HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY AND LEMAY CROSSING - PRELIMINARY - PUD - 36-96B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - Correspondence (18) MARCH & MYATT, P.C.
ARTHUR E.MARCH,JR. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
RAMSEY D.MYATT 110 E.OAK STREET ARTHUR E.MARCH
ROBERT W.BRANDES,J0. 1908-1981
FORT COLLINS,COLORADO BOS24-2880
RICHARD S.GAST (970)482 4322
LUCIA A.LILEY FAX(970)482-3038 MAILING ADDRESS:
J.BRADFORD MARCH
409
LINDA S.MILLER W W P.O.BOX
April l 11, 199 7 FORT COLLINS,C0 eaa2z-o4e9
JEFFREY J.JOHNSON
MATTHEW J.DOUGLAS
Ted Shepard
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins VIA HAND DELIVERY
281 North College
Fort Collins, Colorado
RE: Mulberry and Lemay Crossings, Preliminary PUD
Compliance with Parking Lot Orientation Standard
Dear Ted:
As we discussed, I am enclosing a copy of the site plan
showing the project's compliance with the Parking Lot Orientation
Standard of the Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail
Establishments. This standard requires that no more than 50% of
the off-street parking area shall be located between the front
facade of the principal building(s) and the primary abutting
street.
The primary abutting street is clearly Lemay Avenue. There
are 1, 060 total spaces for the northern portion of the PUD and 747
on the southern portion, so no more than 530 and 373 spaces,
respectively, can be located between the principal building(s) and
Lemay Avenue. For purposes of making those calculations, I have
included all parking between the three large buildings (one on the
northern portion and two on the southern portion of the PUD) , all
of which are "big box" buildings. To determine which of the spaces
are "between the front facades" of these principal buildings and
Lemay Avenue on each portion of the PUD, I have drawn lines from
the outside corners of the front facades of these buildings to
Lemay Avenue, consistent with the approach ultimately taken with
the Harmony Towne Center PUD and the Harmony School Shops PUD. The
results, as shown on the enclosed diagram, show 367 spaces for the
northern site and 340 for the southern portion, or 35% and 46%,
respectively.
Based on these calculations, I do not think a variance is
required. Even if one were required, I believe it could be
justified under the "equal to or better than" standard on the basis
that this plan achieves other, and equally meritorious, planning
goals, such as that recommended by the City planning staff, of
aligning Retail Building A on the site so that it is oriented both
to Lemay and Mulberry.
r
Ted Shepard
April 11, 1997
Page 2
obviously, this is an important issue for both the City and
the developer, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with
you. Perhaps we could meet toward the end of next week. Please
let me know if you have some times available.
Thanks for visiting with me unannounced yesterday, and I look
forward to meeting next week.
Sincerely,
MARCH & MYA T, P.C.
By
c1 A.
LAL/glr
Enclosure
cc: Mark Goldberg
Kurt Prinslow