Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT PARK PUD - PRELIMINARY - 21-95 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSLinda Ripley May 18, 1995 Page 3 thereby inviting non -vehicular customers. The parking on the south of the building should be reconsidered since it precludes taking advantage of the site's opportunities. (The middle building has tremendous potential to offer true neighborhood services in a pedestrian -friendly environment. Uses such as bagel shop, coffee shop, bread shop, newstand, mail services, bookstore, etc. were mentioned at the neighborhood meeting. These uses can blend together in an attractive setting featuring safe, usable outdoor spaces.) 11. The architectural elevations for Payless do not seem to be compatible with the comments made at the neighborhood meeting. Has Payless considered a pitched roof? Must a 15,000 square foot building always. be a flat roofed structure? As indicated, there is a lack of residential character to this structure. In particular, the Prospect elevation lacks windows, entries, brick, or roofline variation. Please investigate the Spring Creek Medical Plaza, the Stuart Street Office Park (Stuart and Lemay), or the Oak Ridge Business Park (southeast corner Harmony and Lemay) for examples of introducing residential character into commercial buildings. In addition, the commercial buildings at Scotch Pines Village Shopping Center have been well -received by surrounding neighbors. 12. The north elevation of the middle building features an very dominant form with the two story vertical element flanking the entry supporting the gable feature. Why such a strong element for a neighborhood -based commercial area? Could this elevation be made more subtle given the surroundings? This feature seems more appropriate for South College Avenue where there is substantially more competition in a more commercial environment. Again, the emphasis appears overly commercial and -less residential in character. 13. The City is concerned about the transition from an urban commercial center to a natural storm drainage area. The use of more native species in this area is encouraged. It is suggested that buffering and landscaping between parking lot edge and natural drainage area be further investigated. 14. Parking stalls facing north that are at the street elevation should be screened with a berm or a dense hedge of. plant material. 15. Be sure that there is space for five cars to stack behind the bank's drive-thru teller window/machine. Linda Ripley May 18, 1995 Page 2 connection to both sidewalks along Prospect and Shields for transit riders. As indicated, the building design discourages non -vehicular access and does not meet the needs of immediate neighbors, nor promote the air quality policies of the City. 4. Staff questions the viability of gaining access to the drive- thru by making a 180 degree turn off Shields. This is not a comfortable turn for a motorist coming off an arterial. It appears the drive-thru component is awkward and forced. 5. The plan does not indicate a bus pullout bay on Shields. This should be provided with the appropriate sidewalk connection. 6. The parking lot drive aisle between Payless and the middle building should feature landscaped islands with a sidewalk to facilitate the pedestrian or bicyclist. The sidewalk should lead to building entries with close -by bike parking. As shown, a pedestrian must weave through the parking lot to get from building to building. 7. A significant amount of land area is devoted to truck loading and dock area for Payless. Could this amount of hard surface be reduced? It is unfortunate that this activity occurs along the south elevation which otherwise could be an attractive customer entry with valuable exposure to the arterial. Has Payless considered a partially enclosed truck dock that recedes into the building? Loading should be made more discreet. 8. The middle building will feature multiple users and should have multiple entries. The decorative concrete patio should be a central plaza, with entry. -that faces west and south to invite neighborhood customers. 9. As with Payless, the middle building is difficult for those not using an auto. By being .surrounded by parking, pedestrians and bicyclists must penetrate a barrier to gain access. Please refer to All Development Criterion A-2.1. As designed, there is too much emphasis on vehicular needs at the expense of the other customers in the neighborhood. Customers from Stone Creek Apartments and Heatheridge Condos must negotiate the bank's drive-thru stacking lane to gain access to the middle building's west side. 10. The middle building should take advantage of the open space amenity on the south. This would be an ideal area for outdoor dining, small shops, etc. that are geared toward the neighborhood. In addition, the entry, plaza, etc. should be specifically designed to orient towards the neighborhood J Comn ity Planning and Environment. Current Planning City of Fort Collins May 18, 1995 Ms. Linda Ripley Ripley Associates 228 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Linda: ervices Staff has reviewed the request for Prospect Park Preliminary P.U.D. and offers the following comments: 1. Portions of the southerly parking and drive aisle encroach into the storm drainage, wetlands, and utility easements. These elements.should not encroach into the City's easement. Please.revise:plans accordingly. 2. Staff:s concerned about the lack of pedestrian access to the west and south. These multi -family areas must be connected for -bikes and pedestrians to gain access to the site. The developer must provide a sidewalk, eight feet minimum width, in the southwest area of the site that ties into a walk or street system in Northwoods Apartments or Propect II (Stone Creek Apartments). Such a connection may require a bridge over the drainage facility. The path could be located between the office building and the property line. This comment was made at conceptual review and again at the neighborhood meeting. Maps of the adjacent projects are available for your review. If the proposed project does not provide safe and convenient access to offsite residential areas, then All Development Criterion A-2.1 cannot be satisfied. 3. Staff is concerned about the design of the Payless Drug building. As indicated, there is an over -reliance on auto orientation. With one entry, drive-thru lane, and parking on two sides, the auto unnecessarily dominates the access. The pedestrian or bicyclist must "penetrate" these barriers to find the building. While this design may be appropriate for larger suburban shopping centers, this site calls out for a more neighborhood focus. It is strongly suggested that the drive-thru lane be deleted. This area could be devoted to landscaping and improve the streetscape along Shields. There should be multiple entries to allow more flexible access. Each entry should be covered and feature bike parking. There should be a direct sidewalk 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 FAX (303) 221-6378 TDD (303) 224-6002 Linda Ripley May 18, 1995 Page 4 16. Based on the amount of square footage, a total of seven handicap parking spaces are required. 17. The site plan should show ramps and street sidewalks and sidewalks along both public streets and along the shared access drive with Stone Creek Apartments. 18. Please add north arrow and scale to the vicinity map on the site plan. 19. Comments from the Transportation Department are extensive and will be provided to the traffic engineering consultant under separate cover or through separate meetings. In summary, commercial activity at this location will provide an important service for the surrounding neighborhood. As such, it bears a special burden to provide safe, convenient non -vehicular access to pedestrian, bicyclists, and transit riders. Outdoor public spaces should be considered to enhance the customer environment and strengthen the neighborhood connection. Building forms should be more residential character. This concludes Staff comments at this time. In order to stay on schedule for the June P & Z meeting, please note the following deadlines: Plan revisions are due June 7, 1995. P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, renderings are due June 19, 1995. As always, please call if there are any questions or concerns regarding these comments. Sincerely: ` l Ted Shepard Senior Planner 0