HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIDAL WAVE CARWASH - PDP - 38-01 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUESTPage 2, Tidal Wave Carwash, alternative compliance letter
Please note that all lights listed as "A" on the revised lighting plan are to be mounted on 20'
poles with sharp cut-off on the site perimeter side. Lights listed as "B" on the plan are to be
mounted on 10' poles with sharp cut-off at the autocashier station. Lights listed as "C" are to be
mounted under the building or vacuum/detail island canopies. Lights listed as "D" are mostly for
architectural accents on the building perimeter. All lights are fully concealed and shielded.
Lighting specifications are provided with our application resubmittal.
We believe the revised lighting plan as submitted meets the full intent and purpose of section
3.2.4(A) of the LUC in that it "ensure(s) the functional and security needs of the project are met
in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood". Further, we
believe our lighting plan accomplishes the purpose of this Section equally well or better than
would a plan which strictly adheres to the 10 fc standard as described in Section 3.2.4(D)(7).
Please advise us of the outcome of your review at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
lA ey right
Owner
Tidal Wave Carwash P.D.P.
attachments
PROJECT: Tidal Wave Carwash, P.D.P.
RE: Request for Alternative Compliance under 3.2.4(E) of the Fort Collins LUC - Site Lighting
December 10, 2001
Mr. Troy Jones
City Planner
Current Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Dear Troy:
Please accept this letter as a request for alternative compliance under section 3.2.4(E) of the Fort
Collins LUC (site lighting).
On December 4 h, I met with Cameron Gloss to review the lighting plan for the above referenced
project. Mr. Gloss indicated that it would not be necessary to request alternative compliance
relating to the issue of the use of Metal Halide (our primary task light source) lights on the site,
since the code does not disallow this type of lighting. He did suggest, however, that I submit a
request for alternative compliance under this section related to lighting levels eg. foot candles.
Our plan utilizes a combination of Metal Halide (for general and task functions) and
Incandescent (for architectural accent) fixtures as shown on the revised lighting plan. At certain
locations the MH lights produce ft. candle levels above the 10 fc code standard for site lighting.
These locations include the change/vending/credit card center in front of the equipment room, 2
autocashiers at the entrance to the automatic bays and at each of the three vacuum/detail islands
on the east of the site. However, the average light level is 4.0 fc within the site drive area, well
below the 10 fc standard.
We believe that this minor exception should be allowed due to the functional, task -oriented
nature of our carwash and cite the following in support of our request:
For our facility, the change/vending/credit card processing center, autocashier stations
and vacuum/detail islands are task -oriented spaces that demand light levels sufficient to
provide safety, security and functionality. Customers in these areas are conducting cash
or credit card transactions and inspecting and detailing vehicles. 10 fc is not sufficient
for these tasks. We believe a reasonable interpretation of the LUC should provide for
this type of circumstance by allowing for a minimum number of light levels above 10 fc,
particularly when our drive area average of 4.0 is well below the code maximum.