HomeMy WebLinkAboutMCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II - PDP - 54-98 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSDivision 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards
Section 3.2.2(K)
That there will be no dispersal of spillover parking
onto surrounding, adjacent or abutting land uses,
and
2. That there will be no dispersal of spillover parking
onto surrounding, adjacent or abutting public
streets (or private streets not under legal
ownership of the applicant) where parking is
prohibited.
Notwithstanding the spillover parking prohibitions above,
spillover parking may be allowed pursuant to this
subsection for "Special Event Parking" meaning parking .
associated with a recreational facility, activity or
institution expected to occur no more than four (4) times
per year for school assemblies, pageants, graduations,
religious celebrations, or other ceremonies or events that
occur so infrequently that the public can reasonably be
expected to accept the inconvenience of spillover parking
on such infrequent occasions.
(5) Handicap Parking.
(a) Handicapped spaces. Parking spaces for the physically
handicapped shall have a stall width of twelve (12) feet
unless the space is parallel to a pedestrian walk. Other
dimensions shall be the same as those for standard
vehicles. Any such spaces shall be designated as being
for the handicapped with a raised standard identification
sign.
(b) Location. Handicap parking spaces shall be located as
close as possible to the nearest accessible building
entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route of
travel. When practical, the accessible route of travel shall
not cross lanes for vehicular traffic. When crossing
vehicle traffic lanes is necessary, the route of travel shall
be designated and marked as a crosswalk.
Article 3, Page 34
Supp. 2
Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards
Section 3.2.2(K)
private parking lot meeting the requirements of the city,
trip reduction programs (if any), or any other factors that
may be unique to the applicant's development request.
The decision maker shall not approve the alternative
parking ratio plan unless it:
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. maintains handicap parking ratios, and
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.
(c) For recreational and institutional land uses that are
required to provide a minimum amount of parking, a
request for alternative compliance to provide parking
below the required minimum must follow the same
procedure and be held to the same review criteria as
described in Section 3.2.2(K)(4)(a) and 3.2.2(K)(4)(b),
and in addition, must demonstrate:
Supp. 2
Article 3, Page 33
Division 3.2, Site Planning and Design Standards
Section 3.2.2(K)
(3) On -Street Parking. In the M-M-N, C-C and N-C districts, any on -
street parking within or immediately adjacent to the site shall be
counted toward the parking requirement of the subject use.
(4) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant,
the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio (as
measured by the number of parking spaces based on the
applicable unit of measurement established in the table contained
in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) for nonresidential land uses or the
number of parking spaces based on use for recreational and
institutional land uses) that may be substituted in whole or in part
for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section.
(a) Procedure. Alternative compliance parking ratio plans
shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the
submittal requirements for plans as set forth in this
Section. Each such plan shall clearly identify and discuss
the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways
in which the plan will better accomplish the purpose of
this Section than would a plan which complies with the
standards of this Section. The request for alternative
compliance must be accompanied by either a traffic
impact study containing a trip generation analysis or by
other, relevant data describing the traffic impacts of any
proposed recreational or institutional land use or activity.
(b) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the
decision maker must first find that the proposed
alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section
equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standards of this .Section. In reviewing the
request for an alternative parking ratio plan in order to
determine whether it accomplishes the purposes of this
Section, as required above, the decision maker shall take
into account the number of employees occupying the.
building or land use, the number 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 parking spaces in a municipal or
Article 3, Page 32-1
Supp. 4
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
fifty years or more.
D. The proposed alternative parking ratio:
Does not detract from continuity, connectivity and convenient proximity
for pedestrians between or among existing or future uses in the vicinity.
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. The proposed parking lot is screened from the public right
away by the building and the landscape and in no way impacts the
surrounding neighborhood negatively.
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 anywhere 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, is safer and is
equally 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 located in Section 3.2.2.K(4)(b). I look forward to your response.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
McClelland Partners, LLC
Rhys istensen, Manager
C: Dr. Tom Overton, Applicant
3. Efficiency. The efficiency of the parking lot circulation remains the same and is
not impeded by the proposed alternative parking ratio.
For the above reasons, it is clear that the proposed alternative parking ratio
better accomplishes the purpose of Section 3.2.2(A).
Regarding Review Criteria (Section 3.2.2.K(4)(b)), please note the following:
A. Because the tenant mix of this office project and the adjacent office building with
cross easement parking rights 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 per 1,000 sf is woefully inadequate. The 1997
U.B.C. occupant load factor for office buildings is 100 sf per person (10 people
per 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 per 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.
Dr. Overton is planning the McClellland Office Park II to be leased to medical
users. The staff alone at most medical offices uses 3 or 4 spaces per 1,000 sf and
they usually see three or four patients at one time. The prescribed number of
medical spaces for this project equals 67.5 spaces (15 x 4.5) and we are only
asking for 70 spaces.
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 per 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
approximately 4 spaces per 1,000 sf for the entire project to alleviate the parking
problem.
McClelland Partners, LLC
255 E. Monroe, Suite 4
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 229-9900
Request for Alternative Compliance
February 11, 1999
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:
I am writing to request an Alternative Compliance hearing regarding the above portion of
the LUC that restricts parking spaces to 3 spaces per 1,000 sf of "general' office space
and 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sf of "medical' 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 (4.66 spaces per 1,000 sf) will better
accomplish the purpose of Section 3.2.2(A) in the following manner:
1. Tenant and Customer Convenience. Restricting parking spaces to 3 or 4.5
spaces per 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 per 1,000 sf is inadequate. We have
downsized the size of the office space originally planned to specifically alleviate a
history of parking problems at this site and to insure that enough parking spaces
are available.
2. Safety. Restricting parking spaces to 3 or 4.5 spaces per 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.
IING BUILDING AN➢ PE
MCCLELLAND DRIVE \\Y AINE*INor Purr IFUw
PNrc PROCESS
IL
E
N.p
T 11T�T7
— I
E:TR
-- — LRL
I K�I3TIN13 RU I ➢ING ___ EYISI➢L M0'IY.. a1KS p
TR.
.rL I) I
I -
E i
x
x
o➢:TwR rNpwc a Iwvrs a
NG BUILDING MR PARKMG
NET P--�
NOT PART OF PLAMINi PROEEi1�— /\
LMD—SCAPF �A�J rc •—
N(rtTM I• —
P�AN1 MDTEd of •_
Ilpm.. ffR
pM.vwn ..pw v .®p.x ILtwmc
�i . A "uas�ii :e`.m .m oaown v M .vwr
u an T. a nu vm ova wf.TL Naw a ..c psro w rL.v nm ru¢
AM �oroL"u u .' tip�o�larolm v ovw r wlu v =
l Idp CYNp. p O®M IfArt NYarVrf Ml AT Mt W11 0xip[1M Y A<1f10>I
m Lmreae Nvu wrtrt M .am m a mm1C➢ mx N9Idn w n.a
p rl[ LW V 01L61 MX M GMIrtRI YYLY vl M NMR LQr. ]Rif. M
..wma vunwro pYLL a raN.. _ _ ETR _
a. M tallW Mr
��m I OpJMEY l�.�f➢•�rT 1pIX MP: 1.
r. NV(e
l A. WII\� W.YO9xaL ly 4MtVL MYIpM2 NIIOW M .lYI1ML p 11R:[ ETR
.W Akl sw L. M.ur.. Iv. ua. m u ma v .rNl rww .ev nw Loa
IC MATIIW PpQ pVLL N RVIW Ia MICA pMLill UOOYIIEI!MA
IiV{I.L Wpl•1011 Rilf�l 11[MMM�CTI�Ma)IF •i mrIIi R6®Nlxl
R M a0{
1L OrrMTI a MAR[:® RNA06 p.M YALxICF w 01 1E61'4 .X N l Wf mrEI.
RpYY. W1N1.IC� Nil MpIdK[ i IMO'iM1. ¢Daft . Mt 1.l
LL w suu a .vwo An. voxl wrM n M a,< a r .L nL rp Im rl.
I, �raRa m Ix1l Nllf.i LS.IO r®. m M1NRZ.
Lai3- NIR - I:TR
PRGPOSED
JWl DING
PHASE 1
'.TES TO
I
ESH \
YET
LL VAN
PHASE 1
PLMI«
ETR
/
d1
ETR
/
(\\
y
•
�1
ETR
•
NOTE. ENTRIES TD_ 1\
a AXNED E LW 1'
DDEETT
LOCATION IF FRIMUJIU&MMIa 1 \
PLANTINGS VTLL VAR1 PHASE 2
FROM THIS PLAN
I,
I E
F.
PHASE 2
ETR
�Y Y
ETA - EXISS
TING TREE TO REMAIN
ESH EEXISTIN SHRUB EE TO BENAIN
REL
ETRL � EXISTING TREE TO BE RELOCATED
DRAWING
LM D5eAFS
FLAN
REVISICINS
12 &/98
1/ZIP�//R/BI
�/Zg9 w
DRAWN BYDp
CHECKE-A .NY.
Y
U g
O RF.
C f! 7
w u .-
o
JDBQ LII- b
SHEET
3 OF 4
WMIS,
FLOOR PLAN FONT ELEYATIQI REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVAtt3N
TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATI❑N
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
.mgQi WWL2 YWL t VI{LLL iWM M S�16L11 ryyl.yl4
M AVOtry .VW bt20 VIIN � IDII !' Md MbNS d �
LOItGiIOIL WOQM,
REAR ELEVATION
TRASH ENCLOSURE
FRONT _ REAR VALL
m�waae J
=:
�n �—.re su
—ox�Aw�n ¢i1
rtv.tiemnsw
uwai� .�e. v.�amm aw.
EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR LOT 2& LOT 3
McCLELLAND ❑FFICE PARK II
ma m µmy mmm
wm m dun
�i axu- wm<r
DRAWING
EXTERIOR
REVISIONS
12/ 16 /1 D
1/21/gq
16/11/941
31Z9/99
DRAW f,Cp
CHECKELV
DATI/q/gltp
L
U u a
6 �-
F-I "A
C) �R?
w
U VVVV:i
N L��
W
O �
JOB 0.211.9(o
SHEET
2 of 4
Y
MCCLELLAND DRIVE PNT v amr Mip�y/Sp ana rraal
�— ..-� I ®lz K uo Lwt� 101 M > lqi IINW9 P1�:6
L•—PG' ML.ITY I—: 7---
LT i
{'YI(TIN[. LWLDIy(i —
NNp t
Wa yML Ytl1II1MR OLIH Y
m r1�M�N�'6 °MO"vwYY IW y�
II� f _ ] ..IPW IwFlilp nr1 LMn.
I I L
5 $d 1e
Y r.Ntslp Po„xna .I.I 4M. - �Il. ... I
A
17
LAND USE: L[l 1. eNlQPl7
LOT 2
Lm Ma AMA- q n.
pNLNNL RG•MEVICK d'rICU CLINICS � yl
PNE❑Wi Ldl •qFa. 1.'.aSY .eft
E I .T J MIT MfM I.TE w. IL O294D
ESNN'T,: 14tWERP LNpEPIPE MFA.6,.I] ai .t } ❑ Q 6Ll 33 a
INm. LQI YQN• N.Nq q Pt
LL' m3iN.: 27.9W .n 11
INrrNlw .wmw[ wQr eser q Ix :9au
aWLomn Paw)am• .o- It I WIDCAL Dmca CLWDp m
PLYIfW: :.m Y WAT 1. I'I.
IIlrplmN '. AND3CAPL A L 4M L6 11 N.=
C9'Wti: RApP.T[L L.WAfMS MLh )f19 q 1•t
12_
Lm G I. ID, 3 SNIiiL➢ ..a-
IANWIdSPI•KY_ip
IAIAPKi 4r'. I]') pPMlS-
'Ei.LL�uwiLT'Fl6 7S
li 3'M{S) IMJ nN It IV ICDmAk Y Avfl SPVF :n m Np It ..YI]M- 6).1 V..s.
4EGAL._CiECF;�PT]DNSI—___—__.
--
IGf.4 TSETdG Lli a W.I..I. L MITI Nf
C LTii[➢ N VE91ii
—
GP YTLLIT
Iwe r�
p
Qlwlo \
�
.c INmO[•
�
,
,mnen nW..wV �r+.w• � �.Y�,w . a wY wry •
erL.I[_f'JIIIfIWG[FPYOF9SFSFJH11➢WGrIullrMl6IM9AON®mlwTTp1uM�imZI6
L.�;
I
I
IQ2- K'° &IILp:N4S L PN:YSIG M2 SEr ®I NPTN/ 5@IrN pIQM
NY ��W
JL
am �pn . ww .awn n un on►
IJ- I YII ONpllS/ VRlrl Im°I Lp[ W4a� _�
L-EIICTDOG PM M7 !-- �
SITE PLANZnNING
n1dMfAf. G]L) NORTH
mrozo TUMM us- �ICk xulED ancE ap¢
1. LYLL➢IIG LOCI.rml ➢!N[HIVHY MQ IYNM
rN[ PRUPCLTV L M 1U . gRLmC rFLC
m M fQN11Nt1dl V T
G IW R� RP ®@I[M i0 1[ Ur
M.
OAFNE p CYNI. U 10
T STILL F[
LOCATED\Z G TICINFC�K W fWLYT Ml AMDL
\ NR OF WV FWI M. W IXpPpms
L S aM, CaWmm cmQldDDI TO vAMPD
Ov " M ADD, PN"SxAM U
Duw wlmGmwrN] s¢ FNGUL 1 cp.Yn. PL.w ra
.N/.S. WILDIW, . r ll CY iLEIJI !I'!
S SEL RI P ML RMP m'NIIS
IMrlUg➢IW rR'. fpr rp11 pµ CR.ESING
VICINITY MAP rAl
1.. Im • dd�P
McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II
DWECT[R ❑{-PLNMNr�n .T�
Monr.. Y b+ M1.Mq M W LI\r e1 Iat LNW. Ctlenb.
.ctlr W W�Mq
DILCLS'7 �WTSGTmI
>ti w..p.. es✓ ..�w W I v..... n. wr,..W..
...
WTMY P119C
h n.•-i.Wl [vMlnw ..d•�s. —
n Yry• pw¢
arss-srr
DRAWING
SFL.Ar
RE V ISIIINS
12/ll0/`1 S
I/ZI/9`1
3/Iq/Ci
3/Z01191
DRAWN BY
P
C-IECKED B.
DATE, N.._�
SHEET
1 of 4
CSU
■�v -
LMN
VICINITY MAP
#54-98 McClelland Office Park II
Type II (LUC) - PDP
C
10/24/98
1"=600'
!.m.■■.�
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 12
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request for an alternative parking plan (to Section
3.2.2(K)(2)(a)J in accordance with Section 3.2.2(K)(4) - Alternative Compliance of the
LUC.
Staff recommends approval of the request for a modification of the standard as set forth
in Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) — Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings of
the LUC.
Staff recommends approval of the McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, Project
Development Plan - #54-98.
12
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 11
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
A. The McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, PDP contains uses permitted in the C -
Commercial Zoning District, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board.
B. The McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, PDP meets all applicable standards as put
forth in the LUC, including Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards
and Division 3.5 - Building Standards, with the following exceptions:
* standards located in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) — Nonresidential Parking
Requirements of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS. A request for an alternative parking plan, in accordance
with Alternative Compliance (Section 3.2.2(K)(4)] in the LUC, has been
submitted for consideration and it has been determined that the
alternative plan meets the intent of the requirements equally well than a
parking plan that meets the standards.
* standards located in Section 3.5.3(13)(2)(b) — Orientation to Build -to
Lines for Streetfront Buildings of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. A request for a modification of this
standard, in accordance with Modification of Standards (by the Planning
and Zoning Board) in the LUC, has been submitted for consideration. Staff
finds that the project as submitted, based on the existing conditions and
circumstances, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the
intent and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and, that by reason
of an exceptional situation in the form of an existing physical condition that
would place undue hardship on the owner of the property, the strict
application of this standard would result in exceptional practical difficulties.
The 20' wide utility easement on the east side of McClelland Drive that
contains existing gas and electric facilities physically precludes the ability
for the developer to place the building on Lot 2 within 15' of the right-of-
way. It will be set back 22' from the right-of-way. Therefore, staff is
recommending that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the request
for a modification of the standard.
C. The McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, PDP is compatible with the surrounding
land uses.
11
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 10
exceptional situation in the form of an existing physical condition that would
place undue hardship on the owner of the property, the strict application of this
standard would result in exceptional practical difficulties. The 20' wide utility
easement on the east side of McClelland Drive that contains existing gas and
electric facilities physically precludes the ability for the developer to place the
building on Lot 2 within 15' of the right-of-way. It will be set back 22' from the
right-of-way. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning
Board approve the request for a modification of the standard.
4. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS
A. Division 4.17- Commercial District
Offices, financial services and clinics are permitted in the C - Commercial Zoning
District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. However, due. to the need for a
modification of a standard the request becomes a. Planning and Zoning Board (Type 11)
review. The purpose of the C District is:
Intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide
range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business
services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including
creative forms of housing.
While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto -
related and other auto -oriented uses, it is the City's intent that the Commercial
District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with
planning and design that accommodates pedestrians.
This proposal complies with the purpose of the C District as it provides an infill
development, consisting of medical office uses, in the midst of a complex of existing
office and commercial uses.
Section 4.17(E) Development Standards
The proposal satisfies the applicable development standards in the C - Commercial
Zoning District.
10
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 9
The west facade of the proposed building on Lot 2 fronting on McClelland Drive
is set back 22' from the right-of-way, with McClelland Drive being a minor arterial
street, due to an existing 20' wide utility easement containing existing gas and
electric utilities. The applicant has submitted a request for a modification of the
standard as set forth in this section of the LUC.
Modification requests may be granted if the Planning and Zoning Board finds
that the granting of the modification would neither be detrimental to the public
good nor impair the intent and purposes of this Chapter; and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will advance or protect the public interests and
purposes of the standard for which the modification is requested equally
well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for
which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard
would result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that
the proposed project would substantially address an important community
need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's
Comprehensive Plan, adopted policy, ordinance or resolution (such as, by
way of example only, affordable housing or historic preservation) or would
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-
wide concern (such as, by way of example only, traffic congestion or
urban blight), and the strict application of such a standard would render
the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited
to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or
topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to
install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought
to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such
property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the
act or omission of the applicant.
Staff finds that the project as submitted, based on the existing conditions and
circumstances, is neither detrimental to the public good nor impairs the intent
and purposes of this chapter of the City Code; and, that by reason of an
9
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 8
These materials comply with the standard in Section 3.5.1(F)(1), which states:
Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being
used in the neighborhood, or, dissimilar materials are being proposed,
other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form, architectural
detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that enough
similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the differences in
materials.
The materials on this building will be similar to and compatible with those used
on the existing office and commercial structures in the area.
Section 3.5.3. Mixed -Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings
The proposal satisfies the Relationship of Buildings to Streets, Walkways and
Parking standards, more specifically:
Orientation to Build -to Lines for Streetfront Buildings. Section 3.5.3(B)(2)
states that:
Build -to lines based on a consistent relationship of buildings to the street
sidewalk shall be established by development projects, in order to form
visually continuous, pedestrian -oriented streetfronts with no vehicle use
area between building faces and the street.
The end (west) facade of the one building in this project that is directly adjacent
to the existing public sidewalk system along McClelland Drive does not provide
for any vehicular use (such as parking) between the building face and the street.
The building is set back approximately 13' from the back of walk and there are
direct pedestrian connections to the building entries without having to cross
driveways or parking lots.
Build -to Line. Section 3.5.3(B)(2)(b) states that:
Buildings shall be located no more than 15' from the right-of-way of an
adjoining street if the street is smaller than a full arterial or has on -street
parking.
8
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 7
In evaluating the Request for Alternative Compliance, staff determined that
applicant's concern regarding the actual number of parking spaces needed for
the proposed medical office uses, for both the employees and the patients in the
buildings, indicates that adequate parking cannot be met with the maximum of
4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of leasable floor area (see paragraph 4
of item A under Review Criteria on page 2 of the attached Request for
Alternative Compliance). Also, as the applicant has stated (items B and C under
Review Criteria on page 2 of the attached Request for Alternative Compliance),
there is no availability of on -street parking in the area (on -street is not allowed on
McClelland Drive) and the potential for shared parking with the existing
McClelland Office Park building to the south is impractical due to intermittent
parking shortages for that building (depending on the mix of tenants at various
times). The additional 2.5 — 3 parking spaces over the allowable 67.5 spaces
does not adversely affect the landscaping on the site. Staff finds that the
proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.2(K)(4) of
the LUC equally well than would a plan which complies with the standards of this
section.
B. Division 3.5 - Building Standards
Section 3.5.1. Building and Project Compatibility
The McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, PDP satisfies all applicable Building and Project
Compatibility standards, more specifically:
Building materials. The proposed structures will consist of the following
building materials:
* The building facade will be of a variety of three colors of brick veneer
(brown and red in color) and the fascia within the gables on the front and
rear elevations will be of a synthetic stucco finish (cr6me in color). The
mass, scale, and height will be comparable to the building directly
adjacent to the north (Scuba Colorado) and the colors will be consistent
with the mix of colors on the existing office buildings to the south and
north, as well as the Scuba Colorado building adjacent to the north.
* The roof will be of heavy textured composition shingles, natural brown in
color, similar to those on the Scuba Colorado building.
7
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 6
There will be two bicycle racks, each to accommodate a minimum of 3 bicycles,
that will be located near the front entry at the southwest corner of the building on
Lot 2 and the front entry at the northwest corner of the building on Lot 3. This
represents 8% of the total of 70 automobile parking spaces on the site.
Required number of parking spaces. The development proposal does not
satisfy the parking requirements set forth in the LUC for the proposed medical
office uses in this project.
There are 70 proposed parking spaces on -site, equaling 4.6 spaces per
1,000 square feet of leasable floor area. Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) sets forth
maximum parking requirements for non-residential land uses. The
maximum parking allowed for medical office uses is 4.5 spaces per 1,000
square feet of gross leasable floor area or, in this case, 67.5 spaces.
The applicant has submitted a request for approval of an alternative parking plan
that may be substituted for a parking plan that would meet the standards of this
section of the LUC. The reasons for the request are based on Tenant and
Customer Convenience, Safety, and Efficiency (see the attached Request for
Alternative Compliance).
The applicant's request is in conformance with Section 3.2.1(K)(4) - Alternative
Compliance, which allows the Planning and Zoning Board to review and approve
an alternative plan if it finds that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the
purposes of this section equally well or better than would a plan which complies
with the standards of this section.
In reviewing the proposed alternative parking ratio plan for purposes of
determining whether it accomplishes the purposes of this section as required, the
Planning and Zoning Board shall take into account the number of employees
occupying the building or land use, the number of expected customers or
clients, the availability of shared parking with abutting, adjacent or surrounding
land uses, the provision of purchased or leased parking spaces in a municipal or
private parking lot meeting the requirements of the City, trip reduction programs,
or any other factors that may be unique to the applicant's development request.
Copies of the applicant's Request for Alternative Compliance and Section
3.2.2(K)(4) of the LUC are attached to this Staff Report/Recommendation.
6
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 5
The screening for the west and southeast property lines, adjacent to the parking
areas, consists of a mix of evergreen trees and deciduous and evergreen shrubs
that will provide screening at a height and massing to exceed the minimum 70%
opacity requirement.
The third standard referenced (Section 3.2.1(E)(5)] states that:
Six (6) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with less than 100
spaces, and ten (10) percent of the interior space of all parking lots with
100 spaces or more shall be landscape areas.
This development proposal meets the standard for Parking Lot Interior
Landscaping, providing 8% interior landscaping in the 70 space parking areas on
Lots 2 and 3.
Screening. The proposal complies with the standard relating to the screening
(Section 3.2.1(E)(6)] of areas of low visual interest or visually intrusive site
elements (such as trash collection, open storage, service areas, loading docks,
and blank walls) from off -site view.
The single trash enclosure for Lots 2 and 3 will be located between the buildings,
close to the northwest corner of the building on Lot 3. The enclosure will be
constructed of materials and painted a color that match the buildings in this
development. There will be evergreen shrubs on the north side of the trash
enclosure that provide sufficient screening from the property to the north.
Section 3.2.2. Access, Circulation and Parking
The proposal satisfies the applicable Access, Circulation and Parking standards,
including the following:
Bicycle parking. Bicycle parking is provided on site that meets or exceeds the
required number of bicycle parking spaces, as well as the location, as defined in
the following standard (Section 3.2.2(C)(4)(a)]:
A minimum number of bicycle parking spaces shall be provided, equal in
number to at least five (5) percent of the total number of automobile
parking spaces provided by the development, but not less than one.
5
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 4
A. Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards
Section 3.2.1. Landscaping and Tree Protection
The proposal satisfies the applicable Landscaping and Tree Protection standards,
including the following:
Parking lot landscaping - perimeter and interior. Parking lot landscaping for
this project is in accordance with the standards, including those related to
Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping (Sections 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) and (b)] and Parking
Lot Interior Landscaping [Section 3.2.1(E)(5)].
The first standard referenced (Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a)] states that:
Trees shall be provided at a ratio of 1 tree per 25 lineal feet along a public
street and 1 tree per 40 lineal feet along a side lot line parking setback
area. Trees may be spaced irregularly in informal groupings or be
uniformly spaced, as consistent with larger overall planting patterns and
organization. Perimeter landscaping along a street may be located in and
should be integrated with the streetscape in the street right-of-way.
There are 3 trees in the 60' long parking frontage area along McClelland Drive,
equaling a ratio of 1 tree per 20 lineal feet along the public street, which exceeds
the requirement of a ratio of 1 tree per 25 lineal feet. Also, there are a total of 5
trees in the 150' of length of the side lot line parking area setbacks at the
southeast corner of Lot 3, equaling a ratio of 1 tree per 30 lineal feet. This
exceeds the requirement of a ratio of 1 tree per 40 lineal feet.
The second standard referenced [Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(b)] states that:
Parking lots with 6 or more spaces shall be screened from adjacent uses
and from the street. Screening from the street and all non-residential uses
shall consist of a wall, fence, planter, earthen berm, plant material or a
combination of such elements, each of which shall have a minimum height
of 30". Such screening shall extend a minimum of 70% of the length of the
street frontage of the parking lot and also 70% of the length of any
boundary of the parking lot that abuts any non-residential use. Plant
material used for the required screening shall achieve required opacity in
its winter seasonal condition within 3 years of construction of the vehicular
use area to be screened.
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: C; existing office buildings (Solar Office Plaza)
S: C; existing office building (McClelland Office Park)
W: C, RL; existing street, railroad, single family residential (McClelland Drive,
Meadowlark Heights)
E: C; existing commercial/retail (South College Avenue corridor)
This property was annexed into the City as part of the South College First Annexation in
November, 1970.
The property was subdivided as part of the McClelland Office Park PUD approved by
the Planning and Zoning Board on June 25, 1984 for three 3-story office buildings,
containing 102,000 square feet of floor area, on 4.67 acres. To date just Building B (of
A, B, and C) has been constructed. The subject property currently under review was
Phase Two of the PUD, containing one 3-story building (with approximately 35,000
square feet of floor area) and 103 parking spaces.
2. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION
Section 2.2.2. Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings
The McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, PDP contains proposed land uses that are
permitted as Type I uses, subject to administrative review. This type of development
review does not require that a neighborhood meeting be held prior to submittal of the
project and a neighborhood meeting was not held. However, due to the need for a
modification of a standard set forth in the LUC, this request must go before the
Planning and Zoning Board for a final decision.
3. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This McCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, PDP proposal does not meet all of the applicable
standards in ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS of the LUC.
There have been requests submitted for review for alternative compliance and a
modification to those standards which have not been met. Of specific note are Division
3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards and Division 3.5 - Building Standards.
Further discussions of these particular standards follow.
McClelland Office Park II - Project Development Plan, #54-98
April 15, 1999 P & Z Hearing
Page 2
* standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards and
Division 3.5 - Building Standards of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS;
* and the applicable district standards located in ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT
STANDARDS of the LUC (Division 4.17 C - Commercial Zoning District).
The PDP does not comply with the following requirements of the LUC:
* standards located in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) — Nonresidential Parking
Requirements of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. An
alternative parking plan, in accordance with Alternative Compliance in the LUC,
has been submitted for consideration.
* standards located in Section 3.5.3(13)(2)(b) — Orientation to Build -to Lines for
Streetfront Buildings of ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS. A request for a modification of this standard, in accordance with
Modification of Standards (by the Planning and Zoning Board) in the LUC, has
been submitted for consideration.
Offices, financial services and clinics are permitted in the C - Commercial Zoning
District, subject to an administrative (Type 1) review. However, due to the need for a
modification of a standard the request becomes a Planning and Zoning Board (Type 11)
review. The purpose of the C District is:
Intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide
range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business
services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including
creative forms of housing.
While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto -
related and other auto -oriented uses, it is the City's intent that the Commercial
District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with
planning and design that accommodates pedestrians.
This proposal complies with the purpose of the C District as it provides an infill
development, consisting of medical office uses, in the midst of a complex of existing
office and commercial uses.
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: MCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II, Project Development Plan —
#54-98 (Type II, Planning and Zoning Board Review in the Land
Use Code)
APPLICANT: W. J. Frick Design Group
c/o W. J. Frick
526 South College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
OWNERS: TO-SLO INVESTMENTS, LLC
2627 Redwing Road, Suite 300
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
McClelland Partners, LLC
255 East,Monroe Avenue, Suite 4
Fort Collins, CO. 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) for a medical office complex
containing two 1-story buildings on a site that is 1.34 acres in size. The property is
located on the east side of McClelland Drive between Harvard Street (to the north) and
West Swallow Road (to the south). The total floor area of the two buildings would be
15,000 square feet (7,500 square feet on the single floor of each of the buildings). The
property is in the C - Commercial Zoning District.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the Land
Use Code LUC , more specifically:
the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications of ARTICLE 2 -
ADMINISTRATION;
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT