HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE MARKET PLACE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 21-89 - CORRESPONDENCE - STAFF'S PROJECT COMMENTSDevelojIM Services
Planning Department
May 8, 1989
Gene Yergenson
Yergenson, Obering, Whittaker
115 S. Weber, Suite 200
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Dear Gene:
Staff has reviewed the Market Place PUD Preliminary revisions and has the
following comments to make:
1. An update on the status of discussions with the owner of the out parcel
regarding access to the out parcel is needed.
2. The State Highway Department has recommended a length of 315' for the
College Avenue decel lane. This distance does not appear to work, given
the dimension of the site's College Avenue frontage. Further information
will be provided regarding this item with review of the final plans.
3. A status update is needed regarding the dedication of Troutman Parkway.
4. The proposed heights of screen walls need to be specified on the site plan.
Walls should be high enough to screen loading areas and docks, as well as
any mechanical equipment that may be placed on exterior walls. Clarifica-
tion is needed on the landscape plan, as to where screen walls are located
and where planter edging is specified. This is somewhat unclear at the
back of Building G.
5. The cover sheet labelled as "Master Plan" should be labelled as "Concept
Plan". The use of master plan may create some confusion for the Planning
and Zoning Board as to what type of approval is being requested.
6. Clarification is needed regarding the proposed screen materials for trash
receptacles for Pads A and B.
7. Clarification is needed regarding the intent for a consistent architectural
theme for Pads A and B, so that these proposed structures are architectu-
rally cohesive with the overall center. This may be indicated by a note
on the elevations.
8. Clarification is needed regarding the intent (if any) for an expansion of
the center, as indicated on the original submittal.
300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
N
M
9. The proposed building elevations represent an improvement to the original
elevations; however, staff is still concerned that the elevations of Building
G (Phar-More) lack adequate articulation, given the size of this building.
Three-dimensional elements and/or materials should be considered, particu-
larly for this portion of the center.
10. The main project id sign (10' x 15') is too large and should be somewhat
closer to an 8' x 10' size, as discussed in our April 25 meeting on this
project.
11. Staff is concerned that Building G is situated essentially on the north
property line. While we do not want to preclude the potential for a
continuation of the shopping center, there is the possibility of the
building's north elevation remaining exposed for an indefinite period of
time. Plant material should be provided along the north elevation and
could occur either through a reduction of the building footprint in this
area or through a landscape easement and placement of plant material on
the adjacent property to the north, on a temporary basis.
12. Consideration for reducing pavement areas behind Buildings F and G
should be considered, so that additional plant material can be provided
adjacent to the proposed buildings (see attached sheet) to provide visual
relief.
13. The following comments apply to the landscape plan:
- shrubbery should be incorporated into parking lot islands;
- minimum 34' high berms should be used on the site, rather than 2' as
shown along Troutman and all berm heights should be labelled;
- consideration should be given to increasing planter sizes in front of
buildings;
- street trees along the three street frontages should be spaced on 40'
centers;
- deciduous trees, rather than ornamentals, should be used in front of
Building G, to provide visual relief for the facade;
- additional plant material should be provided to screen the loading area
of Building G and for the edge of the site, along the out parcel.
By Monday, May 15. 1999 ten (10) folded sets of the site plan, a colored
rendering (unfolded) and an 8-1/2" x 11" PMT reduction must be submitted for
the Board meeting May 22. I expect that you will want further discussion of
these items and would be glad to go over all comments with you. Due to the
time frame this project is on, I wanted to provide you with written comments.
Please realize that additional comments may come out of the review of the
final plans that have been submitted; however, the comments included in this
letter are those that are critical for the Planning and Zoning Board's review of
the preliminary plan.
Sincerely,
Sherry Alb tson-Clark, AICP
Senior Cit Planner
24'
I II 1 O
1 N
i �� I III i lifl�ii � II � II�1 I 1 I i'�•i �• .i 1' i�l I, I ,I; /1-�
N d.
it II, jii I. '
I
I 1
I j k
I I-
N
SCREEN
WALL
•� � F�TVRE
1 � LESS
CP pC
.P ° SN p,RE
N P BS Rpi
N .-
EX`S,
gz
-I
I I i
I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
T
TRASH ENCLOSURE
SCREEN
WALLS
(TYPICAL)
1�
32' t 7'
I
4
I
I
FUTURE
ACCESS
NJ
NEW CURB CUT
N 850 22' 36'' W
5 6.10'
(TYPICAL)
S33025'48"W
86.27'
LANDSCAPING PLAN \
SCREENING TREATMENT
;NG SERVICE DRIVE