HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEVON'S WAREHOUSE CONDO - MODIFICATION REQUEST - 19-96B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - MODIFICATION REQUESTFort Collins Truck Sales
700 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
attractive landscape and is incorporated as part of the existing building. I refer back to my
previous argument that this modification is not at all detrimental to the public good, as
there have been no problems for the 2 1/2 years it has been in use. It does not impair the
intent and purpose of the Land Use Code as it was built to a very recent code and is the
most efficient use of this site.
If you have any questions please call me at 409-1251
Thank you, Charlie Meserlian
Fort Collins Truck Sales
700 North College Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Mr. Troy Jones
City Planner
Current Planning Dept.
281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO ;80524
Re: Request to modify Code 3.2.,Z. i ()(5)6A) _ I -.7
Dear Troy,
The proposed building at 315 W. Hickory St. will be the 2nd building on the site. The
first building was built over two years ago and was occupied by Uptown Rubber Stamp. A
sidewalk was built to code at the time that connected to the sidewalk on the street. I
believe this modification should be granted according to modification of Standards
2.8.2(11) because it is not detrimental to the public good nor does it impair the intent and
purpose of the Land Use Code.
A) Modification is not detrimental to the public good:
The sidewalk that is already constructed and which has been in use for the past two years
has adequately served the need and purpose of a sidewalk that connects to the street.
There is a mail box band set up along the walkway that is in an ideal location. To date
there has not been any complaints or issues with the sidewalk located where it is.
B) Modification does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code:
Article 1.2.2(C) of the Land Use Code states that one of the purposes of the code is
"fostering the safe efficient and economic use of the land". The existing sidewalk is part
of an attractive site plan with established landscaping and an in -ground sprinkler system.
The current configuration is the most efficient use of the land. Though it's cost would be
minimal, another sidewalk would be an eyesore.
C) Orientation to connecting walkway:
Section 3.4.3(B)(1) states that at least one main entrance of any commercial building
shall face open and directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. A
connecting walkway is further defined as any walkway that directly connects a building
entrance to the street sidewalk and connects other origins and destinations for pedestrians
without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings
or follow parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route. My plan includes a
sidewalk that connects to the city-wide bike path. The sidewalks also connects directly to
the street. Nowhere in the definition does it say it has to be a straight line. Directly means
without interruption, which the plan accomplishes. The plan, while following around the
outline of the driveway entrance is the most logical route and is preferable to some
convoluted path which does not make sense.
D) Code 3.2.2(C)(5)(A)-Access, circulation and parking:
The purpose as stated in 3.2.2(C)(5)(A) is for all parking and circulation aspects of all
developments to be well designed with regard to safety and efficiency for vehicles,
pedestrians, etc. This states that walkways must be grade separated from the parking lot
and also must be 6 feet in width. Part of this modification request is to accept the existing
sidewalk between building #1 and the street which was constructed only 2 1/2 years ago
according to code. The existing sidewalk is at the same grade as the driveway and is less
than 6 feet in width. Again, this sidewalk has served it's purpose well, is already part of an