Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFAIRVIEW SHOPPING CENTER - Filed CS-COMMENT SHEETS - 2003-07-07Develop znt Services Planning Department City of Fort Collins December 19, 1990 Mr. Dick Rutherford Stewart and Associates 214 North Howes Street Fort Collins, CO. 80521 Dear Mr. Rutherford: Staff has reviewed the request for a P.U.D. to allow a parking lot in a residential zone that serves an off -site commercial use (Chesterfield, Bottomsley and Potts). The following comments are offered: Staff is concerned about an access that is only 12 feet wide and restricted to one-way traffic. Other than signage, this one-way access will be difficult to control. This could create conflicts at the peak turnover times. This causes driver frustration. Staff recommends that an additional access drive be placed on the west side of Duds and Suds. This access could be 20 feet wide and feature two way traffic, or perhaps, 12 feet wide and feature northbound exit traffic as a paired one-way system with the east access drive. 2. Any impact on the Diamond Shamrock stormwater detention pond must be mitigated. It may be that an access on the west side of Duds and Suds will impact the low spot and outlet pipe in the pond. 3. An easement would be required in order to extend the parking lot outfall line into the detention pond. In addition, an easement or agreement is needed for use and maintenance of the privately owned detention pond outfall line to Elizabeth Street. 4. Calculations are needed to support the increased capacity being proposed for the restricted Diamond Shamrock outfall to Elizabeth. 5. If a seconid access is considered on the west side of Duds and Suds, there is an inlet pipe and one outlet pipe that may need to be relocated or re- routed using manholes at bends. The displaced volume of the pond would also need to be compensated for. 6. There is an excessive use of compact stalls. The City of Fort Collins Parking Lot Development Guide states that long term parking areas may have up to 40% compact stalls. The 37 proposed compact stalls represents 54%. This should be reduced to 27 spaces which would be the 40% maximum. 7. Please provide information on how many spaces are being lost on the Pulse property. With this proposal, are spaces being gained or lost? Will the 281 N. Collep;e Avenue • P.O. Box 380 • Fart Collins, CO 80�22-0:;80 • (303) 221-f,7nO new spaces be sufficient or will there still be a shortage? Perhaps it would be best to determine the overall parking demand of the restaurant. Please provide information on the square footage of the restaurant available for public seating, and the number of on -site parking spaces available at present. 8. Does Potts promote bicycle transportation? Are bike racks provided that are anchored securely to the concrete? Are racks illuminated and considered safe? Are racks protected from weather by attractive covering? Perhaps discounts could be provided to patrons who ride bicycles versus driving cars. The proximity to a large student population seems to invite bicycle usage. The net result would be less demand on the overcrowded parking lot. 9. Are separate motorcycle parking areas set aside? Are motorcycle spaces near the entry and supported by concrete versus blacktop? Again, this would reduce parking demand. 10. There are seven spaces, three on the north, four on the south, that have insufficient width. These widths range from five to seven feet. These stalls will not be allowed as vehicle spaces. 11. Please add'' the following note to the site plan: "All freestanding light fixtures shall be a maximum of 16 feet in height and shall feature down directional, 90 degree cutoff luminaire." 12. Please add the following note to the site plan: "No business signage will be allowed in the parking lot. Directional signage shall not exceed four square feet per sign." 13. Staff is concerned about the fence design along the south property line. One key design issue is how this fence will affect pedestrian circulation between Matador Apartments and the businesses on West Elizabeth Street. Staff is not prepared to address this issue without input from the Matador management group but this input may determine whether or not there will be openings in the long fence. Integration with residents of Matador Apartments must be investigated. 14. The fence material is not specified. Is this going to be a typical, boring six foot cedar fence? The two foot jogs do not seem to accomplish breaking up the monotony. Have you considered using pressure treated wood which will weather to brown instead of gray? Have you considered using material similar to the siding of the restaurant to unify the parking lot to the building? Have you considered painting or staining the fence to match the Ibuilding? Have you considered varying the height periodically? Have you considered shadowbox treatments? Fences with tightly spaced pickets tend to blow down earlier than widely spaced pickets. Have you considered keeping some clearance from the ground? There are a variety of design solutions to create a more interesting feature. The fence, as proposed, is unacceptable and needs to be upgraded. 15. Staff is aware that there may be new owner of Duds and Suds. As with Matador Apartments, this owner must be contacted. Wherever possible, the concerns of the affected neighbors must be mitigated through sensitive design. The applicant should contact this owner during the design phase. It is far better to work with the affected property owners early in the. process than during the evening of the public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board. 16. There are three landscaped islands that do not have trees. These islands should be upgraded with either deciduous shade or ornamental trees. 17. In front of the fence indentations, there is no landscaping. This area should be treated with shrubs to cover the area. This concludes Staff comments at this time. Please note the following schedule for the January 28, 1991 Planning and Zoning Board hearing: Plan revisions are due January 9, 1991 P.M.T.'s, 10 prints, colored prints are due January 21, 1991 Signed mylars are due January 24, 1991 As of this writing, three affected property owners have not provided comments on this proposal. The Planning Department will try to obtain input from these interests (Diamond Shamrock, Duds and Suds, and Matador Apartments). Significant comments from these owners must be considered in the final design. I suggest we get together to discuss these comments in detail at your earliest convenience. As always, please feel free to call or visit our office to discuss this proposal. Sincerely: T� Ted Shepard Project Planner cc: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Senior Planner Mike Herzig, Development Manager Kerrie Ashbeck, Civil Engineer