HomeMy WebLinkAbout1ST STOP PLAZA - MINOR SUBDIVISION & HC-SITE PLAN REVIEW - 53-95 - CORRESPONDENCE -6. Trash, loading, and service functions must be incorporated into the architectural theme of the
building and landscape, out of sight from off -site. Will there be HVAC equipment? Meter
banks etc.? Is the loading function incorporated? I can't tell how it works -- it may meet the
standards as is.
7. The trash area shown on the site plan is not shown on the building elevation. Does it meet 5.
above?
8. In any case, it appears that low hedges or other treatment of several parking lot edges is needed
as perimeter screening (particularly the west edge along College and the east edge).
9. I can offer some possible site design solutions to offset these comments, depending on what is
decided with respect to the process, history, and circumstances of the Development Agreement.
FM: Clark Mapes
TO: Steve Olt
3/25/97
RE: I st Stop Plaza H-C Design Review of Permitted Uses
As we have discussed, I met with the applicant last week. In fact, he was in the office to "pick up
the Development Agreement". I have also spoken with Mike Herzig, and he feels that the best
way to go from here is for me to simply make my comments and then take this project through
interdepartmental review. That's what I'll do for now, but I want to acknowledge that I am now
aware of the complications due to the'fact that the applicant has processed this with Engineering
as a "use -by -right" although no such use -by -right request was ever submitted to the Zoning
Department. I want to be clear that a discussion of how those circumstances occurred, and how
to proceed under the circumstances, are separate issues from these comments.
The application:
1. Does not meet Standard # 16 for pedestrian access to buildings without crossing parking lots.
2. Does not meet LDGS criteria A 2.4 "Safe, efficient, convenient,and attractive for all modes"
and A. 2.6 "safe, convenient, and attractive for pedestrians". The site plan is dominated by
parking and vehicle circulation. The flow around building B combined with the 4 parking lot
aisles that "merge" right in front of the buildings appears to be awkward for both pedestrians and
motorists.
At a minimum, it looks like it should be a one-way loop with angled parking. But even this still
does not solve the intrusion of vehicles into all pedestrian access points. A more consolidated
layout could solve both 1. and 2.
3. The 30-foot utility easement looks like it's trying to be an alley. It aligns with the one north of
Conifer, and it is expressed on an air photo. It is shown in non -mandatory guidelines in the
North College Standards and Guidelines as possibly being beneficial. Was this considered?
4. For the record only, Pinyon Street is also shown in non -mandatory guidelines with the same
intentions for long-term improvement for all affected properties. The site plan does not preclude
this future possibility.
5. The details of access along buildings A and C in particular do not appear to meet LDGS
criteria for pedestrian access or landscaping. Walking between parked cars and along
overhanging car bumpers with no shade on the south and west sides of the buildings looks
uncomfortable, inconvenient, and unattractive. I could offer some simple alternative solutions.