HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II - PDP - 54-98 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUESTfifty years or more.
D. The proposed alternative parking ratio:
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 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 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. Not only maintains, but improves handicap parking ratios, and insures that
they in fact will be left vacant for those who need them and not used by
someone who cannot find any where else to park.
7. This property is not located in Zoning Districts D, L-M-N, M-M-N and C-
C, thus this section is not applicable.
It is clear that the proposed alternative parking ratio is more convenient, safer and
efficient than the prescribed ratio, thus better accomplishing the purpose of Section
3.2.2.(A). The alternative ratio also does not create any negative impacts per the Review
Criteria. I look forward to your response and please call me if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
McClelland Partners, LLC
ARhys C .stensen, Manager
buildings and maintain them than it does to build and maintain parking spaces.
The use of building materials, gas, electric and water is far more efficient if
spread out over five people working in 1,000 sf rather than three people working
in 1,000 sf. The use of resources to build, maintain, light, power, heat and cool
the space is nearly the same whether five people or three people work there.
Regarding Review Criteria (Section 3.2.2.K(4)(b)), please note the following:
A. Because the tenant mix of this office project is not static and will change
annually, we cannot predict the number of employees and customers occupying
the buildings. I do know from fifteen years of experience in managing and
owning multi -tenant office buildings that 3 spaces/1,000 sf is woefully
inadequate. The 1997 U.B.C. occupant load factor for office buildings is 100 sf
per person. I am told the Denver Tech Center has a minimum ratio of 5.5
spaces/1,000 sf.
The national trend is for companies (and governments) to employ more people in
less space, thus necessitating more parking per square foot, not less. Many
companies are utilizing open office space with modular furniture where six or
more people per 1,000 sf is possible. Please note that most businesses have
customers or invitees which can take the parking load to 8 spaces/1,000 sf.
Prescribing one maximum standard for all situations for a 50-100 year history of
the office project is not practical. Different office buildings have different
load factors and different parking needs. Different businesses have different
parking needs. The current code only singles out two different uses (medical and
financial) when, in fact, there are hundreds of different uses. Prescribing one
standard for all businesses is unrealistic.
It is conceivable that McClellland Office Park II could be leased at least 50% to
medical users. Currently one-third of Phase I is medical use. The staff alone at
most medical offices uses 3 or 4 spaces/1,000 sf and they usually see three or four
patients at one time.
B. There is no availability of nearby on -street parking.
C. Shared parking is available with the existing building at 2850 McClelland which
currently has 3 spaces/1,000 sf. This has historically proven to be inadequate. I
have personally owned and/or managed this property for seven years and have
witnessed the parking situation as different tenants come and go. Thus, when we
planned the ground to the north, we wanted to achieve an overall ratio of 4
spaces/1,000 sf for the entire project to alleviate the parking problem.
It should be noted that increasing the parking reduces our building size, thus our
profit. However, I would rather do a responsible development with adequate
parking, rather than squeeze more profit and create a parking problem for the next
REai.TEc
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.
Request for Alternative Compliance
December 2, 1998
Mr. Steve Olt
Current Planning
City of Fort Collins
281 North College
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: McClelland Office Park II (PDP #54-98)
Section 3.2.2.(K)(2)(a) of the LUC
Dear Steve:
255 E Monroe Av, Ste 4
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 229-9900 Tel
(970) 282-1080 Fax
realtec@newamerica.com
I am writing to request an Alternative Compliance hearing regarding the above portion of
the LUC that restricts parking spaces to three spaces per 1,000 sf of "general" office
space. I recently became aware of this restriction due to the city comments on the
McClelland Office Park II, Project Development Plan #54-98.
We feel that the proposed alternative parking ratio (3.82 spaces/1,000 sf) will better
accomplish the purpose of Section 3.2.2(A) in the following manner:
Tenant and Customer Convenience. Restricting parking spaces to 3
spaces/1,000 sf will result in extreme inconvenience for tenants and customers.
My experience with multi tenant office buildings and the McClelland Office Park
in particular, is that 3 spaces/1,000 sf is inadequate. Without enough parking,
people sit idling in their cars or drive around waiting for spaces to open. People
become impatient and "road rage" occurs in the parking lot.
2. Safety. Restricting parking spaces to 3 spaces/1,000 sf will create an extremely
unsafe condition. Customers and tenants will be forced to park illegally on
adjacent streets, in handicap spaces, in adjacent parking lots, in fire lanes and
wherever else they can.. The first time a fire truck is called to this project and the
fire lanes are parked full, there is potential for loss of property or life.
3. Efficient Use of Natural Resources. Limiting parking spaces to 3 spaces/1,000
sf promotes the inefficient use of resources by encouraging fewer employees per
sf of building area. It costs more money and uses more resources to build
NI
New America International