - 5-98 - CORRESPONDENCE - (7)�IL
From: Tom Vosburg
To: LHARTER
Date: 7/22/97 8:50am
Subject: Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping -Screening -Reply
This standard is in the Landscaping section, which includes the provisions to do an
administrative review of an " alternative compliance" landscaping plan.
2 think we can either have Bob issue and interpretation regarding how to handle this,
or we can suggest that the applicant propose an "alternative" screening plan and we
then negotiate the details with them, just like we did with the LDGS.
We will obviously have to fix the language in the Fall.
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW SUMMARY - 7/14/97
Water/Wastewater Comments
Location: 1109 S Shields (S of Elizabeth) (5-J)
Proposal: Convert existing residence to hair salon & tanning parlor
Comments: No changes planned to the existing services. If the water service is not metered, a meter
will be required. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply.
Location: S of Conifer between Blue Spruce Drive and Redwood Street (W of JAX) (8-F)
Proposal: Affordable housing apartment project (74 units)
Ex. Mains: 8-inch water and 10-inch sanitary sewer in Conifer
Comments: Mains to serve the project may be extended from Conifer. The layout of utilities must
include provisions to loop the water mains to future adjacent developments. The water
conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply to the project. If the project
meets the affordable housing criteria, PIF's and water rights will be deferred until time of
the Certificate of Occupancy.
Location: NW of Shields Street & Wakerobin Lane (5-P)
Proposal: Morley Healing Center
Ex. Mains: 12-inch water and 10-inch sewer in Wakerobin
Comments: The 16-inch water main in Shields is part of the main pressure zone and, as a result, is
lower pressure than the main in Wakerobin. Repays are due for the 12 inch water main and
the 10-inch sewer in Wakerobin and for the Warren Lake Trunk Sewer. Any existing
mains or services stubbed into the property must be used (if properly sized) or abandoned
at the main. Consideration should be given to looping the water main to the future
development to the north. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation
will apply to this site and PIF's and water rights will be due at time of building permit.
Location: NE corner of Swallow Road and McClelland Drive (7-M)
Proposal: Expansion of parking and car storage lot for Ed Carroll Motor
Ex. Mains: 6-inch water in McClelland, 8-inch water in Swallow; 8-inch sewer in Swallow
Comments: There are currently no plans for any additional taps unless the existing irrigation system
does not have adequate capacity for the additional area. Any existing services must be used
or abandoned at the main. The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation
will apply. If an additional water tap is needed, PIF's and water rights will be due prior to
installation of the meter (since no building permit is issued for a parking lot).
Location: SE of Drake Road and Taft Hill Road (4-M)
Proposal: Convenience store, retail stores, multi -family residential and duplexes
Ex. Mains: 12-inch water in Drake, 12 or 16-inch water in Taft to end of new paving S of Drake;
15-inch sanitary sewer through the S portion of the property
Comments: The water main in Taft must be extended to the south boundary of the site. The water main
extending through the site should loop between the mains in Drake and Taft. A repay will
be due for the sanitary sewer. The car wash at the C-store must have separate services and
must include a sand and oil interceptor on the sewer service. Developer is strongly
encouraged to install separate services to the two units of the duplexes. The water
conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. PIF's and water rights will
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW DATABASE
FILE NAME: Ed Carrol VW
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Swallow and College
DATE OF CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: 7/14/97
DESCRIPTION: Expansion of parking lot
APPLICANT NAME: Tom Duggan PHONE NUMBER: (970) 484-1921
CONTACT NAME: CONTACT NAME:
PLANNER NAME: Leanne Harter
INVENTORY GRID NO: 7M
COMMENTS:
1. This site is located within two basins; Spring Creek basin where the fees are $2,175/acre, and Foothills basin
where the fees are $6,525/acre. Both fees are subject to the runoff coefficient reduction. If the pond discharges into
McClelland Drive, the site would be located in Spring Creek and if it discharges into Swallow, it would be in
Foothills.
2. The standard drainage and erosion control reports and plans are required and they must be prepared by a
professional engineer registered in Colorado.
3. Water Quality needs to be considered. Since most of the site is paved, there isn't much chance to use "Best
Management Practices" but extended detention in the detention pond is one way to address it.
4. If water quantity, quality, or character is changed onto the adjacent property, easements are required. A letter of
intent is required with the first P.D.P. submittal and the final easement with the first final submittal.
There were no plans to share.
This site was at Conceptual Review in September 1996.
.t .
From: WPaul Eckman
To: FCI.CPES(BBLANCHARD, GBYRNE, PBARNES, TSHEPARD), C...
Date: 7/16/97 5:24pm
subject: Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping -Screening -Reply
*" �Covdidantial *0
Peter, I don't think we can call it a typo and that the intent was just 20% of the
linear front........ because Clark will say that that is not true. But I can sure see
that the rule cannot be administered because you cant figure out the view of the
parking lot upon which to calculate the 20%.
if the view is just of the asphalt (that is the parking lot) then I suppose you get a
picture of that sheet if asphalt (as seen from the street???where on the street????)
and screen 20% of it. If it includes the cars in the lot then you get a pictureof
that... I f it includes the trees, then the screen just got taller! And if it
includes some of the sky and clouds, well they wouldnt need much of a screen, huh?!
What if you can't see the lot from the street because it is down low, or up very high?
Then is no screen needed?
Unless we can figure a way to properly administer this section I think Bob has the
best approach of doing an "Interpretation" for now and doing a fix in the fall, as
Peter has suggested.
CC: FCI.CPES(MLUDWIG, SOLT),
From: Peter Barnes
To: FCI.CPES(BBLANCHARD, GBYRNE, TSHEPARD), FC1.Exec_N...
Date: 7/16/97 10:57am
Subject: Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping -Screening -Reply
Now I'm more confused then when you and I talked about this yesterday.
There's absolutely no way that this new code wording works, especially without a very
detailed "figure° being added to the figures in the code.
As I mentioned, I've got this down on my list of code changes to make in the fall. My
suggestion is to just go back to the very clear language we had in the Code
previously. It seems to work ok.
In the meantime, Paul, can't we just say that the word "lowest" was a typo and say
that the intent was to keep it the same as before?
CC: FCI.CPES(MLUDWIG, SOLT),
From: Bob Blanchard
To: FCI.CPES(GBYRNE, PBARNES, TSHEPARD), FC1.Exec_Net(...
Date: 7/16/97 10:35am
subject: Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping -Screening -Reply
To me, this seems unimplementable as it now reads. Do we ignore it or come up with an
interpretation?
CC: FCI.CPES(MLUDWIG, SOLT),
From: Gary Lopez
To: LLAWRIE
Date: 7/15/97 9:26am
subject: Ed Carrol expansion of parking lot
Any special lighting at the display area on the corner (McClelland &.W Swallow) will
need to be closely looked at. The portable signs ordinance (see defin. Art 5, pg 31
Sign, portable) requires that the manner of display of the product cannot "primarily"
attract attention to the product. That is why elevating this corner "parking space"
such as on a berm, etc, would not be permitted. My concern was the applicant's
statement as far as special lighting on that corner. That lighting will need to
conform to parking lot lighting standards and nothing extra should be permitted.
Other words, special spot lighting on that corner which varies from the remainder of
the parking lot would both violate the sign ordinance and standards for parking lot
lighting. In your letter, please include this info. to the applicant.
PS ... Could you have your (old) name changed on groupwise and the switchboard
directory... last names are tough enough to remember, former last names are even
tougher.
CC: PBARNES
No Text
e) Pedestrian crossings at both access points into the parking lot must be
well -marked, using appropriate materials as defined in the Land Use
Code.
f) Extend both islands along the second bay of parking (off the access
from McClelland Drive) so that they are the length of both stalls (just
as it is shown on the plan directly to the south —immediately to the
right of where it states "Auto Display 50 spaces".)
g) Please refer to Articles 3 and 4 of the Land Use Code for additional
standards that are applicable to this development.
h) Under the new Land Use Code (in effect March 28) you will have to
submit a project development plan. The project development plan will
generally specify the uses of land, the layout of landscaping,
circulation, architectural elevations, and building and preliminary plat.
The PDP is more specific than the Preliminary submittals for the
LDGS. You may choose to submit the PDP concurrently with the Final
Plan as well.
i) As this is a Type 2 review, a neighborhood meeting is required. You
will be required to submit lists of affected property owners (APO)
according to our submittal requirements. Please contact me to
schedule a date and location for the neighborhood meeting.
Please contact Leanne Harter at 221-6750 if you have questions about
these comments.
Please contact Mike Gebo at 221-6760 if you have questions about
these comments.
8. The Poudre Fire Authority offered the following comments:
a) Please make sure that there is adequate room through the parking lot
for fire/emergency vehicle access.
Please contact Roger Frasco at 221-6570 if you have questions about
these comments.
9. The Advance Planning Department offered the following comments:
a) Please refer to the new streetscape requirements for the location of
street trees and landscaping for parkways.
10. The Current Planning Department offered the following comments:
a) The Code requires that you provide bicycle parking at 5% of the total
number of parking spaces. However, as over half of the spaces are to
be used for display and not employee parking, this percentage should
be based on the total number of employee parking spaces.
b) According to the Land Use Code, canopy shade trees shall constitute
at least 50% of all trees. Furthermore, when a sidewalk is attached,
canopy shade trees shall be established ranging from 3-7' behind the
side walk at least spaced 30-40' apart.
c) There are standards related to landscaping for the perimeter of a
parking lot. These are located in Article 3 of the Land Use Code and
include that: trees shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) tree per 25
lineal feet along public streets. In addition, there is a requirement that
states:
"Screening from the street and all non-residential uses shall be of
sufficient height and opacity to continuously block at least the
lowest twenty (20) percent of the cross section view of the parking
area from the street or adjacent use."
Therefore, this standards requires that screening will be required
along McClelland, Swallow, and the north property line. You will be
required to screen a portion 'of the parking lot, however, as the
standard currently reads, staff is aware that there is no method to
measure the lowest 20% which results in the standard being un-
implementable. Staff is currently developing an interpretation of this
standard that will apply to this project. Please contact me so that I
may inform you of the status of the interpretation as well as to discuss
allowable screening methods.
d) For parking lots with 100 spaces or more, 10% of the interior space of
the lot shall be landscaped.
a) The existing light and power facilities need to be extended along
McClelland prior to parking lot construction.
b) Street trees need to maintain minimum clearances to streetlights.
c) Light and Power policies and charges will apply, and must be paid as a
condition of continued electric service to the existing auto dealership.
Please contact Doug Martine at 221-6700 if you have questions about
these comments.
5. The Engineering Department offered the following comments:
a) The Street Oversizing Fee is $19,443/acre. These fees are going to
City Council during the month of August and will be changing. The
fees will be based on trip generation in the future.
b) You will be required to install new sidewalks (if none currently exist) in
accordance to the new standards.
c) You will be required to meet sight distance requirements and this may
impact upon the comer parking lots.
d) According to the Code, parking stalls cannot be located within 50'
(arterials) and 40' (collectors) from the edge of the street (the bike lane
can be figured in this distance). .
e) Utility plans and development agreements are required to be
submitted (the City will prepare the development agreement). If public
improvements are required, this will determine the need for a
development agreement.
Please contact Sheri Wamhoff at 221-6750 if you have questions about
these comments.
6. The Transportation Planning Department offered the following comments:
a) A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) may be required. The TIS is
more intensive than the traditional traffic study as it examines
pedestrian, bicycle and transit levels of service in addition to
automobiles.
Please contact Kathleen Reavis at 221-6140 if you have questions about
these comments.
7. The Building Inspections Department offered the following comments:
a) You will be required to comply with the Appendix, Chapter 31 for the
number of handicapped spaces. It was recommended that additional
handicapped spaces be located closer to the existing building.
on that comer which varies from the remainder of the parking lot would
both violate the sign ordinance and the standards for parking lot
lighting.
Please contact Gary Lopez at 221-6760 if you have questions about these
comments.
2. The Water/Wastewater Utility offered the following comments:
a) Existing facilities include a 6" water main in McClelland, an 8" water
main in Swallow, and an 8" sewer main in Swallow.
b) There are currently no plans for any additional taps unless the existing
irrigation system does not have adequate capacity for the additional
area.
c) Any existing services must be used or abandoned at the main.
d) The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will
apply.
e) if an additional water tap is needed, plant investment fees and water
rights will be due prior to the installation of the meter (since no building
permit is issued for a parking lot.)
Please contact Roger Buffington at 221-6854 if you have questions about
these comments.
3. The Stormwater Utility offered the following comments:
a) This site is located within two basins; Spring Creek basin where the
fees are $2,175/acre and the Foothills basin where the fees are
$6,525/acre. Both fees are subject to the runoff coefficient reduction.
If the pond charges into McClelland Drive, the site would be located in
Spring Creek and if it discharges into Swallow, it would be in Foothills.
b) The standard drainage and erosion control reports and plans are
required and they must be prepared by a professional engineer
registered in Colorado.
c) Water quality needs to be considered. Since most of the site is paved,
there isn't much chance to used "Best Management Practices" but
extended detention in the detention pond is one way to address it.
d) If water quantity, quality, or character is charged onto the adjacent
property, easements are required. A letter of intent is required with the
submittal of a Project Development Plan (PDP) and the final
easements are required with the submittal of Final Plan.
Please contact Glen Schlueter at 221-6589 if you have questions about
these comments.
4. Light and Power offered the following comments:
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS
City of Fort Collins
MEETING DATE: July 14, 1997
ITEM: Expansion/addition of parking lot at Ed Carroll Motor
APPLICANT: Tom Dugan
Jim Sell Design
153 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
LAND USE DATA:
Request for parking lot expansion/addition to Ed Carroll Motor, located at the
comer of McClelland and West Swallow. The proposal includes approximately
150 parking spaces, of which 62 are intended for storage and employee parking
and the remainder for display.
COMMENTS:
1. The Zoning Department offered the following comments:
a) The property is located in the C-Commercial District and is a permitted
use as a Type 2 review (Planning and Zoning Board).
b) The code requires that there be a 10' landscaped buffer along Swallow
and a 15' buffer along McClelland.
c) The code requires that 10% of the parking lot be landscaped for
parking lots greater than 100. spaces.
d) Any special lighting at the display area on the corner (McClelland and
West Swallow) will need to be closely look at. The portable signs
ordinance (Land Use Code reference -Definitions, Article 5, pg. 31,
Sign, portable) requires that the manner of display of the product
cannot "primarily" attract attention to the product. That is why
elevating this comer "parking space" such as on a berm, etc., would
not be permitted. It is the Zoning Department representative's concern
that this was the applicant's statement as far as special lighting on that
comer. That lighting will need to conform to parking lot lighting
standards and nothing extra should be permitted. Special spot lighting
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (910) 221-6,75(1
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Commu.tity Planning and Environmental Services
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
July 17, 1997
Tom Dugan
Jim Sell Design
153 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
RE: Conceptual Review Comments .
Dear Tom:
For your information, attached is a copy of the Staff's comments concerning the
parking lot expansion/addition for Ed Carroll Motor that was proposed to the
conceptual review team on July 14, 1997. .
The comments are offered informally by Staff to assist you in preparing the
detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions to
these comments may be made at the time of formal review,of this project.
If you should have any questions regarding these comments or the next steps in
the review process, please feel free to call me at 221-6750.
Sincerely,
Leanne Harter, AICP
City Planner
xc: Eric Bracke
Stormwater Utility/Glen Schlueter
"Project Planner
File
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020