Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY AND LEMAY CROSSING - PRELIMINARY - PUD - 36-96B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - Correspondence (34) Commr ty Planning and Environmentar rvices Current Planning City of Fort Collins June 10, 1997 Mr. Mark Goldberg Goldberg Properties Associates, Inc. 1777 S. Harrison Street, Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80210 Dear Mark: As you are aware, the Current Planning Department has received your submittal for Mulberry and Lemay Crossings Preliminary P.U.D. which is being reviewed under the Land Development Guidance System. To date, comments from the Engineering Department and outside utility providers have been forwarded to Kurt Prinslow at CLC. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the issues raised by the building and parking lot orientation for Retail Building A and the issues raised by the March and Myatt letter dated April 11, 1997. This letter will not address the transportation and traffic operations issues as we are waiting for an amended traffic impact study before responding. Further, this letter will not address landscaping or architectural issues or the issues pertaining to compliance with"Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments" with the exception of the criterion regarding parking distribution. Comments regarding compliance with those criteria will not be forthcoming until the transportation impact study is amended, submitted, and reviewed. The relevant criteria is Article II, Number 2, "Parking Lot Orientation' of"Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments"which states: "No more than 501/o of the off-street parking area for the entire property shall be located between the front facade of the principal building (s) and the primary abutting street. This criterion must be read in conjunction with its accompanying explanatory guideline which states: "Parking areas should provide safe, convenient, and efficient access. They should be distributed around large buildings in order to shorten the distance to other buildings and public sidewalks and to reduce the overall scale of the paved surface. If buildings are located closer to streets, the scale of the complex is reduced, pedestrian traffic is encouraged, and architectural details take on added importance." Based on reading the standard and the guideline together, Staff disagrees that Lemay Avenue becomes the primary abutting street and that Magnolia takes on secondary status. The intent of standard is not to pick the street with the most traffic, and then load up secondary street with 281 North College Avenue • PO. Box 580 • Fort Collins; CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6750 • FAX(970)416-2020 parking. Rather, parking is to be dispersed to reduce the overall scale of the parking lot. This is consistent with the interpretation for the Home Depot at the Harmony Center P.U.D. Therefore, a variance is required for Retail Building A. The best method for submitting a variance is to provide a plan which meets the 50%parking distribution criterion as it is explained in both the standard and the guideline. Such a plan could be in diagram or sketch plan form with blocks labeled`B" for buildings and"P"for parking scaled proportionately. It is our understanding that such a sketch will be drawn up by CLC and submitted to the Planning Department for review. Such a plan should show distributed parking for Retail Building A. The fundamental issue to be addressed is how to mitigate the magnitude of a 188,000 square feet retail building with its associated parking. Unless we can see and compare a plan which meets the standard and guideline we cannot support the Preliminary P.U.D. as submitted. Enclosed please find a simple diagram of one possible solution. Retail Building A can be adjusted by turning to more of a 45-degree orientation to Lemay Avenue. The diagram indicates the potential of creating meaningful buffer space on the back side of the building(with 500 feet of facade) for the benefit of the future residents of Buffalo Run Apartments. The diagram also indicates allowance for a distinct, direct, landscaped walkway spine to tie the apartments to the shopping area. Please be aware that Staff is not imposing this particular solution. Rather, the illustration points out how a solution is possible. There may be a myriad of other possibilities. Staff cautions that the requested illustrations and sketch plans are not a mere exercise. It is not enough prepare diagrams that, ultimately simply justify the site plan as submitted. There are serious problems with the submitted plan since it diverges so radically from the intent of the standard and guideline for distributed parking. As we have discussed on numerous occasions,we are suggesting in the strongest terms that the end user and developer think creatively to shift components of the site plan in such a manner as to comply with the standard. Staff recognizes that what we are asking is a serious consideration. Two of the problematic aspects of the Preliminary P.U.D., particularly Retail Building A are the scale of the building and the parking ratio. The amount of square footage, arranged within the proposed building envelope, minimizes flexibility in building orientation. The massive size of the building, combined with an excessive parking ratio of 5.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet, causes problems associated with scale and visual impact of the parking lot. It is Stafr s opinion that the size of Building A and its parking are excessive and should be reduced. For example, a parking ratio of 4.00 spaces per 1,000 square feet would contribute to the solution called for in the parking lot orientation standard. Perhaps these two factors should be considered. Staff does not disagree with the interpretation of the 50% parking distribution for Retail Buildings D, G, H, 1, and J. While it is obvious that most of the parking is located between the Large Retail Establishment and Lemay Avenue, there are a combination of mitigating factors that lend themselves to support a variance. These factors include the effect of the pad buildings in blocking visibility from Lemay, some distribution around the south side, the major walkway spine, and the potentially attractive street corner. The area south of Magnolia Street, however, would benefit from a reduced parking ratio to 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet similar to the recommended ratio for Retail Building A. Other parking lot mitigating factors relating to landscaping, berming, lighting, and bicycle/pedestrian amenities will be offered upon further analysis. There remains many positive aspects of the Prefiminary P.U.D. As we have discussed, the mixing of multi-family with retail, the bicycle orientation of the comer shops, providing logical interconnected internal streets are all beneficial aspects of the P.U.D. Please bear in mind that the comments contained in this letter are offered in the spirit of cooperation. As always, please feel free to call to discuss these comments or the enclosed diagram. Sincerely: �� Ted Shepard Senior Planner Enc. xc: Kurt Prinslow, CLC, 8480 E. Orchard Rd. #2000, Englewood, CO. 80111