HomeMy WebLinkAbout1230 E Elizabeth Street - MOD - 29-07 - Modification Request SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - 09/13/2007PARKING EXAMPLES
POUDRE VALLEY HOSPITAL! RIVERSIDE AVENUE AREA
Building Square Feet
Parking Spaces
I Parking Ratio
Comments
1
1236 Riverside Avenue
8,315
15
1.80
Currently use 9 parking spaces on 1236 E. Elizabeth Street Subject Property).
Northern Colorado Anesthesia - 23 employees - is under contract to buy this building.
Requesting cross -access easement for 6 parking spaces on 1236.
2
1241 Riverside Avenue
3,140
11
3.50
Base Cam - 12 + employees.
Lease 8 Spaces from Neighboring ro
3
1401 Riverside Avenue
3 W
22
7.24
Collection Center -18 employees.
Used to rent B spaces to neighbor - now neighbor rw is specas across ft street
4
1525 Riverside Avenue
2,800
10
3.57
Mental Office and Multiple Sclerosis Society - 8 + employees.
_
Dental Office leases 4 spaces on adjacent vacant lot.
5
1531 Riverside Avenue
2,800
9
3.21
Real Estate and Insurance Office - 10 Employees.
Agreement with 1537 Riverside Avenue - Use 6 of theirs aces.
6
1537 Riverside Avenue
1,341
11
8.20
Construction Coma - 5 Employees - No walk-in traffic.
Lot is underutilized - Plan to add another 1,649 Square Feet - Ration will be 3.67 11/3 .
After construction employees for 1531 and 1537 will need to park on Pitkin Street,
Red
Insufficient Parkin
Mack
Suffid&M Padr'
Green
Sufficient Parki - Toda
1,000
9/13/2007/1230 EAST ELIZABETH STREET.xIs
r
Building located due west of
the Subject. Leases parking
spaces to 3 different
buildings in the immediate
area.
Building located due east of
the Subject. This
neighboring property would
share access off of Elizabeth
Street.
15 Parking Spaces for 8,315
Square Feet — 1.80 Parking
Spaces per 1,000 square
feet. Requesting a cross
access easement from
subject for 6 parking spaces.
Youth Clinic located two
buildings west of the
Subject. Leases space to
other buildings.
9/13/2007/Z:\2 DLC TEXT\3. LETTERS\CLIENT\l230 ELIZABETH - MODIFICATION.doc
C. Connecting Walkway Standards Modification of Standards
City regulations require that at least one main entrance of any commercial or mixed -use building shall face and
open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage.
Our request is based on the fact that the neighborhood sidewalk is located on the southern boundary of the lot.
This sidewalk was constructed years ago to provide for east/west pedestrian traffic along Elizabeth Street. The
historical uses in the neighborhood were based on providing for a significant setback from Elizabeth Street.
These setback areas were then used for parking lots.
Forcing the subject property to attempt to provide direct connections to the existing sidewalks would be
impossible given that the both adjacent buildings parking lots are located in the front setback areas off of
Elizabeth Street. The subject will share access with the eastern adjacent property and has its parking areas
designed to match the existing parking patterns in the neighborhoods.
The proposed site plan was designed to fit in with the adjacent buildings and the existing traffic patterns the
neighborhood versus creating a new design that will burden this small infill lot with design criteria that will be
impossible to meet, and does not fit into the existing neighborhood's development patterns.
The photos on the next page provide an overview of the existing development patterns in the immediate vicinity
of the subject.
9/13/2007/Z:\2 DLC TEXT\3. LETTERS\CLIENT\1230 ELIZABETH - MODIFICATION.doc
parking spaces in a municipal or private parking lot meeting the requirements of the city, travel demand
management programs (if any), or any other factors that may be unique to the applicant's development
request. The decision maker shall not approve an exception to the general office parking standard unless
it:
1. does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity for pedestrians between or among
existing or future uses in the vicinity, 2. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact along the public street of the
proposed increased parking by placing parking lots to the rear or along the side of buildings, to the maximum
extent feasible,
3. minimizes the visual and aesthetic impact of such additional parking on the surrounding neighborhood,
4. creates no physical impact on any facilities serving alternative modes of transportation,
5. creates no detrimental impact on natural areas or features,
6. maintains handicap parking ratios,
7. for projects located in D, L-M-N, M-M-N and C-C zone districts, conforms with the established street and
alley block patterns, and places parking lots across the side or to the rear of buildings,
8. results in a ratio that does not exceed one -space -per -employee (1:1), and
9. is justified by a travel demand management program which has been submitted to and approved by the city
B. Build to Line Modification of Standards
City regulations state that "Build -to lines are based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street
sidewalk. They shall be established by development projects for new buildings and, to the extent reasonably
feasible, by development projects for additions or modifications of existing buildings, in order to form visually
continuous, pedestrian -oriented street fronts with no vehicle use area between building faces and the street."
Our request is based on Section3.5.3(B)(2)(d)2.c. — an established pattern of existing buildings that makes a
pedestrian -oriented streetfront infeasible. The fact is that this is an infill project, that it will be contextually
consistent with the buildings to both the east and west, that this neighborhood was developed prior to these new
guidelines, and that this is the last remaining vacant lot on the block which should be developed to the previous
standards.
Applying the Build- to line guideline will not form a "visually continuous pedestrian -oriented street front" since
the entire surrounding neighborhood has developed around a previously encouraged auto oriented character and
applying the city's newer build to line is inappropriate for this small infill parcel. While following the
guidelines would provide a good contrast of the better planning patterns of "today" it is not appropriate to put
such a burden on a this small remaining lot that must connect to the existing parking lots that are located
directly off of Elizabeth Street.. It is important to note that the applicant is proposing to landscape a buffer strip
between Elizabeth Street and the proposed building.
9/13/2007/Z:\2 DLC TEXT\3. LETTERS\CLIENT\1230 ELIZABETH - MODIFICATION.doc
Modification Request
1230 East Elizabeth Street — Medical Building Infill Project
We are submitting this request for the modification of standards for this project to address the following items:
A. Parking Standard in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)
B. Build -to line in Section 3.5.3 (B) (1)
C. Connecting walkway standard in Section 3.5.3. (13)(1)
A. Parking Standard
1. Off-street parking is virtually unavailable in the Poudre Valley Hospital / Riverside Avenue area. In
addition, there is no shared parking available in this area that is not for lease. This creates three
problems:
l . First, most parking is informal and is based on month -to -month agreements with the current
Landlord. A very precarious position, especially when buildings sell and the new Landlord does
not adhere to the previous agreement.
2. Second, it is very difficult to buy or redevelop a building when parking is inadequate for a
company's employees and / or clients.
3. Third, this building will likely be medical use ( if not initially, at least some point in the future ).
Medical buildings serve the sick, elderly and / or disabled - individuals who require close
parking and typically do not use alternative forms of transit due to health and mobility issues.
(No modal split — Driving ratio at 100% due to free parking and limited transit alternatives).
"Medical buildings are typically short on parking"
2. The transportation handbook suggests in this environment a clinic (medical offices with outpatient
services — no overnight stays) is a minimum of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building. This leads to
17 spaces.
3. City Code is 4.5 per 1,000 or 14 spaces. In the event that on -street or shared parking is not available in
accordance with 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) this can be increased by 20% or 3 parking spaces for a total of 17.
We are asking for 22 parking spaces based on the attached spreadsheet.
Exception to the General Office Parking Standard. An exception to the general
(a) Procedure. All requests for exceptions to the general office parking standard shall be submitted in
accordance with the submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this subsection. Each such request
shall clearly identify and discuss the proposed project and the ways in which the plan will accomplish
the general purpose of this subsection. The request for an exception to the standard must be
accompanied by an estimated number of employees. In addition, a traffic impact study containing a trip
generation analysis or other relevant data describing the traffic and parking impacts of any proposed
general office land use or activity shall be submitted.
(b) Review Criteria. To approve an exception to the standard, the decision maker must first find that the
Proposed project accomplishes the general purpose of this Section. In reviewing the request for an
exception to the standard parking ratio and in order to determine whether such request is consistent with
the purposes of this subsection, as required above, the decision maker shall take into account the
anticipated number of employees occupying the building, the number and frequency of expected
customers or clients, the availability of nearby on -street parking (if any), the availability of shared
parking with abutting, adjacent or surrounding land uses (if any), the provision of purchased or leased
9/13/2007/Z:\2 DLC TEXT\3. LETTERS\CLIENT\l230 ELIZABETH - MODIFICATION.doc