HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/20/2007Chairperson Lingle called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call: Campana, Lingle, Rollins, Schmidt, Smith, Stockover, Wetzler
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Stanford, Waido, Stokes, and Sanchez -Sprague
Agenda Review. Director Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas. Of special note --
Item # 4, Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development
Plan, #14-07 is continued from the August meeting. Also, staff recommends Item # 7, East Skyway
Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, #19-07 be continued until the October 18, 2007 meeting.
Citizen participation:
None
Chair Lingle ask members of the audience or the Board if they wanted to pull any items off the
consent agenda. A member of the audience asked that Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning,
#25-07 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
2. Collinwood North Major Amendment, # 24-07 Zoning, # 21-07
Discussion Items:
3. Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning, #25-07
4. Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development
Plan, #14-07
5. Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan Amendments
6. Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan Amendments
Member Schmidt moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda, which includes Minutes from
the August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing and Collinwood North Major
Amendment, # 24-07 Zoning, # 21-07. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 2
Project: Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning, # 25-07
Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone a 5.25 acre parcel. The site is located at
5227 Strauss Cabin Road located approximately one-half mile south of East
Harmony Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained
along the entire northern boundary, which is shared with the Sunrise Ridge
Second Filing subdivision. Contiguity is also gained along the entire western
boundary, which is shared with the Willowbrook (Observatory Village)
subdivision. Strauss Cabin Road forms the east boundary.
The requested zoning is Urban Estate, which is in conformance with the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
Recommendation: Approval of the Annexation and Zoning and Placement into the Residential
Neighborhood Sign District.
Hearino Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ted Shepard reported this is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within
the Growth Management Area. Originally part of a large farm, the seven lots that front on the section
line road were split off from the original farm approximately 25 years ago. All seven lots were
included in the boundary area of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan jointly adopted by the City and
Larimer County in 1999. The abutting 15 acres to the north is known as the Sunrise Ridge First and
Second Annexations. These parcels were annexed and zoned Urban Estate in 2005 and 2006
respectively. Sunrise Ridge First Filing Subdivision was approved in October of 2006. Sunrise Ridge
Second Filing Subdivision is still pending.
The parcel gains the necessary one -sixth contiguity along the entire north and west property lines. Of
the total perimeter boundary, the parcel has 50% contiguity with the City limits. This substantially
exceeds the required minimum of 16.66% (one -sixth). The property satisfies the requirement that no
less than one -sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The
applicant's requested zoning of U-E, Urban Estate, is in compliance with the Fossil Creek Reservoir
Area Plan and Structure Plan Map.
Staff recommends the parcel be placed within the Residential Neighborhood Sign District
The applicant had nothing further to add.
Public Input
Robert Palmer, 4000 E County Road 36, wondered who'd be providing water service. Staff member
Shepard answered that water and sewer will continue to be provided by a special district by
agreement with the City. The only change is as property is annexed into the city and City services are
made available, they would convert to City utilities.
Palmer asked if the zoning would make it commercial. Shepard responded Zone UE (Urban Estate)
does not allow commercial uses —it is a residential zone.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 3
End of Public Input
Member Schmidt asked how soon would City electric services be available. Shepard responded City
electric is out there now at Observatory Village. It would not be difficult upon annexation to convert to
City electric.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve Old Oak Estates Annexation and Zoning, # 25-07
based on the Findings of Fact on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Member Smith seconded
the motion.
Motion was approved 7:0.
Project: Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building
Project Development Plan, #14-07
Project Description: This is a_ request for a new parking structure and new medical office building.
The new parking structure would be located at the northwest corner of Lemay
Avenue and Garfield Street and be reserved for staff use only. The new
medical office building would be located at the southwest corner of Lemay
Avenue and Garfield Street.
The parking structure would be four stories (42 feet) in height and contain 737
parking spaces. Access would be from both Lemay Avenue and Robertson
Street. A pedestrian bridge, at the third floor, would span Garfield Street to
provide safe access to both the proposed medical office building and the
hospital. The office building would contain approximately 60,000 square feet, at
four stories in height (56 feet). A second pedestrian bridge, also at the third
floor, would span Lemay Avenue to provide safe access to the hospital. Both
properties are zoned E, Employment.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
See verbatim transcript.
Member Schmidt made a motion the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Poudre Valley
Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building Project Development Plan, # 14-07
based on the facts and findings in the staff report on page 14 with the following conditions: 1)
the parking structure be designated for physicians and employee use only, 2) the final plan be
amended to change the parking garage access on Robertson Street to be for emergency use
only, 3) the final plan to include a glare analysis study, and 4) there be sufficient landscaping
on the south border of the medical office building to provide the maximum screening possible
to buffer the neighborhood. Campana seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7:0.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 4
Meeting to continue oast 11 P.m.
Member Wetzler made a motion to continue the meeting until all time -sensitive agenda items
were completed. Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
The following two projects were considered together
Project: Southwest Corner of East Prospect and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan
Amendments, # 4-04A
Project Description: SW —This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan
Structure Plan map, and rezone property located at the southwest corner of
East Prospect Road and Interstate 25. The plan amendments and the rezoning
will change commercial and open space lands to an employment district
designation.
Recommendation: Approval of the amendments to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan
Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 25.17 acres of Commercial (C) and
118.17 acres of Public Open Lands (POL) to Employment (E).
Project: Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25 Rezoning and Plan
Amendments, # 16-07
Project Description: This is a request to amend the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan Structure
Plan map, and rezone property located at the northeast corner of East Prospect
Road and Interstate 25. The plan amendments and the rezoning will change
industrial and urban estate space lands to commercial and employment district
designations.
Recommendation: Approval of the amendments to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan
Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of
C, Commercial and 20 E, Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from
UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer
between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres) and residential
areas to the north and east.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 5
Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ken Waido reported staff is recommending changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan and the
City Plan, Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 143.34 acres located in the southwest corner of
East Prospect Road & Interstate 25 into the E, Employment District.
In the northeast corner, staff is recommending approval of the amendments to the /-25 Subarea Plan
and the City Plan Structure Plan map and the rezoning of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C,
Commercial and 20 E, Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E,
Employment to create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96
acres) and residential areas to the north and east.
The review of land uses and zoning around the Prospect Road/1-25 interchanged is based on
1. City Council direction indicating the Council's general preference for a higher level of
"commercial" use for portions of the former Resource Recovery Farm property located in the
SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange. Staff has concluded that rezoning a
substantial portion of the property, 25 acres from C, Commercial and 118 acres from POL,
Public Open Lands to E, Employment (for a total of 143 acres of E, Employment) would
encourage new businesses and expansion of local businesses while preserving the area as an
attractive community gateway and would be in the best interests of the City.
2. Simultaneously, the City received a rezoning request from the owners of property in the NE
quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange requesting a change in zoning of 86 acres of
1, Industrial.
Staff decided to review the land uses around the interchange as a result of the rezoning requests from
the City and the private property owner to determine what would be the best land use pattern for the
area around the interchange for the City as a whole, independent of the specific rezoning requests.
The amendments to the plans are related to the rezoning requests but are independent actions. If the
amendments to the plans are approved, the rezoning requests are simply implementation actions to
the plan amendments.
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in the southwest rezoning request is should City plans
be amended and zonings changed to covert an area currently preserved as open space to an area
that will permit the development of employment land uses in the SW quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-
25 interchange?
The fundamental policy issue to be addressed in this northeast rezoning request is should City plans
be amended and zoning changed to allow for the development of a regional/community scale
shopping center in the NE quadrant of the Prospect Road/1-25 interchange? A regional/community
shopping center in the NE quadrant will help contribute tax revenues necessary to fund Prospect
Road/1-25 interchange improvements and related infrastructure. Given the high infrastructure cost to
development from all four quadrants around the interchange, this property will need to contribute
funding to improve the interchange.
The rezoning needs to be viewed independently from the City's Adequate Public Facilities (APF)
requirements: All development plans for parcels impacting the Prospect interchange must include a
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA will determine whether traffic generated by the
development will result in reduced level of service (LOS) at the interchange and the physical
improvements that will need to be constructed to mitigate the impacts. In order to begin construction,
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 6
all development must either build the improvement or have funding appropriated that will cover
improvement costs.
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the Land
Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map
involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi-
judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or
approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including
the subject property.
Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following:
Additional Considerations for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to
recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and
City Council may consider the following additional factors:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing
and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district
for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air,
noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning
of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
Interstate 25 Subarea Plan
Concurrent with the development of the 1-25 Subarea Plan, was a multi -jurisdictional cooperative
planning effort to develop the Northern Colorado Regional Communities 1-25 Corridor Plan. The
planning boundaries of the two efforts overlapped. The regional plan studied the 1-25 corridor from
County Road 52 on the north to an area south of the Town of Berthod, while the subarea plan studied
the area from County Road 52 to County Road 32 (Carpenter Road). The most significant difference
between the two plans is that the subarea plan (adopted in November 2001) dealt with land uses in
more detail than the regional plan. The regional plan was based on existing land use plans of the
participating jurisdictions. The regional plan focused on developing a set of design standards, a
transportation element, and open lands/natural areas policies.
In 2003, the City adopted the 1-25 Subarea Plan as an element of City Plan. The key points,
conclusions, and policies of the 1-25 Subarea Plan are summarized as follows:
The 1-25 Subarea Plan mainly deals with the area located east of 1-25 from around the
Prospect Road interchange on the south to County Road 52 on the north, and County
Road 5 on the east.
No change in the City's GMA boundary was proposed.
Two activity centers were identified: one at the Mulberry Street interchange and the
other at the Prospect Road interchange. The NE quadrant of the Mulberry interchange
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 7
was planned for the potential location of a regional/community shopping center. The
NE quadrant of the Prospect interchange was designated as a mix use activity center
with commercial, industrial, and residential uses.
• Employment and industrial districts adjacent to 1-25 are to be designed in a manner as
to maintain a perception of openness through the corridor.
• Secondary uses (retail and highway -oriented commercial uses) typically permitted in
employment/industrial districts will be required to be set back at least Y< mile from 1-25
to avoid a commercial strip appearance along 1-25.
• Detached single-family residential development is prohibited within %< mile of 1-25.
• Low density, mixed -use neighborhoods are to be concentrated within'/2 mile of
Mulberry Street.
• The balance of areas planned for residential development were to be urban estate
developments.
• The City's Resource Recovery Farm is to be preserved as open space.
• The subarea eventually would be served with multi -modal transportation options. A
supplemental street system will facilitate movement within the subarea, thus,
diminishing the need to utilize 1-25 for short trips.
• Most undeveloped land within the subarea is expected to annex prior to development.
Regulations contained in the Land Use Code both applicable to the 1-25 corridor and more generally
throughout the community are intended to have employment/industrial districts designed in a manner
to maintain openness through the use of: setback requirements, maximum building frontage
allowances, restricting building heights, and proper management of floodplains. Minimum building
setback requirements are 205 feet from the centerline of 1-25. Maximum building frontage allowance
is 50% at the 80 foot minimum setback from the property line, which can be expanded to 60% at an
increased setback of 120 feet. Building heights are restricted to 40 feet within 600 feet from the
property line adjoining 1-25.
The Prospect interchange represents a key community gateway, combining a balance of economic
development and open space preservation. It is logical the interchange maximize the ability for the
development of a mix of commercial and employment uses. Changes in the surrounding
neighborhood warrant consideration. Land use plans by other jurisdictions are changing the character
of areas east of 1-25 from the rural, low -density residential, areas to more intense urban uses.
Interchanges are desirable sites for regional serving retail uses. Competition for sales tax dollars is
different in 2007.
The City's development standards will require adequate public utilities and infrastructure to be in place
to assure an orderly development pattern. Prospect interchange will not be funded by CDOT or
FHWA. Local revenue sources must be found for interchange improvements.
Staff is recommending changes to the I-25 Subarea Plan and the City Plan, Structure Plan map and
the following rezoning:
• 143.34 acres located in the southwest corner of East Prospect Road & Interstate 25 into the
E, Employment District.
• In the northeast of 86 acres of I, Industrial to 66 acres of C, Commercial and 20 E,
Employment and approval of rezoning 19 acres from UE, Urban Estate to E, Employment to
create a 39 acre E zoned buffer between the C, Commercial zoned area (a total of 96 acres)
and residential areas to the north and east.
Chair Lingle asked Natural Resources Director John Stokes to outline the natural resource value of
that land. Member Schmidt also asked if there would be enough buffering of the Boxelder Creek.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 8
Stokes provided the following background information. The Natural Resources Department's Natural
Areas Program completed purchase of the Resource Recovery Farm (RRF) as a scenic and open
lands buffer in 2003. At the time of purchase, the eastern portion of the RRF was not described as an
area of interest to the Natural Areas Program in the Natural Areas Policy Plan, nor the various
community separator plans adopted by the City. Because the eastern portion was not shown in these
plans, and because it has low natural resource values, Natural Areas Program staff embarked on a
planning process to help guide the property's ultimate management and disposition status.
In August of 2005, the Natural Resources staff shared a series of options for the RRF property with
the City Council and requested policy direction. The City Council indicated its general preference for
a higher level of "commercial" use for the property. Based on Council's perspective, the Natural
Resources Department staff concludes that rezoning a substantial portion of the property (118 acres)
from POL, Public Open Lands to E, Employment would be in the best interests of the City They are
retaining a buffer around Boxelder Creek.
The rezoning would allow the property to be used for economic development purposes. At the same
time, it would allow the property to be developed in a manner that preserves aesthetically pleasing
views from 1-25 as well as protects adjoining areas with high natural values (namely Box Elder Creek
and the Running Deer Natural Area). The rezoning excludes Boxelder Creek, it will remain zoned
POL.
Wendi Birchler of Norris Design, representing the property owners (Rick & Dave White) reported they
have been very involved is a series of planning related studies/projects for the interchange, the
surrounding area, and along the 1-25 corridor.
Listed below is a summary of their involvement:
• Boxelder Creek Regional Storm water Alliance. They've served from the inception of the
Boxelder Alliance until present as the representative for a group of private property owners
including landowners, the City, Town of Wellington, Larimer County, and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, who equally funded the storm water master plan.
The Whites attended North 1-25 Environmental Impact Study Technical Advisory Committee
meetings. They've organized group of landowners in the neighborhood of 1-25/Prospect and
advised them of interchange issues. They met regularly with City Transportation staff as well
as CDOT and consultants on the North 1-25 EIS project. With City Transportation staff and
other property owners, they've influenced the proposed alignment and details of the
Prospect/1-25 interchange to the advantage of the City. They facilitated meetings between
North 1-25 EIS and Boxelder Creek Storm water Alliance to resolve mutual issues. They
researched and resolved historic preservation issues with the North 1-25 EIS team.
Prospect Road Improvements. The Smiths organized a group of local property owners
concerned about issues pertaining to future Prospect Road improvements. They coordinated
regularly with City Transportation and Engineering staff. They facilitated series of
public/private meetings with the City, Town of Timnath Engineer, and local property owners to
address future improvements to Prospect before they became problems. These issues
included : Boxelder Creek crossing of Prospect west of 1-25, Greeley Water Extension &
Transmission Project (GWET) crossing of Prospect, Boxelder Sanitation District sewer
crossing of Prospect at McLaughlin Lane, Relocation of the Timnath Inlet canal to allow future
widening of Prospect, Prospect / County Road 5 intersection issues, Boxelder Creek
stormwater overflow canal crossing of Prospect (the Grand Canal). With the Town of Timnath,
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 9
former City Engineer Don Bachman,
School District and a local developer,
ROW which is in use today.
Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company, Poudre Valley
they developed a cross section profile of future Prospect
Greeley Water Extension & Transmission Project (GWET)
GWET is a 60" diameter waterline delivering water from their pre-treatment plant NW of Fort
Collins to Greeley. In its nominal configuration, the bottom of the pipeline is to be placed on
top of approximately 2 feet of gravel and covered with at least 60" of soil making the total
depth of their pipeline excavation and backfill approximately 12 feet. The 2007 segment of this
project included a crossing of Prospect Road at McLaughlin Lane, a crossing of 1-25 at a
location north of Prospect and completion to a point in the vicinity of the Fort Collins Airpark.
The 1-25 crossing is particularly complicated since three irrigation company canal crossings,
the Boxelder Creek crossing, a Boxelder Sanitation District sewer line crossing as well as
various other utility crossings are located in close proximity to one another.
The White's facilitated several public/private meetings with representatives from Greeley,
Timnath, Boxelder Alliance, City Transportation/Engineering and Stormwater Departments, the
Poudre Valley School District, Boxelder Sanitation District, CDOT, a group of affected
landowners, and others to discuss details of the project. They worked closely with Poudre
Valley School District personnel regarding crossing of the GWET project across the District's
and White's properties.
Public Input
None
Member Schmidt noted on the SW side employment zoning is proposed rather than commercial
because of the buffering needed for the Boxelder Ditch. On the other side of the interchange it
appears there would be more commercial. Staffmember Waido replied yes, with the loss of
commercial on the west side, they looked to the east for increased commercial zoning. That came
after working with stakeholders who agreed that commercial with employment buffering would be
preferred.
Member Schmidt asked it this would not continue to be an activity center? Waido responded we
would also amend our activity center boundary to coincide with the outside periphery of the
commercial zone. There would need to be a commercial mass to produce the revenue needed to
improve the infrastructure (including funding for the interchange.)
Member Schmidt said she is in support of the changes, the main reason being the changes driven by
the Town of Timnath. With the increase in the intensity of use, it would be an appropriate thing to
provide services in the interchange area —connect the whole region with good land use patterns.
Southwest Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan based on the
matrix found on pages 8-12 of the staff report. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the Structure Plan Map on the
southwest corner of East Prospect and 1-25. Member Campana seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 20, 2007
Page 10
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve rezoning of 25.17 acres of Commercial (C) and
118.17 acres of Public Open Lands (POL) to Employment (E) on the southwest corner of East
Prospect and 1-25, # 04-04A. Member Smith seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt asked if staff was comfortable with the reduction of I -Industrial land inventory.
Staffmember Waido responded yes.
Northeast Corner of East Prospect Road and 1-25
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the 1-25 Subarea Plan based on the
matrix found on pages 13-16 of the staff report. Member Smith seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve changes to the Structure Plan Map on the
northeast corner of East Prospect and 1-25. Member Rollins seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Member Schmidt wanted to thank the applicant for taking the time to meet with the neighbors to
consider their concerns and for working with affected interests on the water issues and creek
mitigation.
Member Schmidt made a motion to approve rezoning of the northeast corner of East Prospect
and 1-25 as listed on page 19 of the staff report. Member Wetzler seconded the motion.
Motion was approved 7-0.
Other Business:
None.
Meetinq adiourned at 12:00 a.m.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
Poudre Valley Hospital Parking
Structure & Medical Office Building
Project Development Plan, #14-07
Chair David Lingle
Vice Chair Brigitte Schmidt
Member Butch Stockover
Member Ruth Rollins
Member Andy Smith
Member Jim Wetzler
Member Gino Campana
STAFF:
Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner
Ward Stanford, Traffic Systems Engineer
APPLICANT - POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS
Rulon Stacey
Kevin Unger
Angie Milewski, BHA Design, Inc.
Dean Barber, PVHS consultant
Matthew E. Delich, P.E.
2
1 MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay. That item is approved.
2 All right. Now we'll move on to our discussion agenda, and
3 the first item is Number 4, Number 14-07, the Poudre Valley
4 Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building
5 Project Development Plant. As I did last month, I'll explain
6 the sequence of how we're going to conduct the hearing
7 tonight.
8 First, the staff will give a presentation of the
9 project followed by questions of the board to staff. And
10 then, we'll have an applicant presentation, and we would like
11 to ask the applicant to restrict their presentation to no
12 more than 20 minutes. That will be followed by any questions
13 from the board as well.
14 At that point, we will open the meeting to public
15 testimony. Individuals will be allowed three minutes each,
16 and we understand that a group of the neighborhood would like
17 to make a presentation, kind of in sequence with each of
18 those individuals using their allotted three minutes.
19 So what we will need to do in order to secure a
20 sequence is have people queue up at both podiums so that each
21 one can follow in order, or we probably won't get the gist of
22 what you're trying to do. State your name and address for
23 the record and sign the log at either of the podiums.
24 In addition to that, anyone that's here
25 representing a homeowner's association or a business group or
3
1 something like that, where it's representative of more than
2 an individual, we can allow you up to 10 minutes for
3 presentation. And at the end and we would like to hear from
4 anyone and everyone that would like to speak so that we can
5 have a sense of what we're looking at tonight. Can I have a
6 show of hands that would like to speak? Okay. Pretty good
7 sprinkling. That will be fine.
8 At that point, we'll close the public testimony and
9 we'll come back to the board. The staff and/or the
10 applicant, as appropriate, will be given an opportunity to
11 respond to any questions or comments that they've heard from
12 the neighborhood. We'll hear it then, because that will be
13 the only opportunity. We would appreciate that if you could
14 restrict any kind of duplication of the same things that
15 other people are saying, you could just say, I agree with
16 what's been said before, and that would help us move this
17 hearing along.
18 At that point then, we will go back to the board
19 for any additional questions, discussion and objections and a
20 decision. And one other item right before the public
21 testimony and after the applicant's presentation, we did
22 receive another fairly thick packet of letters from people
23 both in opposition and in support of the proposal that we are
24 going to need to review. So we'll probably take a 15 minute
25 or so break at that point to do that.
9
1 So I think that's everything. For the people that
2 are standing, there are a few seats sprinkled around the
3 chamber, if you would like to come down and sit, you're
4 welcome to do so. With that, I think we'll begin with the
5 staff presentation.
6 MR. UNGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a
7 request for a new parking structure and a new medical office
8 building. The new parking structure would be located at the
9 northwest corner of Lemay and Garfield. The new medical
10 office building would be located at the southwest corner of
11 Lemay and Garfield Street.
12 The parking structure would be four stories in
13 height and contain 737 spaces. Access would be from both
14 Lemay and Robertson Street at the present location from the
15 existing services parking lot. A pedestrian bridge at the
16 third floor would span Garfield Street and provide safe
17 access to both the proposed medical office building and the
18 hospital. The medical office building would contain
19 approximately 60,000 square feet, also four stories in
20 height. Also the third floor would span Lemay and tie into
21 the hospital. Both properties are zoned E Employment, and
22 staff is recommending approval.
23 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of
24 staff at this point? No? Okay. Could we have the
25 applicant's presentation then? And Angie, if you could keep
5
1 it to about 20 minutes.
2 MS. MILEWSKI: I will try. I was just going to say
3 there's a lot of information out there about this project.
4 We've had three different neighborhood meetings, a lot of
5 discussion, and a lot of information in your packets. As you
6 know, I've -- Kevin Unger and others may still want to speak
7 tonight, so I'm going to really do my best. There is a lot
8 of information covered. I will do my best to keep it under
9 20 minutes, but I just want to let you know that is -- will
10 we be cut off at 20 minutes, can you let me know that? Or
11 will you allow us to cover the last bit of information at
12 this time?
13 MR. LINGLE: Well, let's get to it, and we can poll
14 the board and see. Possibly some of the comments could come
15 up just under neighborhood testimony, too.
16 MS. MILEWSKI: Absolutely. And, as you know, Ted
17 mentioned tonight, and we do appreciate your consideration of
18 the continuance. It really has allowed us some additional
19 time to meet with the staff a few times, meet with the
20 neighbors a third time, and to have each of you visit the
21 site, which I think was very beneficial as well.
22 So, before I go into the details of the project,
23 again, I would like to introduce Kevin Unger. He is
24 president and CEO for Poudre Valley Hospital, and he's just
25 going to say a few words.
N
1 MR. UNGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of
2 the Planning & Zoning Committee. And I know there has been
3 lot of energy around this project, and we appreciate your
4 consideration this evening. I thought I would give you a
5 very brief history of Poudre Valley Hospital and what it's
6 evolved into today. The hospital initially, was built on
7 this site on which it was located in 1925.
8 At that point, the hospital was built on the
9 outskirts of Fort Collins. There wasn't anything but
10 farmland around it. Since that time, the hospital continued
11 to grow and expand, as well as the neighborhoods around it.
12 The hospital has grown to be the number one private employer
13 in Fort Collins at this point, and currently employs 3,500
14 employees at Poudre Valley Hospital itself. And we are
15 drawing our patients from all over the state, just because of
16 the quality of care that's provided at Poudre Valley Health.
17 Over the last 10 years, just in salaries alone,
18 Poudre Valley Hospital has paid nearly $920,000,000 to the
19 community -- or to our employees. Now, our objective is not
20 to hire people. It's not about keeping people employed. Our
21 objective is to provide world -class health care to this
22 community. And I believe from an economic perspective, those
23 people that are coming from outside of Fort Collins, are
24 spending their money in the community.
25 The Northern Colorado Economic Development
7
1 Corporation has given us the parameters of what exactly the
2 economic impact is of the hospital in this community. Over
3 the past 10 years, they have anticipated through the
4 parameters they have set, that we have generated 1.8 billion
5 dollars worth of revenue and economic vitality to the Fort
6 Collins Area.
7 And patients come from outside of Fort Collins and
8 generate 635,000 outpatient visits from outside the region,
9 from outside Fort Collins, are spending their money in the
10 community. So we're very proud of that, but, once again,
11 that is not why we're in business.
12 Over the last year, we provided over 250 million
13 dollars of economic benefit to the community, and we want to
14 continue to do that. My kids were both born at Poudre Valley
15 High School -- Poudre Valley Hospital. That's my alma
16 mater, by the way.
17 Poudre Valley Health Systems. Who are we?
18 Initially, we started out as Poudre Valley Hospital. We
19 opened up the Harmony Campus or program at the Harmony Campus
20 in 1999. Harmony Campus is not a hospital. It is focused
21 specifically on outpatient care. It's on the corner of
22 Timberline and Harmony Road, tucked between two key
23 facilities. That's Poudre Valley Health in Fort Collins, and
24 we have a general care center and also ancillary service, but
25 that is not the hospital. All of the inpatient care is split
0
1 up between two key facilities. And we just opened in
2 February, Medical Center of the Rockies in the Loveland area,
3 and they will be focusing on cardiac care as well as trauma
4 care for that area.
5 And so, our goal is to continue to grow. Our
6 vision is to be a world class health care provider. Over the
7 past four years, we've been fortunate enough to be a top 100
8 hospital through Solutia (phonetic). Out of 5,000 hospitals
9 in the nation, they ranked us. They look at cost and
10 quality, and we want to continue to be able to maintain that,
11 and we believe that this project will be a good step in that
12 direction.
13 We are a magnet hospital for nursing excellence.
14 We were the first between Cedar Sinai and Mayo Clinic
15 Rochester, Minnesota to be recognized as a magnet hospital,
16 and so we have been drawing people from the region to get
17 their services at Poudre Valley Health. And our goal is to
18 continue that, and we believe that the two projects that
19 we're proposing this evening will provide infrastructure to
20 increases patient satisfaction and employee satisfaction, and
21 will allow us to expand as the community of Fort Collins
22 grows and expands.
23 And, with that, I will keep it short and turn it
24 over to Rulon Stacey, who is the president and CEO of Poudre
25 Valley Hospital Systems. Thank you for your consideration
E
1 this evening.
2 MR. STACEY: Thank you, Kevin, Mr. Chairman, and
3 members of the Planning & Zoning Committee. I appreciate
4 your indulgence with us and thank you for the opportunity to
5 present tonight.
6 We are mindful of the impact that we have on the
7 community, and we want to make sure that while we serve
8 literally hundreds of thousands of patients, covering
9 hundreds of thousands of square miles, we are part of the
10 community, and we want to recognize that and be mindful of
11 our role in the community.
12 However, I believe that in addressing this issue,
13 it's important for the Planning & Zoning Commission to -- and
14 for the entire city of Fort Collins, to understand the
15 resources that we have at Poudre Valley Health Systems.
16 We've just outlined many of those -- those things that Poudre
17 Valley Hospital does that no other community really has
18 access to.
19 Having Poudre Valley Health in Fort Collins,
20 without trying to sound self-serving, is very much, very
21 literally, like having the Mayo Clinic in your backyard. The
22 services that are provided by Poudre Valley Health is one of
23 just a handful of hospitals in the country providing the
24 level of care that they provide.
25 In addition to what Kevin has already mentioned, we
10
1 learned just yesterday, that for the third consecutive year,
2 PVHS as been selected as one of just a handful of health care
3 organizations in the country to receive a site visit from
4 NQB, the National Quality Board, which is the quality process
5 selected by the Department of Commerce of the United States.
6 Again, distinguishing Poudre Valley Health Systems as one of
7 just a few hospitals in the nation in the level of care that
8 we provide.
9 To be perfectly frank, given the level of service
10 that is provided by Poudre Valley Health Systems and the
11 extraordinary demographics region served by Poudre Valley
12 Health, if there was a disadvantage to the local neighborhood
13 by our standing, I believe the greater good of the community
14 would be served by still making that change and making those
15 improvements to Poudre Valley Health Systems.
16 But that is not our intention and it's not our
17 goal. We believe that we can have both. We don't believe
18 that there is any kind of a concession like that, that is
19 necessary. It has never been our nature, and it never will
20 be, and Poudre Valley Health System has gone -- will have
21 minimal impact on the surrounding community, if any. If it
22 were the goal of Poudre Valley Health to ignore the local
23 neighborhoods and to simply grow, I assure you, we would not
24 be spending $11,000,000 on a parking garage.
25 Over the last 10 years, we have received literally
11
1 hundreds of thousands --
I have
a tendency to
exaggerate.
2 Can you tell? Over the
past ten
years, we've
received
3 literally hundreds and
hundreds
of phone calls
from the
4 surrounding area asking us to ensure that our employees will
5 quit parking in front of their homes.
6 I believe
these requests by
the neighbors
are very
7 valid, and we have a
responsibility to
solve our own
problem
8 and not transfer our
problem into the
front yard of
our local
9 neighbors. And, accordingly, we're committed this money to
10
build a parking structure
and work with
the local physicians
11
to create a medical office
building that
will blend in and be
12 aesthetically pleasing in the local community rather than
13 push our problem onto the local neighborhoods.
14 I understand that there's concern in the
15 neighborhoods. The City mandated traffic study indicates
16 that any traffic associated with this will be well within
17 City standards, and we will continue to work to make sure
18 that that happens. I trust that you can understand the odd
19 position that this entire episode puts us in.
20 Just a few months ago, the entire local community,
21 I think, was expressing very public and open concern that
22 Poudre Valley Health System was abandoning Fort Collins by
23 building Medical Center of the Rockies. Even one of our
24 former city councilmen publicly chastised Poudre Valley
25 Health Systems for abandoning Fort Collins.
12
1 Now, just a few months later, we have a problem in
2 developing Poudre Valley Health Systems. It puts us in an
3 odd position as we try to develop Poudre Valley Health. We
4 want to continue to develop Poudre Valley Health Systems and
5 provide for the care of patients who are served here. We
6 want to make sure we're a good neighbor. We want to make
7 sure that we provide the services to everybody we serve not
8 just a few.
9 Our history at Poudre Valley Health System has been
10 to meet those needs. We are not a great, growing corporate
11 neighbor wanting to squish local neighbors. We're a local
12 community hospital governed by local community members, and
13 we want to continue to provide that level of services. Ten
14 years ago, the zoning for this property was changed without
15 solicitation or input from Poudre Valley Health Systems.
16 It was changed city-wide and to allow for this type
17 of -- of this type of infrastructure. For the last 10 years,
18 Poudre Valley Health Systems has now invested more than 100
19 million dollars in Poudre Valley Health Systems, believing
20 that the city zoning that was established 10 years ago was
21 accurate, and that we would be allowed to continue to alter
22 the structure of Poudre Valley Health in conforming with the
23 zoning standards of Fort Collins.
24 We're asking for no variance. We're asking for no
25 changes in the zoning. We don't want anything that hasn't
13
1 been approved for 10 years. We're not trying to strong-arm
2 anyone. We're not trying to be bad neighbors. We're not
3 trying to do anything that hasn't been allowed by us -- for
4 us, for the last 10 years. The greater community good would
5 be served by having this completed. We will still work in
6 every ounce of effort that we have to meet the needs of the
7 community.
8 They've been very patient with us over the last
9 several years, and we want to continue to work with them, and
10 we will continue to do so in the future. Thank you very much
11 for your time, and I will turn it back over to Angie.
12 MS. MILEWSKI: I will try hard to, as I go through
13 things, to not repeat some of the good information by both
14 Kevin and Rulon said tonight, so I will try to be as brief as
15 possible. But I do have a lot of detailed information,
16 specifically about the project and in response to some of the
17 issues that have come up by neighbors and others, so I really
18 -- bear with me as we go through this.
19 But, first, I would really like to talk initially
20 about the overall site and the master plan for the future
21 that Poudre Valley Hospital has in place. Just a quick
22 overview of the map on the screen, you can see the area. The
23 middle street, there is Lemay. This is Doctor's Lane. So
24 here is the hospital in this location in this sort of orange
25 color. The hospital is here. The parking is here for
14
1 patients and employees at this time. This is hospital
2 parking as well, and there is medical office and hospital
3 parking here as well.
4 This also shows us some important surrounding land
5 uses. There is some assisted living here nearby the hospital
6 north of Doctor's Lane, kind of a conglomeration of smaller
7 medical offices here.
8 And, here, north of Elizabeth is a group of
9 commercial, retail office uses near the intersection of Lemay
10 and Elizabeth. And then, additional medical offices here to
11 the west with assisted living, and then all around the edges
12 with no color are the neighborhoods that surround the
13 hospital.
14 You know, both Kevin and Rulon mentioned the
15 challenge of developing this site. It's really an in -fill
16 condition, and it really is challenging. But, while it's
17 challenging, it's good planning for the community. It makes
18 sufficient use of land, and it's necessary to meet our city
19 planning goals of a well defined community boundary by
20 implementing this compact urban growth area.
21 Is it difficult? Yes. Is it the right thing to
22 do? Absolutely. That is what our comprehensive plan says.
23 When Poudre Valley Health is looking at the master plan of
24 this campus, there's really four principles that are guiding
25 us. One is to keep inpatient care facilities and services on
15
1 the core campus east of Lemay, and to maintain flexibility to
2 grow these inpatient services and maintain adequate surface
3 parking near the main entrance for our patients, their
4 families, and the visitors.
5 And third, to maintain and grow the required
6 central utilities plant functions and also other core
7 emergency -- surgery and other departments that are key for
8 the inpatient functions. So these four guidelines, really,
9 guide us as we look at how we plan out the master plan of
10 this campus and where facilities should go.
11 The green areas to the east are detention ponds for
12 storm drainage. And again, this is really a look at the
13 master plan as we are showing it today. You can see again,
14 here are the inpatient services here in the hospital. Public
15 areas happen on the hospital to the east side with public
16 parking outside that.
17 Employee parking is here today, but this public
18 location for parking on the east side is very important to
19 the hospital. As those inpatient services, emergency
20 services, public areas expand, there's really only one
21 location for them to expand at this point. If we locate
22 parking structures in that location now, we prohibit the
23 flexibility of expanding those core medical services to the
24 east side of our campus.
25 Just quickly, why is this project needed now? I
16
1 really want to mention very clearly why it's needed now.
2 There's a shortage of hospitals. Just yesterday at a public
3 hearing, the public relations coordinator reiterated to me he
4 receives calls nearly everyday from neighbors in the area
5 complaining of hospital users parking on their streets. It's
6 an issue that's been going on for a long time.
7 Currently, we have a shortage of 450 spaces, and
8 that's based on current demand of staff, physicians, and
9 patients. So the proposed parking structure will provide
10 parking for the current deficit and the new office building
11 without overbuilding parking.
12 Also, the medical office building is needed. It's
13 needed to meet the growing demands for health services for
14 our community as it's growing. This facility is going to
15 provide clinical services to focus on women's health and
16 allow physicians to easily make rounds to the patients who
17 are staying at Poudre Valley Health during their stays.
18 So quickly, why is this location the right
19 location? Again, we've looked at a lot of alternatives.
20 This plan is the only location for the parking structure
21 that meets the needs based on these four critical master
22 plan objectives. Again, the hospital is made up of different
23 use areas; the patients to the east, core clinical areas to
24 west, emergency to the south, and the service utility plant
25 the that is difficult to move in that location.
17
1 If we were planning a hospital from scratch, we
2 would design for different uses; ambulance, staff, visitors.
3 We tried to separate all of those users. They don't mix well
4 to have the visitors and the patients mixing with the
5 ambulance traffic and employees. So that is just good
6 planning.
7 On the green side, we don't have that here, but we
8 are still trying to separate those users in those -- those
9 accesses as much as we can. But consolidating employee
10 parking into the structure west of Lemay, we are able to
11 provide direct covered protection into the clinical space in
12 the hospital where these clinical places are. Not the public
13 spaces, and we are also able then to free up some of the
14 service parking for the east side where that patient
15 admitting, visitor area occurs for the hospital.
16 So there are two key reasons why that works best
17 for the hospital. This surface parking on the east, with
18 full visibility to the public entrance, it provides a
19 convenient, easy to understand experience for first time
20 visitors and patients. That's a key element of customer
21 service for the hospital.
22 Again, the parking structure, here, on the west
23 then, also allows some flexibility for future growth of the
24 hospital to the east in its core function, including its
25 public patient admitting function. So a parking structure on
m
1 the east side of the hospital would limit the flexibility for
2 future expansion. It would take away patient surface parking
3 areas, and I need to mention, it would still be immediately
4 adjacent to residential areas and residential neighborhoods.
5 All of those are contradictions for these full
6 planing objectives. Not only does the west side of the
7 hospital west of Lemay work best for the hospital, it's more
8 appropriate for this use. Keep in mind that with this
9 proposal, we are changing intensity of the use, but we're not
10 changing the use on these two properties.
11 And, for the most part, do not immediately abut
12 residential areas. The properties are zoned for these
13 uses. They're zoned to allow these uses. They're in an
14 employment zone district. And that district is intended to
15 provide locations for major employment centers in the
16 community. Just a quick description from the city plan
17 principle regarding employment E districts areas states that
18 their attractive appearance should allow them to locate
19 adjacent for this zoning district.
20 You can see that the employment zoned district does
21 extend west beyond our properties for about a block, and
22 that's where these medical offices are located today. So
23 these existing one and two story offices provide a buffer to
24 the residential uses to the west. Other locations are to the
25 east of the hospital actually are closer to houses in that
19
1 case, and would have a greater impact on their western uses.
2 That is important to note. This location is very
3 important for the medical office building as well. It is an
4 opportunity to create a signature building right on Lemay
5 Avenue with arterial streets, and this is very appropriate
6 for this type of use, as well as it provides the opportunity
7 for this direct connection from the medical office building
8 directly into the clinical side of the hospital. I'm not
9 going to talk much about, and you have that in your staff
10 report as well --
11 MR. LINGLE: And just to -- let me poll the board.
12 Do you want to allow the applicant to continue another 10
13 minutes? Okay. Go ahead.
14 MS. MILEWSKI: Great. Thank you. The next slide,
15 I think, this is the site, Ted gave a good description of
16 where the medical office building is located at that
17 northeast corner. Again, the parking structure north of
18 Garfield that you can see now in the plan that will connect
19 the two together and direct them into the hospital.
20 I'm trying to skip some things here. I just want
21 to mention -- quickly, the hospital is four stories, 50,000
22 square feet. The parking structure is about 737 spaces, and
23 the entrances, how the parking structure is accessed at Lemay
24 Avenue. There is an intersection that is a primary entrance
25 to the existing employee parking lot that is here today. And
20
1 this is very close to an existing location today for an
2 entrance into that existing parking lot.
3 And I think if you have more questions specifically
4 about the site, we can come back to that. But on the site,
5 we're planning the project to retain as many of the perimeter
6 trees as we can around the site so we have an immediate
7 buffer to both of these buildings and with the development.
8 And -- go back one slide for just a moment.
9 So where we're saving trees is all of the trees
10 along the north edge of the parking structure on Garfield
11 Street, and most of the trees along Lemay are the ones that
12 we are really targeting to keep in place to get that
13 immediate buffer for the development.
14 And then we did a close up, because there were some
15 comments in the work session about the buffer area between
16 the medical office building and the three existing homes that
17 do abut this project. And there's an existing buffer that's
18 there today, a 6-foot privacy fence. The landscape buffer
19 that's there is fairly sparsely planted with shrubs to create
20 beyond that 6-foot high privacy fence a buffer, right at that
21 property edge, where it will do the most good.
22 Architecture, let's just go through the slides
23 quickly. I won't go into a lot of detail. Heather really
24 did a good description on both buildings in her staff report,
25 it projects materials back to the hospital with a -- there's
21
1 a photograph -- or a rendering with the hospital behind.
2 Some of the same materials were carried through,
3 but really in a much more contemporary way to make a new
4 statement for this area. It's a very attractive addition to
5 the neighborhood.
6 The parking structure, it has very good
7 descriptions of the detailing, taking -- especially on that
8 first floor elevation of the parking structure to make sure
9 we have a lot of articulation there for the pedestrian area.
10 This is an overview of the three together. Again, they're
11 tied together, as well as materials. The steel in the
12 bridges matches all three buildings and you can see the
13 apparent height in relation to the hospital and the adjacent
14 neighborhoods.
15 So, just overall, this project provides for a
16 current shortage in parking required for the hospital. It
17 removes parking from the adjacent neighborhoods in the
18 situation that's there today. It provides safe and adequate
19 parking for the staff and physicians. It improves parking
20 for visitors and patients as well.
21 And, importantly, it consolidates parking zones for
22 hospital staff and physicians versus patients and visitors.
23 It also provides safer access for employees from the
24 structure directly into the clinical areas of the hospital,
25 which in turn will reduce pedestrian conflict right at the
22
1 street level along Lemay.
2 It allows for the hospital to continue to expand
3 its inpatient services in the future on the east of the
4 property closest to the existing hospital and adjacent to it,
5 and it also provides, not to mention a very contemporary,
6 class A medical office space with a focus on women's health,
7 and this is a great amenity to the community.
8 I just want to walk through some of the code
9 compliance things, because that's really why you're here and
10 how you need to analyze these projects. Very quickly, from
11 the comprehensive plan standpoint, again, Rulon really
12 mentioned a lot of things about community benefits, economic
13 benefits, and the in -fill land planning.
14 These practices though, all of these things, they
15 directly relate to the community goals and City plans,
16 regarding the economy, transportation, and land use planning.
17 And I think this is important to note. This project is
18 really an excellent example of these goals in practice. And
19 it's going to allow the hospital to continue to provide
20 higher wage jobs and base employment for the community.
21 Land Use Code compliance, the specifics in the Land
22 Use Code. First of all, the site's within the employment
23 district. You can see here, again, the uses are allowed as
24 primary uses within this district. The site's surrounded by
25 employment districts on the north, east, and west sides.
23
1 Only the south side is adjacent to low density residential
2 district.
3 For the site design, it meets all the standards for
4 perimeter and interior landscaping, access, parking lot
5 layout, site lighting. It meets the standards. It meets the
6 standards for engineering design and storm drainage and
7 building height. The medical office building is over 40 feet
8 in height, so a shadow view analysis drawing was prepared.
9 It's been reviewed by City Staff and included in their
10 recommendation for approval.
11 The last thing I want to do is just go through some
12 very specific design issues that really were raised during
13 the neighborhood meetings. We had three neighborhood
14 meetings on this project. Two were hosted by the City and
15 the third was just done earlier this month after the
16 continuance by Poudre Valley Health. And again, these were
17 -- those neighborhood meetings were one-on-one that we have
18 had with the property owners nearby.
19 The first issue is lighting. The neighbors were
20 concerned initially, very concerned about lighting and the
21 potential for headlight glare from the parking structure. I
22 just want to say that we've taken great measures to design,
23 to address the issue first.
24 All site lighting will be down directional, and
25 will cut off, so that no visible light sources will be seen
24
1 from adjacent property. The existing employee parking lots
2 are lighted with similar fixtures, and our newer lighting can
3 incorporate more current designs that are available to
4 contain the light within our boundaries.
5 The parking structure will also have lights at the
6 roof level, just like the surface parking lot, to light those
7 upper parking spaces, so that's really a design concern as
8 well. So what we've done here is we've used shorter light
9 poles, and we've located them near the center of the
10 structure rather than near the edges to minimize their
11 visibility. So these poles are located 60 feet away from the
12 edge of the building, and they are only 15 feet tall.
13 And we've got kind of a cross-section here that
14 shows that on the left, that light is, you know, the 60 feet
15 away that show the light poles. You can see that range.
16 And, specifically what we've done is, the parapet walls
17 parking structure are raised, so they are as tall as or
18 taller than the headlights of the cars, so you won't
19 physically see the lights shining out of the cars as they are
20 parking there.
21 The last issues that are important, last but not
22 least; traffic. There has been a lot of discussion about
23 traffic. Our traffic engineer, he has studied the traffic
24 conditions and the potential impact of the project in our
25 formal traffic study as per the requirements of the City.
25
1 That study analyzes key intersections and indicates
2 operations as acceptable. The traffic study has been
3 reviewed and approved by City Staff. More specifically, the
4 short-range and mid -range analysis shows acceptable traffic
5 levels at key intersections. The traffic study also
6 indicates long-range levels of service.
7 Keep in mind that the long range evaluation is used
8 by staff for informational and planning purposes. It's not
9 used to review the impact of a particular project. So, in
10 fact, these level service range in the long range are
11 attributable to the increase expected in the overall back
12 traffic in the area. They are not the specific result of
13 this or any other specific project.
14 Some neighbors are concerned about the traffic
15 impact that could potentially be created on the residential
16 streets, specifically Garfield Street, which is to the west
17 of the site, which they've already said is the cut -through
18 street. We've discussed this issue many times and at length
19 with city staff.
20 After recent neighborhood meetings, our traffic
21 engineer, Matt Delich, he has prepared an additional
22 neighborhood analysis beyond the original study requirements.
23 We would like to make this memo part of the record. I think
24 I'm going to have him speak about it first, and then we'll
25 make sure that we can hand a copy of that over to you as
26
1 well.
2 MR. DELICH: Mr. Chairman, thank you, Angie. My
3 name is Matt Delich of Delich Associates. We prepared the
4 traffic impact study, and did the additional traffic analysis
5 for the neighborhood. And the way we did that, we had a
6 traffic count at the intersection of Garfield and Robertson
7 in the traffic study itself, and from that traffic study, we
8 were able to determine what the current traffic is on
9 Garfield just to the west of Robertson. And it indicates
10 that in the morning peak hours, the volumes
11 are on the order of one vehicle every 44 seconds at that
12 rate. And, in the afternoon peak hour, one vehicle every 31
13 seconds.
14 And what we did in this ancillary neighborhood
15 analysis was determine what traffic might use, and I say,
16 "might use," Garfield. From the Planning and Zoning Board
17 luncheon, one of the board members mentioned that it's likely
18 to be employees and not necessarily patients or visitors,
19 because patients and visitors would likely use the arterial
20 streets.
21 So we backed out the employee trips that might use
22 Garfield. And the way we determined that was by taking those
23 trips, which would be to and from the west, and that would be
24 traffic from the west side of Fort Collins that would perhaps
25 be on Prospect or Elizabeth approaching the hospital. It
27
1 wouldn't be traffic from the south on Lemay. It wouldn't be
2 traffic from the north from Lemay. It wouldn't be traffic
3 from the east on Riverside.
4 So we took that traffic and made the assumption
5 let's say 25 percent of the hospital employee traffic from the
6 west would use Garfield. And the result of that analysis was
7 that the traffic obviously would increase. In the morning
8 peak hour, it would convert to one vehicle every 30 seconds,
9 and one vehicle every 21 seconds. Now, this is an increase
10 in traffic, and that rate is fairly small and would not
11 change the classification of Garfield. And I'm going to pass
12 out the memo that we prepared and turn it back over to Angie.
13 Thank you.
14 MS. MILEWSKI: This is our last issue. Can I keep
15 going?
16 MR. LINGLE: Yeah, if you've just got a couple more
17 comments.
18 MS. MILEWSKI: I do. Poudre Valley Health wants to
19 continue to be a good neighbor and minimize any potential
20 impact to the residential streets. What we've done is we
21 investigated what measures that we're already taking or maybe
22 we could put in place. So I think it's important to talk
23 about these, that might encourage employees to use
24 alternative modes of travel or provide incentives for trip
25 reduction.
W.
1 I just want to go through a quick list count for
2 employees to encourage the use of the transit system. It's
3 providing shuttles to and from offsite parking lots. Right
4 now -- well, it's a temporary measure. Our parking needs are
5 not currently met.
6 There's incentives to use those as well for the
7 employees. They provide incentives to employees for bicycle
8 commuting. The measures being implemented by the hospital --
9 the transit bus route is adjacent to campus and it provides
10 bus discounts to encourage it. It provides parking offsite,
11 although that is a temporary measure. There is incentive to
12 use those as well as for the employees for their bike
13 commuting. They provide tax incentives (inaudible.)
14 Just that fact that the medical office is adjacent
15 reduces trips by keeping these patient services near one
16 another, and this synergy will be even further enhanced with
17 the proposal. There's a good reason to have the planning in
18 that direction.
19 And then, even within that, it will have
20 complimentary clinical services related to women's care. So
21 the hospital is within walking distance to shopping, retail,
22 restaurants. It provides it's own cafeteria, as you know,
23 for patients, visitors, staff, so they won't have to travel
24 elsewhere for food. It currently has day care facilities
25 within walking distance of the hospital and will continue to
WE
1 do so with this proposed development.
2 It provides bike racks, storage areas, and showers
3 for staff, again, to promote commuting, and it's adopted a
4 plan that allows employee groups, certain groups, on a full
5 or part-time basis. And lastly, even the bridge structures
6 themselves will help reduce the traffic crossing on Lemay and
7 provide enhanced pedestrian crossing. These are all good
8 measures that are already being provided by PVH, and many
9 will be provided or enhanced with this project. And they are
10 really important when you're talking about traffic, the
11 impacts of traffic, on the nearby community.
12 But in light of these measures, we know that some
13 of the neighbors still have concerns. We've heard that some
14 neighbors suggested that Garfield be blocked off close to
15 Robertson and made into a cul-de-sac. The City's codes
16 regarding this don't support this request.
17 But the City Staff does have a tool that we've
18 discussed with them, and it's really proved successful in the
19 community, and it's an automated speed limit sign. Many of
20 you might have seen them. There are a couple of them
21 installed in town, and it prompts them to slow down. They
22 are recommending this as a tool. It could be used here, not
23 only to analyze the effect of speeds on Garfield. It does
24 collect speed data and can continue to be evaluated.
25 So the issue, the City doesn't have funding to
30
1 install the signs, so PVH has agreed to fund the installation
2 of two of these signs, one for the construction on Garfield
3 to help address these issues. That sign would, again, be
4 installed at the time the project construction begins, and in
5 a location that the traffic department feels would be the
6 most effective. This is an additional measure that's really
7 offered and is available, and it's offered in good faith by
8 the hospital to respond to these concerns.
9 The last issue that 2 have is really specifically
10 about the parking structure operation because there was some
11 questions specifically about that at work sessions, which is
12 my last item before conclusion. So we have a slide here.
13 There were two concerns.
14 One was regarding the potential for vehicle
15 stacking on Lemay southbound into the parking structure.
16 That would here. So southbound cars coming into the parking
17 structure at the signalized intersection. What we're doing
18 is adding a right turn lane directly into the main entrance
19 of the structure.
20 But, in addition, the gates inside the structure,
21 the employee access, they're not located right at the
22 perimeter of the building like you might see in some other
23 structures downtown. They are actually recessed inside the
24 building, so if we have 90 feet of stacking -- we worked this
25 out with Matt Delich with the timing of the controls after
31
1 the work session comment.
2 We made sure that the expected timing of that
3 controlled operation and that the stacking needed to clear
4 that interaction at a peak hour condition is actually
5 available inside the structure. We did give up some space to
6 do that, but I think it's a good design component.
7 Also, there was a concern raised about the
8 potential, what if a patient came into the parking
9 structure inadvertently, and I think that was also a good
10 comment. So we really have a sort of three -tiered approach
11 to avoid that.
12 This is an employee parking structure, so the first
13 method is signage. There is large signage on Poudre Valley
14 Health today, and we would like to use, within the sign code,
15 similar signs -- to directional signs, from both directions
16 on Lemay. And then, a large sign right over the top of it,
17 so it's very clear this is employee parking, just to be as
18 simple as that. So it's very clear to people, if you're a
19 visitor, you need to go down to Doctor's Lane. If you're an
20 employee, this is where you go.
21 The second tier is, again, also by moving the
22 employees, but the size of this entry, there is room if
23 someone got into the right turn lane in this parking
24 structure, they could make a U-turn and come right back out
25 to that signal at Doctor's Lane. There is room to do that.
32
1 We're made sure that that happens. And, again, because these
2 gates are set back, that's possible as well.
3 But, lastly, if a car doesn't make that movement
4 and gets right up to the gate before realizing they don't
5 have a badge to open the gate, the gates are tied to security
6 and cameras that are already in place in the hospital, and
7 they would be in place in the parking structure. So security
8 can see that person and open the gate for them so they can
9 continue through the garage and leave. So again, those
10 design issues, I think, will -- even in a worst case, we have
11 -- we have a solution for that as well.
12 So, again, in conclusion, just to restate, these
13 uses are about allowed primary uses in the zoning district,
14 and the project meets all applicable Land Use Code
15 requirements. The project will ensure operational efficiency
16 and quality of service to its customers. These are hallmarks
17 of a first class hospital system, and are necessary to serve
18 our growing community.
19 The location and the current design is the best
20 solution based on the alternatives evaluated by Poudre Valley
21 Health for the past few years. And we are acknowledging the
22 changes with employment zoning within the neighborhood, but
23 we feel that Poudre Valley Hospital has done everything
24 feasible to minimize the impact of this project to the
25 surrounding areas, while still being focused on providing
33
1 world class health care to Fort Collins and the region.
2 And just, the last thing I want to do, is we want to
3 submit just a packet of information here for public record.
4 These are really just copies of traffic studies and documents
5 that you already have. There is no new information. Maps,
6 memos, everything else here, it's information that you've
7 seen, but it may not be in your staff report.
8 And then, the other thing here, is recent letters
9 and a petition that Poudre Valley Health has received with
10 over 100 signatures in favor of the project. Nearly all of
11 those signatures are located within the adjacent notification
12 area, and that's important as well, so I will make sure that
13 we get that in the record.
14 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Angie, are you -- is that it?
15 Okay. Thank you. Board questions of the applicant at this
16 point? Yeah, go ahead.
17 MS. SCHMIDT: I've got a few questions. We
18 mentioned in the work session about having some kind of idea
19 or -- well, if the first basic question is, looking through
20 some of the letters, how many employee shifts does the
21 hospital have? I mean, how many times is traffic going to
22 turn over in that parking lot?
23 MS. MILEWSKI: There are three shifts, three
24 employee shifts. I'm not sure if I have specifics on that.
25 Matt may actually know as much as anyone, but the primary
34
1 shift is the admin staff, is the day shift.
2 MS. SCHMIDT: Is that 8:00 to 5:00, pretty much?
3 MS. MILEWSKI: It's earlier than 8:00 to 5:00.
4 It's actually 7:00 to 3:00? I'll let Matt help with that
5 question as well.
6 MR. DELICH: There are two levels of employees.
7 There are the medical employees and the administrative
8 employees. And the medical employees are on a 7:00 to 3:00,
9 3:00 to 11:00, and 11:00 to 7:00 cycle. And the bulk of the
10 employees are medical employees. The administration staff is
11 8:00 to 5:00.
12 MS. SCHMIDT: So you're saying bulk would be 80
13 percent of the presumed 700 parking spaces? Is that what
14 you're figuring?
15 MR. DELICH: I don't know that percentage, the
16 bulk. It's probably closer to maybe 70. I think maybe 30
17 percent of the staff is administrative, but probably close to
18 that.
19 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess, Angie, I was thinking about
20 this, and a big question I had in my mind is why do you think
21 you even need gates for this parking garage there? I mean,
22 there isn't really -- it's not like you're near the
23 Foothills Fashion Mall where people are going to be shopping.
24 The staff support indicated patients and visitors
25 don't like to use parking garages, and that's why you want to
35
1 keep the parking on the other side. So the idea is that very
2 few may choose to use the parking garage. So what is the
3 necessity for even having a gated situation?
4 MS. MILEWSKI: That is a good question. Most of
5 the employee parking lots do not have gates today. There are
6 some limited parking lots that do have the same gate system,
7 and it's tied to the badge card access that the hospital has.
8 They really have a problem with this, and a lot of
9 it is due to the shortage of parking, and it's a current
10 problem today. Maybe a year ago, we are actually looking at
11 installing gates on this very parking lot where the parking
12 structure is being located, because there is a lot of times
13 in that main day shift when both the admin and the nursing
14 staff is there together that that shortage is really
15 affecting the nearby neighborhoods.
16 And we're seeing some parking also from other
17 areas, from the other nearby medical offices that's happening
18 in that lot. So it's also a sensitive subject for the
19 hospital to ticket people in their private lots. They can't
20 ticket people on public streets, obviously, but they could,
21 you know, they have given warnings and reminders and notices
22 on cars.
23 But it's tough for public relations for them to go
24 out and actually penalize people for parking in these spaces.
25 So it's a problem today, so they are looking at applying the
M
1 security measures, that gated measure, so it's a very simple
2 process. If you're an employee, you can get in, otherwise
3 you can't.
4 And, again, they want to do that on the existing
5 surface parking lot, but as they became more aware that this
6 parking structure really needed to happen sooner rather than
7 later, that project went away, and, again, we are actually
8 looking at doing the parking structure with the same system.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Who will actually watch the employees
10 who choose to park in the patient parking lot?
11 MS. MILEWSKI: It will be the same system they have
12 today, that their facility groups will be walking around
13 monitoring that. But, again, this parking structure is so
14 much more accessible to those clinical areas for these
15 patients that -- for those employees, that we feel strongly
16 the employees will happily park here, under cover, and with
17 direct access walkways right into those corridors where they
18 need to be, rather than to the outlying spaces.
19 MS. SCHMIDT: And you mentioned that you are doing
20 a shuttle service right now, and where is that to and from?
21 MS. MILEWSKI: Well, we're sharing a lot with a
22 church that's near Drake and Lemay, and they're doing
23 shuttles to and from that parking lot right now. And the
24 reason they're doing that is because there is a shortage
25 today, but we are also trying to get ready for the
37
1 anticipation of the construction of this project.
2 When these two projects go under construction, 300
3 spaces that are existing right now for employees will go
4 away. So we already have a shortage, and we will lose 300
5 more spaces as soon as that construction begins. So we don't
6 want that to all happen in one day.
7 Poudre Valley Health has acknowledged that. They
8 are trying get their employees to use these outlying areas.
9 They need to do that through the construction period anyway
10 until this parking structure is in place to provide those
11 spaces. So they're getting used to that, and they're
12 actually using it. There has been some -- you know, there
13 has been more employee spots in the employee parking lots
14 lately because they're getting used to using that shuttle
15 system.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: You mentioned something about the
17 hospital loss of the parking garage on the side for a future
18 expansion of patient services. So are you talking about more
19 building being added on to the east end? What are you
20 thinking? I think the number was 65,000 patient visits a
21 year right now. So what is the projected increase that that
22 might be?
23 MS. MILEWSKI: I'll talk a little bit about the
24 master plan, but I may need some help on what the projected
25 increase in patient visits are. But, in general, we don't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
W.
have a plan today in place for expanding the hospital to the
east. Again, it's a master planning goal.
It makes sense to not place new structures where
you may need new facilities to happen right away in locations
that impede your flexibility for that expansion in the
future. That's where the expansions have happened in the
past, and that's where the core hospital is today. And,
really, it's the only large enough direction to do a major
expansion in the future.
There are none planned today within our seven year
master plan time frame, but, you know, we hope to be here
another 75 years or whatever the time is, so that we can look
ahead to when major expansions happen over those decades,
where they can happen. And that's one of the only locations
at this point. Does that answer your question?
MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah, I guess it does. I guess I
find, in a way, that's hard to believe. You know, that you
haven't looked out enough and decided if you're going to do
any building and what kind of expansion of services you need,
to really take a look at what's going to happen, but that's
possible. So that's okay. That's all I have right at the
moment. Thank you.
MR. LINGLE: Ruth?
MS. ROLLINS: Have you looked at your need to --
looked at access points to the parking structure and possibly
39
1 the one on Robertson just being for emergencies only?
2 MS. MILEWSKI: We have, and a couple of things
3 about that, especially I've heard this comment at work
4 sessions, so we've been talking about that and the
5 feasibility of that. We prefer having the two access points,
6 and really, it's just kind a safety measure if nothing else.
7 We really believe that the primary access should come from
8 the arterial intersections, and that is the one that will get
9 the most use.
10 But, just to have, you know, a 700-plus space
11 parking structure with only one entrance and exit, if
12 anything were to happen at that intersection, an accident,
13 that locks up the entire parking structure. For emergency
14 use, you know, for fire protection, that's -- the fire
15 protection doesn't happen inside the parking structure. It
16 happens from outside the parking structure, so there is no
17 need to -- for private access, really, is only for emergency
18 services. They are not going to protect this type of a
19 structure from inside the structure.
20 MS. ROLLINS: Well, when I meant emergency, I meant
21 if there is a problem at the main exit, you could open up a
22 secondary access point just in those situations. Do you have
23 any idea how the structure would function if it only used
24 typically the main access at Lemay?
25 MS. MILEWSKI: We have looked at that, and it's a
40
1 possibility. It is a possibility. I think we would have to
2 talk to Poudre Fire Authority and see what their thoughts
3 were on it. From the very beginning, we've always had two
4 entrances, so we haven't spoken to them in detail about that,
5 but I think that it would mean is we would need to make some
6 changes to the structure at Doctor's Lane, to maybe widen
7 that entrance, provide additional lanes, to have that
8 stacking happen, again, on that area at a worse case
9 condition.
10 But we have some of that going on in the parking
11 structure today. So, again, it's not what Poudre Valley
12 Health Systems and I -- I am not sure what City Staff thinks
13 about it, but we prefer to have the two accesses as a
14 possibility just for the operations of the structure.
•15 MR. CAMPANA: Has there been any consideration to
16 changing the two-way on -- I think it's Garfield on the
17 backside -- but where that second entrance is? If that were
18 a one-way street and provided access only from Elizabeth,
19 from that end, would that not eliminate the tendency for
20 employees to try and cut through the neighborhood to gain
21 access? Because that would put them on Lemay anyway, or
22 bring them in from the north.
23 MS. MILEWSKI: Turn Garfield Street into a one-way
24 street?
25 MR. CAMPANA: No, I think it's Garfield, on the
41
1 back side.
2 MS. MILEWSKI: No. That's Robertson.
3 MR. CAMPANA: Oh. That's Robertson.
4 MS. MILEWSKI: Yeah. That's really a City issue, I
5 would think. That's not really under our control, but that
6 would really be a City Staff issue.
7 MR. CAMPANA: True, but there's been a lot of
8 streets in this city that have been changed one-way, two-way,
9 whatever at the request of the people that were around in the
10 neighborhood. The other thing that I wanted to clarify, it
11 seems to me when you start using the office space in the new
12 building that would open up space for patient care in the
13 main building that's currently being used, right, for
14 offices?
15 MS. MILEWSKI: No. This is not replacing medical
16 office space in the hospital. This would be new medical
17 office space, and some of the tenants are likely to come from
18 other locations in Fort Collins. The Women's Clinic, for
19 example. They have another facility. They would relocate
20 here, not from within the hospital but from other facilities
21 around town.
22 MR. CAMPANA: Okay. Thanks.
23 MR. LINGLE: Any questions?
24 MS. SCHMIDT: This was actually for Ted. Do you
25 have any feeling, one of the speakers at the beginning
42
1 mentioned something about the zoning being changed 10 years
2 ago to employment.
3 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah, in response to one of the
4 neighborhood residents, I checked the archives of the zoning
5 maps beginning in 1955. The area -- well, let's see if I
6 could get the vicinity map, that would be great. Because
7 there are properties that are immediately south of Elizabeth
8 on the west side of Lemay that back in 1955 that were not
9 zoned, meaning they were probably not annexed.
10 I didn't check the date of annexation, but I did
11 check the next available zoning map, and that was early 1965.
12 And the immediate corner of Elizabeth and Lemay, the
13 immediate southwest corner was zoned commercial. It was
14 designated D on the map. The D had a graphic and it said,
15 "commercial." Interestingly enough, in late '55, the City
16 went through a comprehensive city-wide rezoning, much as we
17 did in March of 1997 for city planning.
18 And, at that time, the property was rezoned to
19 "BL," business, and in addition, the BL zoning then went as
20 far south as Garfield. So you had the block surrounded by
21 Elizabeth, Lemay, Garfield, and Robertson in late 1965 zoned
22 "BL." That's the way it was until March of 1997 when we
23 implemented City Plan. At that point, the area became E, and
24 that's the zoning that we now have in place.
25 MS. SCHMIDT: Was that simply conversions and it
43
1 was BL became E?
2 MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: And you said it went down to
4 Garfield, so the little piece where the medical office
5 building is going, when did that become E?
6 MR. SHEPARD: That is the area that is just north
7 of University Acres in that filing, and that was also in late
8 '65, the City rezoning, that also became BL.
9 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
10 MR. LINGLE: Brigitte, anything else? Okay.
11 Angie, I've got a couple questions. I would like to explore
12 a little bit more with the master plan. One thing that I'm
13 not sure if I heard correctly is that the master plan went
14 out 7 years or 70?
15 MS. MILEWSKI: 7.
16 MR. LINGLE: Okay. As a part of that, because
17 there is some vacant -- well, not vacant, but empty, unused
18 land east of the current patient parking lot, was that site
19 looked at for a parking structure? I mean, I know that it
20 would impact another neighborhood, but was that part of your
21 alternative site evaluation?
22 MS. MILEWSKI: There is no unused land on this
23 entire site. It's either parking or detention. There's two
24 open grassy areas, one at the northeast corner and one at the
25 southeast corner, and those are detentions at capacity
44
1 detention, for the entire site.
2 MR. LINGLE: Okay. And then, as part of the master
3 plan, is there any anticipation of further development west
4 of Lemay beyond tonight's proposal?
5 MS. MILEWSKI: No.
6 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Could you go -- I don't know if
7 it's this one or the previous slide, but there's been
8 discussion in some of the comments from -- well, it's the
9 other site plan, not the one that is kind of a block one.
10 MS. MILEWSKI: The actual site?
11 MR. LINGLE: Yeah, yeah. The one that has colors
12 on it but not in the blocks.
13 MS. MILEWSKI: Not that one?
14 MR. LINGLE: I thought it was previous to that one.
15 MS. MILEWSKI: That's really way up by the
16 beginning. There you go.
17 MR. LINGLE: There's been some comments made in
18 letters by the neighborhood and things, and suggest that PVHS
19 owns additional properties beyond the limits of what would be
20 shown there in gold or orange. Is that true? Particularly
21 north? Doctor's Lane?
22 MS. MILEWSKI: Let me talk about that for just a
23 moment. This is the core hospital site with the hospital and
24 parking. Poudre Valley Health Systems does own some
25 properties, really this whole red area. They own pieces,
45
1 parcels, properties. Most of them aren't in our ownership.
2 Some of them are, so they are sort of disjointed parcels in
3 that area, but they don't have full ownership of that area,
4 no, but do own some.
5 The Express Lab is embedded in that area, right
6 adjacent to the Doctors' Lane, and then there's some -- the
7 Work Foundation offices, but there are some offices there on
8 Luke Street that are owned by Poudre Valley Health, but many
9 of those areas are actually private medical practitioners.
10 MR. LINGLE: Are any of those parcels that are
11 either owned currently or contracted for large enough that
12 they could be or were part of your site analysis for some of
13 these facilities?
14 MS. MILEWSKI: We did analyze it. At times, we've
15 looked at this is a potential or for the small properties
16 that they do have, for maybe a different type of parking
17 structure or parking structure in the future. That location
18 in the future may be a good location for a parking structure.
19 Right now, it's further away from the clinical areas.
20 Let me -- I would like to go back to the bubble
21 plan if I could, because it shows one area of expansion
22 within this 7 year time frame that is likely to happen.
23 We're showing this area. Here is our central utility plant,
24 so that is really a physical barrier to getting employees
25 into the hospital.
W.
1 But, second, this location right here, on the
2 southeast corner of Doctor's Lane and Lemay, that's an
3 existing hospital that we have. It's the oldest wing, and
4 it's what we call the old A Wing. It's the oldest portion of
5 the hospital. And it houses right now -- it used to be the
6 main hospital years ago, but now it actually houses
7 administrative staff. It's just not designed for the kind of
8 care that's delivered today. So there's a lot of
9 administrative offices there.
10 And, again, this sort of -- the next range master
11 plan, that's likely to be a future expansion of the hospital,
12 meaning, that older wing would be torn down, and a new bed
13 tower would potentially be put there. And, I think, as that
14 happens, that would be a location that would make sense for a
15 structure at that time.
16 But that is just further down the road. It's not
17 happening now. We need the parking structure today. It's
18 really been shown that we need that, and this location now is
19 too far away, and with that expansion in the future happening
20 between them, there's no way to get that direct connection.
21 This is -- this is much more -- works much better for the
22 hospital and provides that direct connection, which we could
23 not do with a structure on the north side of Doctors' Lane.
24 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. The only other
25 question I have right now is for staff, and that -- I just
a
1 want to understand -- because we don't have to deal with this
2 very much -- and that is the traffic situations where we have
3 projected failures. And, in the staff report on page 13,
4 Section 3.6.4, Ted, you refer to the City of Fort Collins
5 Multimodal Transportation Level Service Manual. Is that the
6 same document as what we call the Adequate Public Facilities
7 Requirements?
8 MR. SHEPARD: Not exactly. I'll defer to Ward.
9 Adequate Public Facilities is a section of the Land Use Code,
10 and it's more of a technical document that lays out a series
11 of standards. I'll defer to Ward to elaborate on that. But
12 Adequate Public Facilities is a section of the Land Use Code,
13 in terms of how we handle growth on the fringe of the City,
14 with infrastructure that's not in place yet. It's a growth
15 management tool.
16 MR. LINGLE: Okay. I guess, Ward, the question I
17 have, the gist of it is, in the long term with several
18 intersections failing at service level F, how do we, as a
19 City, approve those scenarios? I thought the whole reason of
20 having those levels of service criteria was that we didn't
21 allow anything to drop below a C.
22 MR. STANFORD: (Inaudible.) Sorry. The level of
23 the service out there at the 20 years where they're showing
24 those failures is more of a planning tool or, in fact, it is
25 a planning tool. It's looking at what happens in this area
FIr
1 as background growth continues, in the city in general, not
2 for what a particular development does to it coming into the
3 near term and doing it in that near term. From that, that
4 project continues to exist, and the City continues to grow
5 around it.
6 That background growth is what we're looking at,
7 taking us out to the 20 year horizon to see what kind of
8 conditions are we expecting out there to help us understand
9 what we need to do as the future comes about. How do we
10 start to mitigate that as we look down the road at those
11 types of scenarios.
12 MR. LINGLE: And when we do that, I mean, there's
13 no technical -- we don't have to approve a modification of
14 standard or anything to waive our level of service
15 requirements?
16 MR. SHEPARD: No. The level of service is more
17 based on the near term, the effect that you're actually going
18 to have during this time. What can happen over the course of
19 20 years is somewhat critical modeling. We hold everything
20 constant after that fact, except for the growth, expecting it
21 to do a certain thing over this length of time and see what
22 happens.
23 So the level of service is more about what are the
24 impacts that they're going to have right now when they build
25 their site, and it comes within that near term condition.
M
1 After that, the planning is solely for us to make sure that
2 we know what we're looking at down the stream and to start
3 planing or looking at how we can start to mitigate it.
4 MR. LINGLE: So, if we have a level of service "F"
5 in the near term, then we would have a problem?
6 MR. SHEPARD: We do.
7 MR. LINGLE: But out 30 years, it's just not an
8 issue in terms of any type of approval process?
9 MR. SHEPARD: No. It is an issue for us looking at
10 how to stop that from happening. I mean, that's a condition
11 that most cities are all fighting as they grow, but it is not
12 for an approval process of a project and whatnot.
13 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. That helps a lot.
14 Yeah, Brigitte?
15 MS. SCHMIDT: And, if you don't have this right now
16 this, I guess that would be for Angie. We can look at it
17 after the break, but I was just wondering how many employees
18 you figure on each one of those shifts, you know, from the
19 3:00 to 11:00 and the 11:00 to 7:00. You know, if we're
20 looking at 300 employees each time or if that is a larger
21 number than that? So, if we can just kind of have an idea of
22 what kind of volumes we're talking about at that point in
23 time.
24 MS. MILEWSKI: I don't have that information at my
25 fingertips, but maybe during the break if I can talk to
50
1 others, I might be able to get that for you.
2 MS. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
3 MR. LINGLE: Any other questions of the board,
4 either staff or the applicant, right now? Okay. Thanks.
5 Then I think what we'll do is take our break right now so we
6 can review some of the additional letters and things we
7 received from the neighborhood.
8 And, while we're gone, if when we come back, we'll
9 go directly to public testimony so if you could kind of get
10 yourselves organized, in terms of the sequence of how you
11 want to speak to us, we will ask that you would use both
12 podiums be ready to go so that we can keep things moving.
13 And we will take a 15 minute break and reconvene at -- it
14 looks like 7:40.
15 (Recess was taken.)
16 MR. LINGLE: Welcome back to the September 20th
17 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. We are now ready to
18 proceed with public comment on the Poudre Valley Hospital
19 Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, Item 14-07.
20 So what we would like to do is -- we had talked before about
21 offering each individual three minutes, due to the fact that
22 the applicant got a little extra time from us, so we want to
23 allow people up to four minutes.
24 And individuals, if there is anyone here
25 representing a group, like I mentioned before, that person
51
1 can have up to 10 minutes. If you could go ahead and come
2 down to both podiums. Go ahead and line up and give us your
3 name and address for the record and sign the log before you
4 leave. We appreciate it. That way, it will help us move
5 things along a little quicker. So whoever would like to
6 start, go ahead.
7 MS. MARTIN: Can you hear me okay? My name is Sue
8 Martin, and should I go ahead and say my address?
9 MR. LINGLE: Yes.
10 MS. MARTIN: 1501 Shadow Mountain Court, here in
11 Fort Collins, and I've been with PVHS since 1981, and I have
12 the wonderful opportunity to work very closely with patients
13 and families as they arrive for a variety of the scheduled
14 procedures for many years.
15 Up until last spring, verbal parking complaints
16 from patients and their families were a daily occurrence in
17 our offices and for our staff. After MRC opened, Poudre
18 Valley Health was finally able to do the right thing by
19 turning some of the existing employee parking over into
20 additional visitor parking in order for us to be able to
21 provide the very best service for our customers. Employees
22 are now parking in off -site lots and walking to work or
23 riding the shuttles from locations that are even farther away
24 from Poudre Valley Health Systems.
25 We do this because it's the right thing to do for
52
1 our patients and their families. It will become a hardship,
2 especially during the winter months and during inclement
3 weather, if the offsite parking becomes our long term
4 solution. If we cannot resolve what is now considered an
5 inadequate number of employee parking spaces close to Poudre
6 Valley Health.
7 The proposed parking garage on the west side of
8 Lemay is a very big part of helping us to continue to do the
9 right thing for patients and visitors. The elevated walkway
10 across Lemay will be the safety addition that employees have
11 been wanting for so many years in order to prevent a
12 pedestrian auto accident on Lemay.
13 Many of us close by, neighbors, businesses, and
14 residential surely are familiar with what occurred in the
15 past in their neighborhoods when we've run out of parking.
16 The parking structure is the right thing to do for the
17 community, the neighborhood, our patients and visitors, so
18 that we, the employees, can give the very best back to those
19 customers.
20 Please help us work through our solution, make it a
21 win/win for all parties and not give in to a few outside
22 opponents who may not like the idea of a parking structure.
23 Building it, building the parking structure, will help keep
24 PVH very strong in the community.
25 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Go ahead, sir.
53
1 MR. WALDO: My name is Ralph Waldo. I live at 1115
2 Parkwood Drive. As most of you know, the City has
3 established a hard urban growth boundary around our City to
4 curb urban sprawl. The intent of this is to cause the City
5 to go vertically through redevelopment and through in -fill
6 development. I believe this is the first redevelopment
7 project outside of the downtown of this scope and size. How
8 you vote this evening will set a precedent for future
9 redevelopment projects.
10 The Mason Street corridor plan, which was a
11 priority for the City in its current budget, considered a
12 structure similar to the Poudre Valley Hospital project to
13 make the project viable. The Foothills Fashion Mall could
14 also see similar projects with the same size of projects,
15 structures, that are in this project tonight.
16 Poudre Valley Hospital needs this infrastructure to
17 continue to provide world class health care for our citizens
18 of Fort Collins and beyond. I believe that the project
19 before you meets the zoning and other requirements, the
20 height restrictions, and you should approve it.
21 MR. LINGLE. Thank you.
22 MR. HEYMANN: My name is Jim Heymann. I live at
23 705 Country Club Road. Thank you for the opportunity to
24 voice my opinion concerning the proposal by PVH to build the
25 parking garage and medical office building on Lemay Avenue.
54
1 I've been a Poudre Valley Health employee for the past 20
2 years.
3 In that time, I've seen many changes take place at
4 our local hospital. Over the years, multiple, major
5 construction efforts by the hospital to keep up with the
6 demand for medical services provided to the community of Fort
7 Collins and the region, as well as the addition of four
8 surface parking lots to accommodate the rapid growth of
9 patients, visitors, and employees at our facility, are to
10 name but a few of these efforts.
11 Our continued growth has come with a price. The
12 number one complaint of patients and visitors is a lack of
13 parking. The 26 acres of hospital property has reached
14 maximum capacity, and we are virtually landlocked. Because
15 I've been a member of the Parking and Transportation
16 Committee for over a decade, I've had the chance, firsthand,
17 to see the negative impact that a lack of parking has had,
18 both to the hospital and its neighbors.
19 Some hospital neighbors have complained to the
20 committee members, almost on a daily basis, concerning
21 employees, et. al., habits of parking in front of their
22 homes due to a lack of parking availability onsite. The
23 committee has struggled to find a solution to this problem.
24 Various quick fix ideas have been implemented over the years,
25 yet we have always come back to the necessity of adding more
55
1 parking spaces to this campus.
2 I believe the proposed, four-story 700 space
3 parking garage for employees would eliminate our parking
4 problems for the foreseeable future. Many of the complaints
5 that occur regarding the proposed facility, I believe, are
6 unfounded. The benefit to the neighborhood by eliminating
7 street parking goes without saying.
8 Having one centralized area for employees to park
9 would keep them out of nearby neighborhoods and prevent
10 parking sprawl. The parking structure itself would minimize
11 noise and safety issues for our surrounding neighbors, and
12 provide a much needed asset for PVH, which it's currently
13 lacking.
14 Our patients, visitors, have voiced their
15 preferences for close -in onsite surface parking. Therefore,
16 please consider supporting this proposal as it stands and
17 vote for to allow the parking garage to build on Lemay
18 Avenue. Thank you for your consideration for this proposal.
19 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Ted?
20 MR. SHEPARD: We are in really fine condition --
21 (inaudible.)
22 MR. LINGLE: Yes. That's fine. Dr. Sutherland
23 wanted to speak, so you're all right here in this group?
24 (Inaudible). So we need to that.
25 DR. SUTHERLAND: Thank you Mr. Chairman, ladies and
NP
1 gentlemen. My name is Tom Sutherland, and I've lived at 812
2 Garfield, with my wife, which Jean and I built our home there
3 in 1970. But I was already in Fort Collins when Bob Edward
4 and Bill Kiley bought the agronomy farm from the university
5 and developed University Acres.
6 In fact, my home now stands on hallowed ground;
7 Scottie Robertson's barley plots. And Scottie was the most
8 famous barley geneticist in the world at that time. Bob and
9 Bill planned this area very well. Single family in most of
10 the quarter section, with some apartments toward the east
11 end, and finally a bit of commercial down Lemay. The
12 hospital at that time was only a very small building at the
13 northwest corner of the present hospital, and it's still
14 being used, but I don't think it's part of the medical
15 mission. It's a facility thing or something.
16 But now, Jean and I are still here, 48 years later
17 in Fort Collins. Wide streets, beautiful landscaping, have
18 combined to make this one of the most pleasant areas in the
19 whole town, maybe in the whole state, or even the whole
20 country, and Bob and Bill made another area comparable to
21 University Acres right after that in Parkwood, and that still
22 is a very, very desirable neighborhood, a model, in fact.
23 I've always been able to see the hospital from our
24 upstairs windows, and I was happy to be so close so if I ever
25 needed it, and guess what? In the last five years, I've just
57
1 had prostate cancer and then a heart attack, but here I am
2 tonight because of Poudre Valley Hospital, and the fact that
3 it is among the 100 best hospitals in the country.
4 So we are not here tonight to condemn the hospital.
5 It's wonderful, as are the staff, and I have first-hand
6 experience. Now, you've heard from Rulon, Stacey, and Kevin
7 tonight, and their people have done a wonderful job of
8 administering the health facility for us, and we are grateful
9 to them and proud of them.
10 But, they're making a big mistake in moving west of
11 Lemay and encroaching on this subdivision. The proposal
12 before you raises serious issues of safety and quality of
13 life. We have, for example, five schools right around in our
14 area, Lesher Junior High, Harris and Laurel Elementary, and
15 two preschools, Open Arms Preschool and Co-op Preschool, and
16 their pupils come to them from the east side of Lemay.
17 So the proposal before you tonight raises serious
18 safety issues for those young children. For these two
19 reasons, therefore, quality of life and security for our
20 children, we strongly urge you to reject the proposal and to
21 look to some alternative solutions, which appear to us not to
22 have been considered well enough and which will be presented
23 by my friends and colleagues tonight. Thank you.
24 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
25 MS. HAND: Hi. My name is Jenny Hand, and I live
MM
1 at 900 Garfield Street, and I would like to begin tonight by
2 saying that we value the hospital, and we are not opposed to
3 expansion, nor are we unsympathetic with their parking
4 issues. Instead, our concerns are largely with traffic, and
5 what I want to do is quantify and validate those concerns
6 with some data.
7 The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
8 defines the traffic statute of the policies, Section 18.2,
9 and those include speeding, and particular speed problems
10 greater than five miles per hour over the posted limit.
11 Intrusion or cut through traffic in excessive volumes and
12 pedestrian safety.
13 From these definitions and from the traffic data
14 obtained from the City, that they took in June in our
15 neighborhood, we can honestly say that we have traffic safety
16 issues in our neighborhood. Specifically, the 85th
17 percentile speed during the time that they measured, the data
18 was 35 miles per hour. This is 10 miles per hour over the
19 posted speed limit.
20 Also, those data show that the peak traffic is all
21 associated with excessive speeds. The volume and traffic on
22 Garfield is four to five times higher than the surrounding
23 streets. Nearly 500 cars a day are on Garfield, compared to
24 maybe 100 on the surrounding streets.
25 And we know that a lot of this traffic is
59
1 associated with cut -through traffic because it is a time
2 saving route to the hospital employee parking, as well as a
3 route for people to avoid the congested hospital traffic on
4 Lemay.
5 And finally, most importantly, there are five
6 schools in our neighborhood. And these current traffic
7 issues require the neighborhood to be an added special
8 concern and consideration to pedestrian safety, as defined by
9 Section 18.24 of the street standards.
10 So this is the current picture. This validates our
11 concerns about traffic. This is why we are here tonight.
12 Now, the traffic study that was conducted as part of the
13 proposal has already been discussed. However, the memo that
14 I just received calculates the impact, because it expects --
15 the neighborhood is going to be negatively impacted, because
16 they expect more than the 12 percent increase. And that
17 defined in Section 5.23 in the street standards.
18 Well, I don't have time to discuss the other issues
19 that we have with the traffic study that was performed. But
20 what I do want to point out is that no traffic analyses were
21 performed as part of the study to evaluate the neighborhood
22 transportation impact as defined in Section 2.7 to fully
23 evaluate the impact of the proposal on our neighborhood, and
24 it should include the areas of these schools, which are all
25 within a half mile of the site.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
m
And I do want to clearly iterate, we aren't opposed
to the hospital. We value the hospital, but we do believe
that the City has an excellent opportunity here to mitigate,
by looking at some of the other alternative development
locations for these structures. Thank you, very much.
MR. LINGLE: Thank you. I would like to ask
everyone to refrain from the applause, and allow us to keep
moving a little bit better.
MR. KNEZOVICH: They won't applaud after me, so
don't worry about it. Members of the P&Z Board, I'm John
Knezovich. I reside at 1205 Green Street. I'm a former
mayor of the City of Fort Collins, and a CPA that knows a
little bit about city budgeting.
The applicant is Poudre Valley Health Systems,
which is recognized as a not -for profit organization under
IRS Section 501 (C) 3. As such, it's entitled to receive
exemption from property taxation, thus neither the proposed
parking garage nor the medical building, "MOB," will pay
property taxes to the City or any other taxing District.
One of the tenants of MOB occupying one half of the
space will be the Women's Center. Thus, property taxes paid
by this entity on its office structure likely will disappear
as the applicant and the likely owner, who is the Poudre
Valley Health System, they would all qualify under the
property tax exemption.
61
1 With respect to sales taxes, medical services are
2 tax exempt. Therefore, neither the parking garage nor the
3 MOB will directly generate sales tax revenues to the City of
4 Fort Collins. Therefore, these proposed structures or other
5 parts of future expansions will generate no direct tax
6 streams to the City of Fort Collins.
7 Unfortunately, the future transportation costs for
8 streets in the area have no tax revenue generated by this
9 proposed project or others planned in the future. The main
10 street impacted is Lemay, which will require expansion to a
11 ripe size of six lanes from its present four -lane
12 configuration. Expansion of this street to six lanes will
13 further cause deterioration of the residential properties in
14 the neighborhood as ingress and egress from these properties
15 will again be further hampered.
16 Parking will need to be removed from Robertson, as
17 someone earlier said, in order to facilitate movement from
18 the garage. Parking on Elizabeth will need to be removed to
19 make traffic more practical. One-way streets on Elizabeth,
20 Robertson, and Pitkin may be required as the only practical
21 solution. There's nothing in the plan.
22 The present zoning was created in 1997 as part of
23 the City Plan. It was a passive thing. Ted Shepard was
24 talking to us about zoning. One of the reasons for lack of
25 zoning is when I first moved to Fort Collins, East Elizabeth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
wasn't even part of the City of Fort Collins, so that kind of
explains that.
At that time in 1997, I asked a member of City
Staff to keep me apprised of adverse changes that would
impact my neighborhood. His statement to me was the overall
changes to City Plan were long overdue and result -- and
would result in no problems. So what was portrayed as an
inconsequential change became a zoning of E for employment.
"E" really means "everything."
The Fort Collins Land Use Code Provision, 47.27
Employment District Section A clearly states that, "The
employment district is intended to continue the vitality and
quality of life in the adjacent residential neighborhoods."
This proposed project and its traffic problems
violate this provision, and its lack of tax base, impacts the
vitality and quality of life in our greater community. I
have a couple more. They used 41 minutes. I'm going to wrap
my presentation up.
Further, the same code provision Section E states,
"Where an employment use abuts a residential area, there
shall be no drastic and abrupt changes in scale and height of
buildings." The parking structure holding 737 cars is
drastic compared to the two -car garages in our neighborhood,
and its mass does not properly scale with the adjoining
residences.
63
1 I've got one more paragraph. The medical office
2 building, it's height greater than 40 feet, will be less than
3 100 feet from residences on Robertson, and its parking lot
4 will directly abut these single story ranch residences.
5 These drastic and abrupt changes in height and mass are not
6 compatible with city code.
7 Therefore, the proposed project directly does not
8 meet two sections of the Land Use Code and should be
9 rejected. The cumulative impact of these developments and
10 their plan and other planned development is adverse.
11 By the way, their applicant was here for 41
12 minutes, and it took her 59 minutes to admit at a
13 neighborhood meeting a week ago that the hospital plans to
14 build a six -story patient tower on the southeast corner of
15 Lemay and Doctor's Lane. Now, that's not being very candid,
16 if they tell the neighbors and it takes Ms. Schmidt this
17 long, and she doesn't even get a direct answer.
18 Mr. Unger concluded by saying the hospital has
19 economic resources. Well, if the hospital really has
20 economic resources, where this goes is in the alternative
21 areas along Elizabeth Street all the way over to Riverside,
22 because Riverside is the only way that we are going to get
23 traffic flows off of Lemay.
24 Therefore, I urge the board to reject the expansion
25 of the hospital on the west side of Lemay Street. It's for
W
1 the greater good of our community. Thank you for your time
2 and attention, and hopefully I have eliminated some of my
3 neighbors to come up here and talk to you this evening.
4 Thank you for your time.
5 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. John, was there anyone
6 else in your group that you talked about?
7 MR. KNEZOVICH: This is a neighborhood group, and I
8 think there are some commercial property owners that would
9 like to chat with you.
10 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for your
11 indulgence. Your turn.
12 MS. MICHIE: Kathleen Michie, 3642 Richmond Drive.
13 "Hello. Is this Ms. Schmidt? This is Kathleen Michie from
14 the hospital. Your friend is not doing well, and she's
15 asking for you. It would be best if you could come right
16 away. Oh, what did you say? Parking? Yes. Yes, I agree
17 with you."
18 At a time like this, you should not have to worry
19 about finding a parking space. I'm speaking in favor of the
20 proposed parking structure and medical office building on the
21 west side of Lemay and the elevated crosswalk across Lemay.
22 My perspective on this issue is threefold.
23 I'm a property owner, a residential property owner
24 near the hospital, a PVH employee for 19 years, and a
25 resident in the community who has had family members use
65
1 Poudre Valley Health for emergent and nonemergent services.
2 My husband and I own residential property that shares a
3 property line with the hospital.
4 We're concerned about the traffic, and, in fact,
5 believe it will improve in the area with a parking garage.
6 Neighborhood traffic will be less when employees and visitors
7 aren't circling around the hospital and looking for parking
8 in residential side streets. As a resident of Fort Collins
9 and an employee of the hospital since 1988, it has been a joy
10 serving my community and treating patients.
11 The past several years, the hospital has put
12 Band-Aids on parking shortages by providing free valet
13 parking to our customers, by providing a shuttle service, and
14 giving incentives to employees who commute to park using
15 alternative means. I've been riding my bike, but cooler
16 weather and less daylight will make it difficult in the near
17 future.
18 Even with these Band-Aids in place, parking
19 continues to be a problem. Recently, a family member called
20 a loved one whose cell phone was fading. "I am so sorry. I
21 can't visit you today. I've been circling around the parking
22 lot, area businesses, local streets for over 25 minutes and
23 have not been able to find a place to park. I'll try again
24 tomorrow."
25 As a Fort Collins resident, I need to use the
1 hospital for both my 91-year old grandmother and my nephew.
2 With these trips to the emergency room come personal
3 experiences with the parking problem from a customer
4 perspective during a time of high stress and fear.
5 PVH is and continues to strive to be a world class
6 organization. The best way to continue serving the community
7 and provide the stellar health care Fort Collins deserves is
8 to endorse the proposed parking garage. Approving the Lemay
9 walkway will improve safety for pedestrians, while keeping
10 traffic slow on Lemay. Your hospital needs your vote. Thank
11 you, very much.
12 MR. LINGLE. Thank you. Yes, sir.
13 MR. BUTLER: Good evening. My name is Paul Butler.
14 My address is 10201 County Road 74 in Windsor. I own the
15 retail building directly north of the proposed parking garage
16 on Lemay Avenue. I would like to voice several issues I have
17 of the parking garage's height and location.
18 My most serious concern is the added liability I
19 would incur due to the shadow study showing approximately
20 three-quarters of my building and parking lot being covered
21 by the garage's shadow during a substantial part of the
22 winter snow and ice season.
23 To make matters worse, one tenant is a physical
24 therapy office, and some of their patients arrive on crutches
25 or with a cane. Another business in the shadow is a
M.
1 hearing -aide store, and most of their patients are elderly
2 and subject to falling more easily. Even the slightest
3 residue of snow left over from plowing could melt during the
4 warmer hours, only to refreeze later in the day and pose a
5 real danger from black ice.
6 Also, the only area available to pile up with ice
7 and snow is on the north side of the parking lot, which is in
8 the shadow almost the whole winter. And another problem from
9 the shadow would be snow accumulation on the our building's
10 flat roof.
11 I checked with a roofing contractor and told that
12 the roof, being a rubber membrane type, it could easily be
13 punctured by someone trying to shovel or use a snow blower to
14 get rid of the snow. I'm also worried about the load factor
15 on the roof, as each succeeding storm adds to the unmelted
16 weight.
17 I'm also concerned about my property being less
18 valuable because of the parking garage. Access to the
19 building will be adversely impacted by the addition of
20 hundreds of cars entering and exiting the garage during shift
21 changes. Lemay is already backed up in front of our
22 businesses now. I can envision a line of cars blocking the
23 main entrance to our building from Lemay as people fumble for
24 their key card to open the gate which will be only a few car
25 lengths from the access to our building.
W.-
1 Lastly, I have a concern with the effect the
2 construction noise will have on my tenants, especially the
3 hearing -aid company when they conduct hearing aide tests.
4 To summarize, my main concerns are; one, someone being
5 injured due to the snow not melting because of the garage's
6 shadow; two, traffic on Lemay hindering access into our
7 businesses; three, snow build-up on our flat roof; four, a
8 decreased property value; and five, construction noise.
9 Thank you for your time.
10 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
11 MR. DRISCOLL: Mr. Chairman, members of the
12 Planning & Zoning Board, my name is Mark Driscoll. I live at
13 1906 Pacific Court in Fort Collins. I've come tonight to
14 speak in favor of this project. The Poudre Valley Health
15 System and Poudre Valley hospital is one of the most
16 outstanding hospitals in the state and in the country.
17 We are blessed in Fort Collins to have many fine
18 institutions and this is one of our finest. We also have an
19 exceptional employer for providing great health care for our
20 growing, prospering community. And my purpose tonight to
21 come in support is to be sure that we consider the elderly of
22 the community.
23 All of us who are moving along in years and will
24 need ever expanded, higher tech, better hospital facilities,
25 and my reasons for support of this is many. One of the
.•
1 strongest economic engines in this community is the Poudre
2 Valley Health System. People have come from all over the
3 region to receive high quality health care. This is good for
4 the entire community. It benefits all of us.
5 This project is carefully thought out. The
6 hospital has invested significant dollars in planning and with
7 consultants to look at what is best. Safety will be improved
8 along Lemay, and we will have a situation where we have an
9 employer investing 11 million dollars to have a place for
10 their employees to park, out of the neighborhoods, in one
11 place, where the neighbors don't have to worry about as much
12 traffic.
13 I know there is a lot of concern, particularly the
14 folks on Garfield, about traffic. They have a place where
15 all the employees can come and park as they roll in and out
16 of their shifts is a benefit to the area and not a detriment.
17 So I would urge you to approve this project. It's a step
18 forward in the continuing progress that this community is
19 making and continue to be outstanding city that we have.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
22 MR. MACK: My name is Steve Mack. I reside at 420
23 East Laurel Street. I'm one of the owners of the commercial
24 building located at 1001 South Lemay, on the corner of Lemay
25 and Elizabeth, and also own the vacant lot to the west of
70
1 that
facing Robertson Street.
For the
sake of brevity,
you
2 have
my written submission, so
I will
hit the highlights
of
3 my letter.
4 First, we specifically request that the exit of the
5 parking structure onto Robertson be denied, and that it will
6 be allowed only as an emergency exit. This will pile a lot
7 more traffic onto Robertson, which will then go onto
8 Elizabeth, and will include even more than it already is, the
9 drive both to the North Range Radiology Center, and also our
10 building on the corner, which is operated now by Lynncare.
11 Secondly, we specifically requested, if this
12 application is approved that restriction be placed on it,
13 limiting it to employee parking only. That my concern is in
14 the future, codes changes, as we've discussed, et cetera, and
15 it's possible that the use may be changed without a full
16 special hearing to public parking, which would compound all
17 of the multiple trips that we're experiencing so far.
18 Another major issue is that I'm very concerned,
19 even though I gladly acknowledge the value of PVHS and it's
20 role in the community, we're concerned about the actions of
21 staff, who seem to have taken significant latitude and
22 extraordinary measures to ensure the approval of this
23 application.
24 And I feel that it's doubtful that many of these
25 measures would be taken on behalf of the typical applicant,
71
1 and specifically at your work session. And I want to remind
2 you that Deputy Attorney Paul Eckman sat there and said,
3 while discussing the restriction in the staff plan, quote,
4 There is no way that we're going to allow a group of
5 property owners to hold this project hostage. We have
6 several options to modify the language of the restriction
7 contained in the staff report.
8 And then, a modification of that first staff report
9 was made, and the language did go ahead and put severe limits
10 on the property owners and put them in a position where they
11 could not even negotiate with Poudre Valley Health, even if
12 PVHS had ever offered to negotiate.
13 I'm also concerned that the City attorney has
14 basically muzzled and restricted input from citizens on the
15 process. I'm not talking about contact. We understand the
16 notion of conflict of interest and how that plays into
17 ongoing appeals. But we could not talk, property owners
18 could not talk, to either you, the board, or any City Council
19 person regarding the process and our concerns about how it's
20 being operated and what we could or could not say.
21 So we encourage the board in its deliberations
22 tonight to consider, really, if certain extraordinary things
23 have taken place. And I want to point out, in retrospect,
24 that the planner for PVH stood here tonight and specifically
25 said in her presentation that the building, the parking
72
1 structure, was 42 feet tall. And yet, the standard by which
2 you've evaluated it has conveniently been changed from the
3 recommendation of legal, et cetera, to 38, a functional
4 height of 38 feet.
5 So that eliminates the entire code and our entire
6 effort to limit the effects of shadow, size, shape, and mass.
7 And I want you to look at that, because I think the interests
8 of citizens have been pushed aside by the process. It's sort
9 of the message of, "You can't fight city hall. We'll change
10 and modify the code and standards to make this happen." Thank
11 you.
12 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. I would like to ask
13 everyone again to please not use applause. Thank you. Yes.
14 MS. HUTCHISON: Good evening. My name is Ann
15 Hutchison, and I'm the executive vice president of Fort
16 Collins Area Chamber of Commerce. We are strongly in favor
17 of the Poudre Valley Hospital Plan as presented. Meeting the
18 growing health care demands of our citizens requires PVH to
19 invest in their physical facility.
20 The proposal before you is logical, and represents
21 a high quality project that will contribute to the community.
22 The most positive outcome of having a central employee
23 parking facility are decreased parking and traffic on our
24 neighborhood streets.
25 These projects also closely reflect the official
73
1 policy of our local government relative to in -fill. Up, not
2 out, is our community's future. And, in this case, while four
3 stories is certainly up, the proposed structures are
4 appropriately sized for these locations.
5 In closing, these are well designed quality
6 projects that are good for our community and will enhance the
7 appearance of the Lemay corridor. The hospital has been a
8 good neighbor and working to accommodate the issues raised by
9 the residents and property owners, as well, they have a
10 proven track record of designing and building quality
11 structures in our community. The Chamber supports this
12 project and encourages you to do the same. Thank you.
13 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Yes, sir.
14 MR. PRICE: Hi. I'm Russell Price. I live at 1105
15 Robertson. It's one of the three houses just south of the
16 project. So, I'm not scripted, so I'll be quick. But I
17 bought that house thinking that the hospital was not going to
18 grow anymore, and I thought that gave my home some value.
19 And I think there's a lot of property over to the east of the
20 hospital that could be used.
21 You know, granted, maybe some of the patients don't
22 want to park in a parking garage. You know, maybe some of
23 the employees might be willing to park up there. But, it
24 doesn't affect us as property owners if the construction goes
25 east, and it just ruins my view. I wish I had brought my
74
1 laptop. I have a nice view of my backyard where you can see
2 all the leaves starting to turn in the fall, and I just -- it
3 would be a bummer if you let the hospital build a big, huge
4 building there. Thanks.
5 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
6 MS. GILLIS: Good evening. My name is Carrie Ann
7 Gillis. I live at 8020 Park Hill Drive, Fort Collins. Thank
8 you, Mr. Chairman, and the Planning & Zoning Board for
9 offering me the opportunity to speak.
10 I want to thank Poudre Valley Hospital for the
11 professional and courteous care that I have received during
12 each of my visits, whether as a patient, family member of a
13 patient, or visitor to a friend. I have three children that
14 were born at Poudre Valley Hospital, and I was born at Poudre
15 -- or Larimer County Hospital, as it was called back when
16 dinosaurs roamed Lemay Avenue.
17 Poudre Valley Hospital has developed into a world
18 class regional hospital, not only providing excellent health
19 care for our residents, but to regional patients as well. It
20 is the regional patients that helped to create a funding
21 source for Poudre Valley Health to be able to provide the
22 most modern equipment and first class care to the citizens of
23 Fort Collins receive and have come to expect.
24 Poudre Valley Hospital has been experiencing a
25 parking shortage for years. This parking shortage causes
75
1 problems for employees, patients, and patients' families who
2 need close -in parking. Neighborhood and neighboring
3 businesses have also been adversely impacted by this parking
4 shortage. Employees, visitors, and patients often circle
5 through neighborhoods trying to find needed parking spaces in
6 neighborhoods and neighboring businesses because of the lack
7 of parking at PVH.
8 The new Poudre Valley Health parking garage will
9 eliminate these types of inconveniences for everyone. The
10 surrounding homes are concerned. I read an editorial today
11 about rentals or lowering home values. I would disagree. I
12 think that's an excellent source of housing for employees of
13 Poudre Valley Health or employees of the proposed medical
14 office building, thus eliminating VMTs, vehicle miles
15 traveled, and improving our air quality.
16 The focus of our City Plan Land Use Code to
17 encourage in -fill and allow taller buildings has offered this
18 a perfect opportunity to take place. Let's use this model.
19 To deny this project would be a clear statement, at least in
20 my opinion, that Poudre Valley Hospital isn't welcome to
21 continue to offer first class health care, and that all of
22 the contributions that Poudre Valley Hospital has made over
23 many, many, many years to our community and its citizens are
24 unappreciated.
25 Please approve this as proposed. Approve the
76
1 parking structure, medical office building, walkways over
2 Lemay Avenue so that the citizens of Fort Collins and
3 outlying areas can continue to enjoy a world class hospital
4 and the tax dollars that it generates to our city budget.
5 Thank you.
6 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
7 DR. ERIKSEN: My name is Chris Eriksen. I'm a
8 physician and a business owner and landowner right near the
9 hospital. I've come to support the parking structure. I'm
10 not interested in the medical office building personally, and
11 I still support it.
12 I think that we need to support Poudre Valley
13 Hospital so that continues to be a first class institution
14 throughout the state. I've seen it where, if we don't
15 support the local hospitals, they go under or function
16 poorly, and that would be a loss to our community. I also
17 feel that Poudre is a great neighbor. I think that they have
18 our best interests in mind, and I strongly support the
19 parking garage and the medical office building.
20 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Yes?
21 MS. FIKE: My name is Bonnie Fike. I live at 2713
22 Chaparral Drive, Fort Collins. I don't have a script either.
23 I just want to speak to you about what I encounter as a
24 volunteer at Poudre Valley Hospital. I volunteer in the
25 surgical waiting area and also in intensive care, so I deal
77
1 with people that are under a lot of stress.
2 What I've observed and what we have happen much too
3 frequently is, I'll have patients check in for surgery, but
4 their family, the one that's closest to them is still
5 circling to find a parking place. The patients are already
6 under stress, and they're wondering, Where is my family
7 member, that's not here.
8 And the family member comes in. They're under
9 stress, because they're saying, I came as quick as I could.
10 I just couldn't find a parking space. Some park in
11 neighborhoods. Some park in business areas, because they say
12 we can't find a parking place to park. And we have quite
13 excellent care at Poudre Valley Hospital. We have people
14 coming from, as mentioned the regional areas, but also, Fort
15 Collins. If you're coming into the hospital, you want your
16 loved ones there with you.
17 We have sometimes, if an emergency comes up, and
18 family members are coming, but they can't find a parking
19 place. So it's a very definite need that we have more
20 parking at Poudre Valley Hospital, and I really would
21 appreciate your considering and approving this proposal.
22 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
23 MR. BEARD: My name is Donald Beard. I live at
24 1216 Morgan Street. Members of the board, I agree with
25 everything that's been said today. I want to present
In
1 something that we haven't talked about yet. Could I have the
2 purple map up, please?
3 I'm a retired pediatrician, and I practiced on the
4 very corner that we're all concerned about, for 25 years, from
5 1965 -- actually, 1964, my office was underneath the new
6 parking structure. Then I moved across the street, and I'm
7 exactly west of the parking structure, which is now the
8 neurosciences building. I hooked together three of those
9 corner buildings. They now have five buildings.
10 Now, across the street is the parking lot that is
11 going to be for the medical office building. Now, from what
12 I understand, the medical office building is going to have
13 10,000 feet for hospital administration, 20,000 square feet
14 for the Women's Clinic. 30,000 is yet to be determined.
15 That's going to be hospital administration or not?
16 We also ask specifically, are the employees of the
17 medical office building going to be allowed to park in the
18 parking structure? When we ask that specifically, they say,
19 yes. Okay. That means that entire parking lot is going to
20 be quite adequate for about 60,000 square feet medical office
21 building. However, the statistic I want to present is how
22 many patients are going to use that per hour?
23 Now, I used the calculations on my 10,000 square
24 feet building that is now on Elizabeth Street, and the
25 patients per hour that we can see in an 11,000 square foot
79
1 building and calculate that on 50,000 square feet. As near
2 as I can tell, there are going to be 800 patients a day using
3 that parking lot. That means 1,600 in and outs, and even if
4 20 percent or 15 percent go down Garfield Street, that's
5 going to make a major, day -long, not just at the high peak
6 flows, but all day long, that traffic's going to be on
7 Garfield.
8 When my offices were there, my employees who lived
9 on the west side of Fort Collins, all of them went west on
10 Garfield, Stover to get out of the Lemay, Prospect, or
11 Elizabeth traffic pattern. And I sold that building in 1990,
12 so I think we're going to continue to have a major problem
13 even if we have these beautiful structures there. So the
14 City is going to have to decide what are we going to do about
15 that day -long traffic. Thank you.
16 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
17 MR. FIKE: I'm Don Fike. I live at 2713 Chaparral
18 Drive, Fort Collins. I've been a citizen of Fort Collins for
19 a long time, 20 years. We love the city. I've been a
20 volunteer at PVH for 10 years. My station is the
21 ambassador's desk on the east side of the hospital, and it is
22 here that we not only give information to people, we escort
23 people to the Wound Center. We escort people up to the
24 Infusion Center for heart, and so forth, occasionally even a
25 very pregnant young lady to the Birthing Center.
80
1 These people are patients that have problems
2 finding parking. Some of them drive themselves, and is one
3 of the frustrations and stresses that we hear the most.
4 Yes, we need it for families. We need parking for
5 employees. But we need parking for these patients who are
6 already suffering, and the lack of parking certainly adds to
7 their frustrations, and on behalf of them and on behalf of
8 our community as a whole, I ask you to please consider this
9 parking structure. Thank you, very much.
10 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
11 MS. McKRUPS: My name is Gail McKrups. I live at
12 1116 Green Street. My home is the fifth house south of
13 Garfield. It's very convenient to the hospital. I have
14 lived there 32 years. I have never had hospital employees
15 park in my neighborhood. I also travel Pitkin, and I have
16 never seen a parking problem on Pitkin. I want to know where
17 these calls come from complaining about hospital employees
18 parking in our neighborhood.
19 Also, the rationale for suggesting parking on the
20 eastern side of the hospital is easy access to Riverside,
21 which is underutilized. And I have a hard time understanding
22 why people can't find parking. In those 32 years, I've been
23 there at all hours of the day for day surgery, for emergency
24 situations for my family, and I've never in that time had
25 trouble finding a parking spot. Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
rl
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
m
MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
MR. OSBORN: I'm Chris Osborn, 8331 Coeur D'Alene
Drive. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with y'all this
evening. I've had the fortunate opportunity to be a board
member of the Poudre Valley Health System for the last three
years, and I think tonight's issue around the parking garage
structure and the MOB, actually are what they call a good
challenge to have.
They come from the fact that the health system has
done phenomenally well in serving the community, and this
region. And I think that can't be lost, because we need to
recognize that good things draw great things. And, as the
health system has grown, the community has grown around
those two great providers of services. And someone raised
the issue of revenue generation. Revenue generation from the
health care sector is probably one of the, not just
highlights of our own region, but one of the few areas of the
macroeconomy that continues to grow.
I think that we need to make sure that we continue
to empower, and empower around a great group of people who
plan well around the needs of this community and the needs of
the health system. The parking complaints, as a board
member, over the last three years, they come from two
constituencies. One are the customers, and the second are
the employees. And I think finding some evidence of that
m
1 will not be difficult because I know the health system does a
2 fantastic job generating and tracking feedback from both of
3 those groups.
4 The economic impact, we've talked about a little,
5 but I think it's important to look at communities that have
6 supportive health systems in their needed areas with support
7 for growth. And we don't have to look too far down the road
8 to I-25, and over a billion dollars of community goods moved
9 over to Aurora from the City of Denver for a situation very
10 similar to this, where there were constraints put on a
11 fantastic management team that does have a long range plan
12 for growth on this campus.
13 It is unfortunate there's not more room for the
14 existing campus, but it is what it is. And you need to look
15 at the campus and decide what can best serve the community.
16 I think the hospital has done a fantastic job in bringing --
17 candidly, from a standpoint of investment, it's probably
18 over -invested as a parking structure. That benefit falls to
19 the community. Nobody else.
20 And safety has been taken in as a great concern.
21 There are other communities, where that safety issue we've
22 seen, just in the last 12 months. You know, real tragedy
23 around pedestrian traffic, and I think we need to make sure
24 that doesn't occur at Poudre Valley Hospital.
25 Again, I would support putting this requirement to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
m
the Code. It has taken into account all the community needs,
and all the things that can benefit the community, and as a
result, I really would encourage allowing PVH to grow and
feed our community and care for our community. Thank you.
MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
MR. FRENCH: My name is Norman French. I live at
816 Garfield. I would like to address the problem of safety,
which I think has not been considered here. I mean, the
safety of the hospital personnel who would be using this
proposed four -level structure.
These people have difficulty at the present time
getting from the parking lot on the west side of Lemay to the
hospital on the east side. They have a choice of going half
a block south to the crossing with the stoplight at Robertson
or a half a block the other direction to the other crossing
with the stoplight at Doctor's Lane. Traffic is heavy and
the lights are slow.
When I drive from my house on Garfield to get on
Lemay, I usually go over to Elizabeth, where there is a
stoplight to make it possible to enter the Lemay traffic. I
only go directly to Lemay on Garfield where there's only a
stop sign for the Garfield traffic. If I'm going to go south
and have only that one lane of traffic at the -- the two lanes
of southbound traffic to worry about.
There have been several times when I was watching
1
2
3
4
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the left at this stop sign, waiting for a break in the
traffic, and when the break comes, I started out, only to
find out that there are one or two people on the curb to my
right, when I've been looking left, who want to dash across
to the center lane in order to take a shortcut to get across
this busy street. Presumably, these are hospital workers.
There are always a few people who are in a hurry,
and do not want to go to one of the corners to wait for the
traffic light and let them cross. This is hazardous and
will lead to accidents. With more parking in the proposed
new structure, there will be many more possibilities for
accidents, because people in a hurry are not going to climb
to the third level crossover if they park on the first or
second level.
There will always be a significant number of people
who will be in a hurry, and they will want to get their
coffee cup filled before they go to their desk or if they're
running late, all good reasons of course, and they want to
take the shortcut. This hazard will be greatly increased if
there are three or four times as many people going from the
parking structure to the hospital and back each shift. I
would think that the hospital administration would be very,
very concerned about this. Thank you.
MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
MR. FRIES: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members
M
1 of the board. My name is Matt Fries. I live at 4205
2 Breakwater Court, and I'm also one of the businesses on
3 Riverside in the area of the hospital. I'm here tonight to
4 speak tonight in favor of the proposed development plan.
5 I wish the time would allow me to tell you of all
6 the tremendous investments that Poudre Valley Health System
7 has made in our community. But, truthfully, they're all
8 irrelevant, as are many of the arguments that you have heard
9 and will hear against this development plan.
10 The fact is, the development plan is allowed under
11 the E Employment zoning as provided for in the City Land Use
12 Code, regardless of popular opinion. E Employment Zoning, as
13 you know, was established under City Plan, which took effect
14 in March of 1997 over 10 years ago. Prior to City Plan,
15 under the LBGS, the locations in question was zoned BL, under
16 which, both the medical office building and the parking
17 structure were also allowed.
18 Constructive input regarding such issues as
19 pedestrian safety, aesthetics, landscaping, landscape
20 barriers, should be discussed in neighborhood meetings and
21 public hearings. Neighborhood meetings, as well as
22 publication of a vote, from you folks, based on popular
23 opinion, rather than upholding our Land Use Code that was
24 adopted and made law by our publicly elected officials.
25 Arguments regarding what can or could be developed
M
1 in a particular location should take place when the property
2 is zoned or to request a rezoning. Every Fort Collins
3 citizen was informed about and had an opportunity to speak
4 for or against City Plan prior to it's adoption in 1997.
5 To me, it is inappropriate to consider these types
6 of arguments during the development and review process. Your
7 job, as you know, is quasi-judicial. It's to interpret what
8 is in that blue book, not to count votes and opinions. And
9 it's clear to me that a yes vote for this project is
10 completely allowable and justifiable under the City Plan Use
11 Code. Thank you.
12 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
13 MR. MITCHELL: My name is Reed Mitchell. I live at
14 809 East Elizabeth Street. When I purchased my house in
15 1980, I was using the information that I got when I started
16 college. I took a sociology work course, and it talked about
17 neighborhoods were demarcated, and they talked about the fact
18 that roads, cemeteries, rivers, and busy streets often are
19 boundaries to neighborhoods, because people don't readily
20 cross those.
21 I find tonight that Poudre Valley Hospital is
22 literally leaping over one of those boundaries. I also heard
23 many heartfelt comments about the needs for parking for
24 patients and visitors. This parking structure does not
25 address that need. Well, I've been, in my adult lifetime,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
m
probably to over 100 public hearings, not here in Fort
Collins by the way.
The one thing that seems to be constant is that the
experts come and talk about traffic and drainage. And guess
what? This particular property, they can be filled over.
They can be covered. There can be building built across
those things. Well, I heard mention on that there are
several holding pond areas on the east side of the hospital
property. Those do not need to be open. They can be filled
over. They can be covered. There can be buildings built
upon those things.
If patients and visitors don't like to go up in a
multi -structured parking thing, then let them park on the
first floor and build the additional needed parking over the
existing patient and visitor parking. When you take a
neighborhood, as Mr. Sutherland mentioned, that was designed
with thought into it, and you have a four-story structure
which is going to be visible, not just from the adjoining
property, but a block or two blocks away, then it has an
impact on that neighborhood. And it's not just shadows. You
look up and there's a large building there that wasn't there
before.
So, while many of the people in the audience were
told not to applaud, I'm here and came down partly just to
applaud, for many of the things that were brought up. If the
m
1 City is not willing to consider blocking Garfield Street at
2 Robertson, because as Dr. Beard used -- his employees used
3 that to avoid getting on those streets, then I don't think
4 the City is serious. The City should block Garfield so it
5 doesn't become a support street for the parking.
6 The hospital, I was a little surprised. I heard
7 time and again in the hospital's presentation how they are
8 world class. But that must be the medical staff, because the
9 planning staff didn't seem to know the usage pattern for the
10 garage they were proposing. They didn't know when and what
11 numbers of people -- the employees, which are well known to
12 them, would be using it. Thank you, very much for your time.
13 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
14 DR. JEFFREY: My name is Lee Jeffrey. I'm a doctor
15 with the Women's Clinic of Northern Colorado. My address is
16 807 Breakwater Drive. I don't really have anything new or
17 technical to add to a lot of the detail work that has been
18 done tonight.
19 But I sometimes think that our community has become
20 so accustomed to the level of medical care that we have here,
21 that we are not really aware of the problems that are caused
22 for many people with serious illness, and they have to leave
23 their community and go to Denver or some other metro area for
24 their care.
25 While a neighborhood may certainly want to maintain
1 status quo, I don't think that is really a luxury that an
2 organization such as our hospital and Methodist community
3 have, and we either have to be moving forward or we're going
4 to be moving back. And I think that would impose hardships
5 on our community, in just a few years, if we're not able to
6 meet this need for parking that has been so apparent at our
7 hospital for the last 10 years.
8 And, in part, in this process, I've been very
9 impressed with the thoroughness, care and concern of the
10 planning committee in trying to, number one, provide the
11 community with what we need to keep a progressive hospital
12 and also the awareness of the community. And I don't see how
13 anybody could have done a better job, and that is just my
14 opinion, and I hope that you will consider approval of this.
15 Thank you.
16 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Yes.
17 MS. PAWLOWSKI: My name is Mike Pawlowski. I live
18 at 2839 Garrett Drive. I live by the, formerly, the Fort
19 Collins Women's Clinic. By any objective measure, Poudre
20 Valley Hospital is the best hospital in Larimer and all the
21 neighboring counties. Hospitals house resources needed by
22 physicians to care for their patients.
23 Partially because of the large array of resources
24 maintained by PVH, Fort Collins has the most complete medical
25 staff of any of the area hospitals. By most complete medical
M
1 staff, I mean the large number of physician specialties on
2 staff at Poudre Valley Hospital and available to citizens of
3 Fort Collins.
4 As technology advances and the population of Fort
5 Collins increases, PVH is faced with the need to increase its
6 resources, including parking. Poudre Valley Health Systems
7 has been at its current site since 1925. It is currently
8 landlocked by neighborhoods.
9 And in 2005, recently, has moved its Level II to
10 Loveland, leaving Fort Collins with no Level II emergency
11 room. Other services have also been moved to Loveland, and,
12 with them, the physicians that provide those services.
13 There is little doubt in my mind that PVH's
14 landlocked position is one of the main reasons that these
15 valuable health care resources have been moved out of Fort
16 Collins. Individual property rights has always been a
17 contentious issue, to resist eminent domain rights to solve
18 its landlocked issues.
19 Poudre Valley Health is not asking for variances on
20 the zoning of land it owns. What it is asking you to do is
21 use the property it owns as it is currently zoned. There is
22 a very small number of citizens that are asking the city
23 government to change the zoning of property owned by PVH, to
24 have your city government get changes to help or hinder
25 Poudre Valley Health Systems in its efforts to continue to be
91
1 a part of Fort Collins.
2 I worry that if PVH is prevented from developing
3 its property, it will be forced to move more of its resources
4 outside the city. And with it will go more of its specialty
5 services. I think this would ruin the quality of life in
6 Fort Collins, harm the majority of the population, and I
7 think it would be a shame. Thank you.
8 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Yes.
9 MR. TOOLE: My name is Kevin Toole. I'm a
10 physician at the Women's Clinic of Northern Colorado. My
11 family moved to Fort Collins when I was eight years old, and
12 that was 32 years ago. I've been a member of this community
13 for a long time. I moved away for a period of time to go to
14 medical school and get my specialty training, then I was in
15 Florida for a short period of time before I came back.
16 So we've seen a lot of changes in our community
17 over time. When I was young, you know, Poudre Valley
18 Hospital was a very good hospital. It didn't have all of the
19 tertiary care services that it now offers, and I was very
20 pleased when I moved back to the medical community here in
21 Fort Collins seven years ago to see how the medical community
22 had changed in the time that I was away.
23 We now offer many of the services that weren't
24 offered back in the earlier days of the hospital. It's an
25 important thing for the community, and I have the benefit of
92
1 working here now. And I see patients here daily, both from
2 Laramie, Wyoming, Cheyenne. I had two patients from
3 Gillette, Wyoming, and I get patients regularly from eastern
4 Colorado I have that drive to see us from Nebraska to have a
5 baby. They pay in order to come to us.
6 I think you know, it is like Dr. Jeffrey was
7 saying. It is easy for us to get accustomed, and I think it
8 was -- as part of the medical staff, I was a little bit
9 dismayed when the hospital moved services, to move their
10 trauma services and moving their cardiac services as well.
11 There is a labor and delivery opened down there,
12 too. Many wouldn't leave to deliver at MCR. It's been our
13 experience that our patients, even from Loveland and the
14 southern areas, are still coming to Poudre Valley Hospital,
15 and we feel that is because of the Level III nursery and what
16 we offer there. But that is tenuous.
17 I mean, the labor and delivery room up at PVH is
18 currently very stretched. We are having to divert people up
19 to MCR because we cannot accommodate them at the PVH campus.
20 And we are already seeing some loss of patients just because
21 we cannot accommodate these patients at the Loveland campus.
22 I would hate to see further services move away. I think it's
23 very important that we keep the level of care that we offer
24 here.
25 As kind of an aside, as an OB doctor, we are
93
1 frequently attend to a delivery and that's not an --
2 fortunately, our practice is busy enough that we are in the
3 hospital almost 24 hours a day now, which is a benefit for
4 our patients. We do leave at times, when things are not busy,
5 and getting back to the hospital can be a challenge.
6 On the south end of the hospital, currently, there
7 is emergency parking. It's right outside. When I first came
8 seven years ago finding a parking space in the emergency room
9 doctors area was very easy. I could rush up to labor and
10 delivery very quickly.
11 Because of the overflow in the emergency room and
12 of patients in the same day surgery area, which is on the
13 south side of the hospital, those spaces are frequently
14 occupied by patients needing to access those services, and it
15 makes it difficult for us to get there. Having a space
16 across the street from the hospital will allow us better
17 access from our office back and forth to the labor and
18 delivery unit. And I would just like to voice my support.
19 Thank you.
20 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Yes.
21 MS. ROLLINGS: My name is Rebecca Rollings, and I'm
22 here tonight to speak as one of the many chronically ill
23 patients who depends on PVH. I should also tell you that my
24 husband, who spoke right before, so he is the administrator
25 for the Women's Clinic of Northern Colorado, therefore, I may
m
1 understand a little better than most what we stand to lose if
2 Poudre Valley Hospital is forced to move more of its services
3 out of Fort Collins.
4 Seven years ago, I was diagnosed with a difficult
5 disease called scleroderma. Unfortunately, I've had to rely
6 on PVH many times. I've been an inpatient twice. I've had
7 four emergency room visits, one by ambulance. I've spent
8 time in every day for several weeks. I've also had multiple
9 surgeries, too. Outpatient and treatment and fusion is like
10 my home away from home. I've spent so such time there. Now
11 I only go once a week, but I have been known to go twice a
12 day.
13 Through all of this, and more than this, I feel
14 exceptionally blessed to live in a community that provides
15 the kind of health care that PVH has provided, and also the
16 quality of the physicians here. If Poudre Valley Hospital
17 continues to move services, like its Level III trauma center,
18 which has gone to Loveland, if it continues to move those
19 services, not only are we are losing the services, we are
20 losing personnel.
21 And the patients that come from other areas, and
22 people like myself, who are local patients, are going to have
23 to look outside of Fort Collins to access their health care.
24 And I prefer to look in Fort Collins and find that health
25 care that needs to be accessible here. And I like the
Im
1 majority of doing that is available where I live. As a
2 citizen, I would expect that my government would support the
3 needs of this critical community resource, Poudre Valley
4 Hospital. Thank you.
5 MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
6 SPEAKER: My name is Jody Eidness, and I live at 1108 Morgan
7 Street. It's three houses south of Garfield, just two blocks
8 west of Lemay Avenue. This might seem disjointed, but it's
9 because I just heard a bunch of disconnects this evening.
10 One of them, the primary one, is about parking issues. It
11 just recently came to my attention, really, that all of this
12 was going on, and to try to find out a little background, I
13 started this week to go over to the visitor parking lot east
14 of the hospital.
15 And I made four visits there during the hours of
16 the day. The first time I went was mid afternoon. I counted
17 106 empty parking spaces. With no cars in the valet parking.
18 This was Tuesday afternoon. I went back a half an hour
19 later, figuring that might be an anomaly, and there were 110
20 empty spaces in that parking area.
21 When I went back at 5:30 that evening, there were
22 120. Last night, I went back at 6:15, and there were 140.
23 So I'm having a little disconnect here. I don't know what
24 those people are talking about, and I guess that I have my
25 300 hour pin from volunteering at Poudre Valley Hospital, so
V
1 I am not just a naysayer.
2 And I would also like to say that I brought in some
3 petitions earlier and handed them to Mr. Shepard, with some
4 269 signatures from residents and people who are against the
5 parking structure as it's being proposed. I don't think any
6 of us object to there being a new parking structure for the
7 hospital employees.
8 Another disconnect I am hearing is why they keep
9 leaping over the detention ponds on the east side of the
10 hospital. The engineering for those detention ponds, if it's
11 100 percent, it's 100 percent whether the slab is on the
12 ground or 100 feet in the sky. I don't know why the parking
13 that exists there already can't simply go up.
14 They keep saying the other neighborhood end, which
15 is up to 12 units, my understanding is. I've taken
16 photographs for you and included them in the presentation
17 that I brought this afternoon, to show the empty parking
18 spaces. Also to show the multifamily housing in back that
19 might be impacted, and the dead trucks and things like that.
20 We are talking about apples and oranges here. It's not the
21 same thing.
22 Another thing I would like to mention is in the
23 traffic study that was done for the City that was admitted
24 for the hospital, the peak traffic, I guess the code. You
25 all know it much better than I do. But the peak traffic
97
1 study was done from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the afternoon.
2 That's what it called for, and we've established here tonight
3 that all of this parking is for employees and their shift
4 ended at 3:00.
5 So there is a little bit of a disconnect there as
6 well. I think that we need to do further studies. I think
7 that's it. I'm just asking that you deny this particular
8 proposal and that we look at the possibilities for better
9 ones. Thank you.
10 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Yes, sir.
11 MR. GARNIER: I'm Bill Garnier (phonetic), and I
12 live at 712 Garfield Street, not too far. I want to address,
13 and I wasn't planning to speak tonight, but I want to address
14 one comment, because it really got me up here. The comment
15 that your job is to follow the letter of the code in theory
16 infuriates me.
17 I'm an average homeowner. What do we know about
18 codes? What do we know about the City Plan and all of that?
19 It's been a huge education to look at our neighborhood, where
20 people hardly knew each other, come together, meet with the
21 hospital, to work through this with the hospital, have the
22 hospital ignore all of our concerns, and to see in our own
23 education the intent of the law.
24 It's your trusted position. And to articulate and
25 to enforce the intent of the law, is what I'm here for. I
1 can't tell you how much that means to me. I apologize that
2 we, as citizens, don't get deeply involved with codes,
3 planning zones, and all of those changes that happen, but
4 I've got to tell you, the education we've had this past week
5 is as scary as anything I've had in the last 30 years.
6 And to sit here and hear someone say you have to
7 follow the letter of the law, I'll be damned if I want my
8 town run by a bunch of lawyers. I want good-hearted citizens
9 running this town. I want the people that have made their
10 investments to feel the consequences of those investments are
11 preserved. And I trust you to make those decisions.
12 I just want to make one other point. We submitted
13 a full document of all the questions that we have as a
14 neighborhood. We submitted a reason to the item, and we
15 submitted a request for rezoning. I trust that you will look
16 at those requests in detail and get back to us. We really
17 feel we do deserve the answers to the questions.
18 We all unanimously applaud the hospital. There's
19 no -- I live there because I want to be near the hospital
20 almost as much as living on a quiet street. I'm sorry I'm
21 emotional about this. It really means a lot to us. It's a
22 choice city. It's about neighborhoods first, and it's glad
23 the hospital is up there at that level. Thank you.
24 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Yes.
25 MS. ROTHE: My name is Joyful Rothe. I live at 903
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Vm
Willow Drive, Number 7. I'm a new homeowner, and I've only
lived here four years, and I'm very young. I came here for a
different issue, but I said, because I worked for Columbine
Health, but I go to Poudre Valley Hospital because I have
very many medical problems in my life.
I've seen the problems with the parking. I looked
at everything. I have listened to both sides of the story,
but I'm seeing that Poudre Valley Hospital has stated their
case. Yes, I don't want my neighborhood bugged up with
buildings either, but I also have to look at, is this going
to be better for the community and for me when I grow older
and need more care than I need right now?
Yes. I think, personally, that I would urge to go
with what Poudre Valley Hospital wants. They're wanting
what's best for the community right now, and that's all I
have to say right now. Thank you.
MR. LINGLE: Thank you.
MR. HARTER: (Phonetic.) Good evening. I'm here,
Paul Harter tax paying citizen. I live at 737 (inaudible),
which actually isn't even close to the hospital, but I used
to live in the area, and I'm here in the area all the time.
I've been a builder/developer 48 years. I've built in
Colorado, Wyoming, many cities, many projects. So I have
experience in planning and zoning and building and
development.
100
1 And I've also spent two afternoons, six to seven
2 hours, actually looking through the plans of this
3 development. I would first like to talk about the buildings
4 themselves. I've actually built a building that has a
5 reinforced concrete parking garage. I still own it right
6 here, along with apartments. In the spaces in my garage,
7 they are 9 by 20. In the spaces in the garage they're
8 proposing, they are 9 by 18, which means, overall, it's four
9 feet shorter as a building.
10 Now, what they're doing is allowing this building
11 to be build as if this parking is on the ground. It's like
12 it's ground parking. We know if you pull into ground
13 parking, you can stick your nose out a foot or two all over.
14 If you get into a parking garage of reinforced concrete,
15 you're not sticking your nose out. You're pulling your nose
16 back. So I don't believe that this building actually meets
17 City standards.
18 There are other things, drainage basins, a lot of
19 things that we can't talk about right now. We don't have the
20 time. But I don't think this building really meets standards
21 and it will work. Let's jump across Garfield Street. The
22 building is being built as an office building; 60,000 square
23 feet. The normal parking requirement on this building is
24 four and a half spaces per 1,000 square feet, which equals
25 270 parking spaces. They have 100 something parking spaces.
101
1 This building is a 100 plus or minus below what any other
2 developer would be required to have.
3 As Dr. Beard stated, they're estimating at least
4 800, maybe more visits will be made to this building. There
5 is no way this is going to work. There is no way that it
6 won't be a tremendous impact on the area around here. Also,
7 this parking building will be built right against single
8 family homes. The asphalt will be right up against their
9 fences.
10 This brings me to zoning. This has never been
11 asked or never been allowed to be bui1T four-story buildings
12 and parking lots right up against single family homes. I
13 want to divert for just a minute. I would like to go on the
14 record, please. I haven't prepared this, and I don't have
15 time to talk about it, but it's been mentioned, and they're
16 talking about the E zoning that has been done here.
17 I lived in that area. These people on Elizabeth
18 Street and in this neighborhood and everything started City
19 Plan. They are the ones that said, We are going to stop the
20 doctors who were building just one-story little buildings,
21 from coming down Elizabeth, coming down these streets into
22 this neighborhood. That was never intended.
23 And City Plan really was started by these people in
24 this very neighborhood, and the City promised them, they
25 said, the City said the City Plan was going to correct all of
102
1 those problems, and they were going to do the right thing.
2 They promised these people there would never be zoning like
3 this on top of their heads and on top of their houses.
4 I don't have time to get into it, but this is the
5 truth. And these people have been tricked, so, anyway. Now,
6 the big blow, really, to me, and we talked about it. The
7 only study that has really been done on this thing is a
8 traffic study. There has been no real impact studies, no
9 studies on the other streets that will be impacted, no
10 studies on streets with parking, and all of the other things
11 that a normal developer would have to do.
12 I don't have the time to get into the traffic
13 study, but I would like to have you go to the conclusion.
14 And it says that if they build these two buildings on the
15 west side of Lemay without taking into account the cumulative
16 effect of building any other buildings, which is ridiculous,
17 of course, that the intersections around Lemay in this area
18 will become "F," failures. The street will become F. It
19 won't function.
20 They say the only thing, John has brought this up,
21 will be the six lane street on Lemay. And the people, the
22 taxpayers, the City will pay for this. Lemay, right now, is
23 a restricted arterial street. It means it can't be expanded.
24 There is no right of way to expand. I cannot imagine what
25 the cost would be to fix a problem like this. They're
103
1 talking about 20 years.
2 The people that live in this neighborhood know that
3 is just bunk. Though they have this study, they are building
4 buildings right up against Lemay, minimum setback. It would
5 cost millions, maybe hundreds of millions. I don't know.
6 Lemay Avenue, right now, is the main north/south corridor of
7 the east side of this city.
8 The impact on this side of the city would be
9 unbelievable. I am not against the dreams and success of
10 Poudre Valley Hospital or their needs. That is not the
11 issue. I'm asking that if they would please take a deep
12 breath, step back, and look. I believe that everybody is
13 saying, this is neat, we've got a sky bridge, and I think
14 that is what everybody is overlooking.
15 Look down and look around and see what's going on.
16 I think this would be in their own best interests, as well as
17 the City's interests, and certainly the taxpayer's interests.
18 MR. LINGLE: Sir, I'm sorry. We need to move on.
19 You've had quite a bit more than --
20 MR. HARTER: Really? I've got closing, you won't
21 let me --
22 MR. LINGLE: No. I'm sorry. We've got to move on.
23 I'm sorry, sir, but you will have to sit down now.
24 MR. HARTER: Thank you.
25 MS. HARTER: Good evening, Council. My name is Ann
104
1 Harter. I'm a long resident of Garfield, raised there. I
2 have family there on Garfield and Elizabeth. And just kind
3 of following up a little bit on that zoning real quick.
4 E Zoning, I don't think -- I don't think any development --
5 in my background also, never seen any zoning without any kind
6 of buffer or NCB or anything like that, ever.
7 But getting on to just, very quickly, I think what
8 we would really like to say in the neighborhood, we are very
9 concerned for all the citizens in the community. The people
10 coming in from the outside areas, coming in to use the
11 hospital. What is not understood is, it seems to me,
12 immediately, for PVH to have a parking area, and there was a
13 published wonderful title in Medical Wellness Edition, and it
14 shows -- the schematic shows the full development of this
15 hospital that is going to happen on the east side.
16 So it's not like they're going to just have just
17 this parking forever and outside parking without future
18 planning of any buildings. So, right now, if they are in
19 such immediate need for parking, why aren't we putting it
20 back closer to the hospital on the east side going through
21 Doctor's Lane coming right out onto Riverside?
22 That is a corridor that has been built to handle
23 this kind of traffic, and is a sleeping corridor right now.
24 And which is a corridor that connects with our brand new,
25 wonderful Prospect and Timberline corridor that seems to be
105
1 working beautiful. I've driven back and forth from Greeley
2 almost every day for 10 years on the Timberline/Prospect
3 corridor is moving beautifully.
4 So why we are not connecting this additional
5 parking for people at the hospital working there, people who
6 are coming into this hospital, easier that they don't even
7 have to come across Lemay. Look at Lemay, maybe in the
8 future for a sleeping tower or something else that makes
9 sense, but it's here, but don't put more parking, more
10 traffic, on an already just blocked up corridor is just
11 beyond, when there is another solution. So, thank you, and
12 good evening.
13 MR. LINGLE: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? All
14 right. I just want to remind everyone that this will be your
15 last opportunity to speak. So, is there anyone else that
16 would like to speak to this issue? Okay. Seeing none, we
17 will close public testimony.
18 I think Angie, if you could come up, what we would
19 like to do is have you respond to any comments. We've kind
20 of made some notes on things that we'd like to touch on, and
21 board members help me if I miss any strategic points. I
22 think that most of those are kind of applicant, but there
23 might be some City Staff as well.
24 One thing, if you could address the discrepancy, on
25 the numbers on the parking structure height. The staff
1 report says 39 feet, and I think in your presentation, you
2 did mention 42 or something like that.
3 MR. MARTELL: If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman and
4 members of the Planning & Zoning Board, there are a couple of
5 legal issues, and that's one of them that I would like to
6 address. My name is Jim Martell, and our law firm represents
7 Poudre Valley Health Systems on this matter.
8 On that particular issue, there was some confusion.
9 The part of the building that exceeds 40 feet is the stairway
10 and the elevator. And, if you look at Section 3.8.17 (C), it
11 exempts from calculations of the height, the stairway and
12 the elevators. And that is why there was this confusion at
13 the last meeting that was cleared up with the staff in
14 between the two hearings.
15 So it does not exceed the 40 foot limits, and, as a
16 result, Poudre Valley Health Systems was not obligated to do
17 the shadow study. They did the shadow study anyway. They
18 were not obligated to do any kind of mitigation of any effect
19 that it would have on adjacent properties because it doesn't
20 exceed the 40 feet. Nonetheless, they entered into an
21 agreement with Dr. Griffin that they would provide -- share
22 the snow removal with him.
23 And Mr. Butler, who spoke, and owns the adjacent
24 property, the hospital has offered -- well, first of all, he
25 said that it shadows 75 percent of his building, and I think
107
1 the study will show it's at like 25 percent. But the
2 hospital offered to pay the total cost of all snow removal,
3 not only from his parking lot, but from his roof as well, and
4 that was not acceptable to him. So, I think we did attempt
5 to mitigate any problem, even though we had no obligation to
6 do that.
7 The same is true of the traffic issue. There was
8 much discussion about we needed a neighborhood traffic study.
9 The neighborhood traffic study is not required because of the
10 classification of the streets as a connector local.
11 Nonetheless, Poudre Valley Hospital did do the traffic study.
12 And, even if you assume that the traffic study would show
13 that this does have an impact on the neighborhood, even if we
14 assume that for the sake of argument tonight, the next step
15 is then Poudre Valley Hospital should mitigate that impact,
16 and that is what they have done.
17 That was discussed in the main presentation, so
18 even though it was not required on both of those counts, I
19 think that Poudre Valley Hospital has gone far beyond what
20 your own regulations require.
21 But -- and one other small item, Mr. Knezovich said
22 that the MOB would not pay taxes. In fact, it will pay
23 taxes. The Women's Clinic will eventually own that building
24 and it is not a nonprofit entity and, therefore, it will pay
25 taxes.
WR
1 But the real key, I think, is the comparability
2 with the neighborhood, and Angie can show some slides. But I
3 agree with Dr. Sutherland. Dr. Sutherland said that Bob
4 Everett and Bill Kiley were visionaries and planned this
5 neighborhood well. And that's, in fact, what they did. They
6 planned it with the residential at one end, and then
7 gradually placed into commercial at the other end. So, you
8 have the commercial along Lemay. You have the doctors'
9 offices next to that across Robertson. Then you have the
10 higher density, multi -family units, and then, finally, you
11 phase into the single family residential.
12 That's exactly what, now, we are doing, in terms of
13 compatibility, that's what Bill Kiley and Bob Everett did in
14 1965, and nothing has changed since. It was zoned commercial
15 in 1965, as the staff indicated. It stayed commercial until
16 1997. In 1997, it was zoned E Employment as part of the Land
17 Use Plan, which Mr. Harter just said these are the people
18 that initiated the Land Use Plan, and it stayed exactly the
19 same.
20 This has been a permitted use within this zone
21 since 1965. And it was part of Bob Everett's vision that this
22 could be a commercial area along this street. So I don't
23 think there is anything that says that this is invading the
24 neighborhood. In fact, it was planned that way from the
25 beginning by Bob Everett and Bill Kiley. It was planned that
109
1 this would be commercial.
2 There is no invasion. It's simply the use that has
3 always been permitted on this property. The hospital has
4 relied on that zoning. You've heard Mr. Stacey testify they
5 spent 100 million dollars in reliance on that zoning. I
6 think that is significant. There isn't any change of use.
7 It is an appropriate use. It is a permitted use. It
8 complies with all of your regulations. That's what we would
9 ask that it be approved.
10 Angie has some additional slides that she can show
11 you on the issue of the shadow and with the compatibility
12 that the neighborhood raised. Thank you.
13 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. Angie, part of that
14 was, you know, we did ask questions and hear about the height
15 classification of the parking structure in our work session,
16 and I just thought that needed to be addressed since the
17 neighbor brought it up, and have it in the public record. I
18 don't know if there's anything that you would like to add in
19 terms of the shadow issue.
20 MS. MILEWSKI: I do have slides. I do have
21 information on it if you want some clarification on it.
22 Certainly, I do think that some of the things were misstated,
23 and we have the shadow study on a slide if you want to talk
24 about that. We have a cross -sections of the neighborhood, so
25 that is available.
110
1 MR. LINGLE: Sounds like we would like to see
2 something fairly quickly on that.
3 MS. MILEWSKI: I do have -- I have the
4 presentation. I need to load that, so just -- can you give
5 me a few moments?
6 MR. LINGLE: Sure. Does anybody need a break? No?
7 Go ahead. Ward, can we ask you a couple questions while
8 we're waiting on that? Go ahead.
9 MS. ROLLINS: Ward, I need some clarification from
10 you on the traffic study guidelines because it was alluded to
11 that neighborhood impact on connector locals, that doesn't
12 qualify as a roadway. Is that true?
13 MR. STANFORD: The only thing I'm familiar with at
14 all, any street that we want to evaluate, we can. But I'm
15 not familiar with that. I've never seen that. It may have
16 been a misunderstanding, but a connector local, we certainly
17 have criteria for it. We look at that criteria to see how
18 it's working and holding and we do evaluations of it.
19 MS. ROLLINS: And there are certainly other local
20 streets that you did some traffic counts on that are truly
21 just local streets.
22 MR. STANFORD: Connector local, residential local,
23 yes, we have a couple different designations for the local.
24 MS. ROLLINS: And do you have a greater than 12
25 percent increase on a daily scale point is considered to be a
ill
1 significant impact?
2 MR. STANFORD: For being on a non -signalized
3 intersection in a residential local or a local street, yes,
4 there is.
5 MS. ROLLINS: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. LINGLE: Ward, if you could also just follow-up
7 on comments from the neighborhood concerning the need or
8 appropriateness for a more comprehensive neighborhood traffic
9 study.
10 MR. STANFORD: When this came through, there was a
11 good bit of discussion, and I'm going back to my predecessor.
12 I'll have to check with him on the history of it, the view of
13 the area, the way that the traffic was going to be coming
14 into this new parking structure was really no different than
15 what it's doing today.
16 The shifting from one side of the street to another
17 isn't changing where these people are coming from. And
18 looking at it from that scenario, part of the traffic is
19 coming from up and down Lemay, whether that's from the north
20 side of the town or the south side of the town. Another part
21 of it is also coming from the east side of town, which if
22 that parking lot were still behind or east of the facility --
23 behind the Poudre Valley facility right now, then they would
24 be coming in from that east side and staying beside or behind
25 the facility.
112
1 Even though they are still coming in from the east,
2 all they would be doing is coming over to Lemay and entering
3 the site from there. Again, still really going no
4 further east than Lemay. Lastly, was the western component.
5 As to anybody that currently is coming there from the west,
6 will still be coming there from the west. They already
7 exist.
8 So they didn't see that this was going to
9 necessarily change any of that pattern, as to where the
10 people are going to come from, and most of the discussion
11 that we were getting on how this was going to facilitate
12 staff -- the bulk, the quantity of the people there, is that
13 most of it is already existing.
14 Will the future phases be adding some to that?
15 Yes. The future phases down the road could be adding to
16 that. We believe there will still be a small percentage that
17 may come from the west. Based on the small percentages we're
18 seeing right now, those numbers don't equate to much. They
19 still believe that it will mostly be coming from the
20 north/south through the Lemay corridor.
21 And so, with that evaluation, didn't believe that
22 it necessarily would be a substantial neighborhood impact to
23 those streets. The studies and stuff that we've done don't
24 show a large volume coming off of Robertson, whether it be
25 the morning or the afternoon. Robertson is the other feeder
113
1 to the location.
2 And with those that have been in place for that
3 long, plus, Robertson is also housing a number of other
4 businesses, and multi -family housing or maybe multi -type
5 medical care. I'm not sure, but there is a multi -aspect to
6 it. There's a number of items going on there, and entering
7 and exiting traffic from Elizabeth is very small. The
8 entering and exiting traffic from Garfield is very small, as
9 you can see from the study, and we can't see why that's going
10 to change substantially.
11 MS. SCHMIDT: Ward, I guess, what I was saying is,
12 if I were going now to park at the hospital, and I'm parking
13 on the east side coming from the west, I would make sure that
14 I'm at a signalized intersection, because otherwise, you're
15 never going to get across Lemay.
16 If I'm coming from the west, and now I don't have
17 to cross Lemay, then your plan is to stay away from
18 signalized intersections and to get to the parking lot as
19 best as you can, so I think definitely would change people's
20 pattern from the west. And, right now, those people are
21 using signalized intersections because they are going to go
22 to the east side.
23 So they're not going to come up the neighborhood
24 streets to be stuck at Garfield and Lemay and not be able to
25 get over to Doctor's Lane. You know, they're probably using
114
1 Elizabeth or going to Prospect at the light.
2 MR. STANFORD: That is a large part of what we see,
3 they come down Prospect and they turn on Stover to come over
4 to Garfield, it's very onerous during the peak hours. It is
5 very difficult to make a left turn off of there. You are
6 much more (inaudible) by going down to Lemay, even though
7 everybody has a perception that it is just a disaster.
8 It is a higher volume intersection, no doubt, but
9 it still does serve its traffic. And it will continue to do
10 that versus that fight of trying to make a left turn off of
11 Prospect onto Stover. The people coming off of Elizabeth
12 have no real bearing to come across Stover and then come down
13 Garfield because that is really taking them further south
14 than they need to be. And they will come in and do it off of
15 Elizabeth quite easily.
16 So that is, again, why we don't see the western
17 component being affected. Will we get a couple? Sure, we're
18 going to get a couple. We always get a couple. But a
19 substantial amount, this volume that is going turn the
20 neighborhood into a very difficult roadway? No. We don't
21 see that.
22 We don't see that, in passing, in most of our
23 proposals that are brought in on larger developments adjacent
24 to neighborhoods, such as the Safeway out on Harmony. That
25 was a very contentious one years ago. Much concern about how
115
1 it was going to impact the neighborhood directly behind of it
2 or to the north and the west and east of it. It just didn't
3 materialize, and that's a common history.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Uh-huh. And what project was that?
5 MR. STANFORD: That's the Safeway between McMurray
6 and Wheaton.
7 MR. MARTELL: I just wanted clarify one thing, that
8 when you were talking about the 12 percent, what I meant was
9 let's assume that we do it, say, to 12 percent. The next
10 step -- the remedy is to mitigate. And we are happy to
11 mitigate. And, if you have ideas of other ways we could
12 mitigate, we need to talk about it.
13 I mean, we offered the speed signs that are $5,000
14 apiece, and if you think speed bumps should be put in or
15 something else in terms of mitigation, that's fine. But I
16 think that most of this is out of our control. The
17 neighborhood talked about blocking off the street. We can't
18 do that.
19 The speed bumps, I think you have to have some
20 percentage of the neighbors, 80 percentage or something who
21 will support that. Whatever it is, we are happy to try to
22 mitigate. Let's assume that we do exceed your 12 percent,
23 and talk about what can we do, and we're happy to do it.
24 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Angie.
25 MS. MILEWSKI: Do you want to talk about the
116
1 shadow?
2 MR. LINGLE: Yeah, uh-huh.
3 MS. MILEWSKI: I don't have a big presentation
4 about this, the shadow study, with the amount of time. But
5 we do have some slides that we brought. This is the shadow
6 study for the medical office building. Again, this is
7 required for buildings over 40 feet high. Tonight, in the
8 presentation, someone said the parking structure was 42 feet
9 high tonight. It's not. It's 30 feet 8 inches.
10 I did mention the medical office building exceeded
11 the 40 feet in height, and it does. And we did a special
12 height review for that, as required by the City Code. This
13 is shadow analysis for the medical office building. And,
14 just to clarify, just as you mentioned, the parking structure
15 is 38 feet, and it has two taller building elements that are
16 exempt from the building height criteria that are over 40
17 feet.
18 Quickly, to the next slide. When we do a special
19 height review, we are looking at four criteria. The first
20 one being views. The Code requires that taller buildings
21 shall not substantially alter the opportunity for quality of
22 desirable views from public spaces, streets, and parks,
23 within the area.
24 This site is suited for taller structures. It's
25 not immediately west of any residences or public uses where
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
views are impacted. But, we've also, knowing that a lot of
times, that's based on western views, we took the first
residence west of this location on Garfield at the
intersection of Garfield and Green, and we did this visual
analysis. It was in the drawings you received in your packet
and submitted it to the City. And it shows the existing view
and then a model of the parking structure and medical office
building after that's constructed.
So you can see the changing view from that first
residence west of the development looking toward this
project. So, the top view is from -- the existing view from
Garfield Street at the closest edge of that property owner's
to the east. So you can see the left is the existing view.
The right is a view, and you can see the parking
structure in the background and the pedestrian overhead
crossing, crossing Garfield there. And below that is the
existing view of Garfield at Green Street, so this is at the
western edge of that property before and after. You can see
there are some medical offices at that point beginning to
show up in the view, as well.
So the hospital is -- we're affecting their view to
the hospital at that point. That is true, but that shows
pretty clear the extent of the view, the impact of the view
for the nearest residence there.
Light and shadow, the next slide. I want to show
118
1 this because this is actually -- this is not required because
2 the parking structure is not over 40 feet, but we wanted to
3 model this and show this to you. This is the shadow study
4 for both the MOB and the parking structure, and I want to
5 point out a couple of things on this. If you can tell, the
6 parking structure and medical office building shadows are a
7 gray color.
8 The green shadow all around are eliciting building
9 shadows that are in this neighborhood area today. You can
10 see the two -- especially on the slide on the right, you can
11 see the two tower appurtenances again, they are exempt form
12 the building height definition. And their extended shadows.
13 They're very, very small elements of the parking structure,
14 and you can see that there is a red line, and what that red
15 line indicates is the 40-foot line.
16 You can see that most of the parking structure,
17 even though it's 38 feet and 8 inches, that's even to the top
18 of those columns that are at the first level. Much of the
19 bulk of the parking structure that will pass out is actually
20 under that, the 39 feet.
21 So you can see the shadow is quite a bit less than
22 what would be required for a structure that would require
23 this type of analysis. But I think this is something I would
24 want to point out about this slide. You can truly see the
25 impact on the properties to the north.
119
1 Mr. Butler's building is -- he is right on Lemay.
2 He is sort of the long north/south building there. Because
3 part of it is showing the shadowing on his parking area, and
4 part of it is showing the shadow on his roof. And I think he
5 mentioned that three-quarters of his roof was impacted by
6 shadow by the parking structure, which is not true. You can
7 see there's a third or less.
8 And I think, most importantly, the existing
9 buildings next to him, which they are two-story buildings,
10 but they're a tall two-story building. It's a two-story with
11 a garden level and a peaked roof. And it's actually casting
12 more shadows on his building today, and has been over the
13 past several years than the parking structure, because of the
14 nature -- it's a four-story building, less than 40 feet.
15 Because of reduced height, you are able to do that
16 with parking structures and the way they're designed. It
17 casts the same or more shadow than the parking structure
18 shadow. So I just wanted to alleviate or address those
19 concerns that he mentioned about new shadowing on his roof,
20 because that condition exists today.
21 The next one. I want to talk a little bit about
22 privacy because this has been discussed with the medical
23 office building and compatibility, the height of that
24 building and the residents that are adjacent to this project,
25 the ones to the south.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
And we mentioned this a little bit during the
presentation because we think it's important, the amount of
buffer that we are including, and staff has encouraged us to
include along that south edge to enhance that buffer beyond
the 16-foot buffer that exists today. And the next slide --
MS. SCHMIDT: Hold on just a second. You didn't
happen to do one of those other slides like you did for the
parking garage, so if you were standing in one of those
neighbors backyards and looked up, 56 feet, what it would
look like?
MS. MILEWSKI: We didn't, it's private property.
It's fenced and we weren't able to get that exact kind of
view from the public street on the other slide, but, no, we
have not done that. But you can see on the aerial photo
there, and you see trees there. And you saw on their walks
that -- they're in their yards. Again, the 6-foot fence, and
we're enhancing the buffer right at the edge of their yards.
MS. SCHMIDT: I guess my concern is a 6-foot fence
is a 6-foot fence, and we're talking about, if you go to the
top of the metal gate, but that's recessed, it's 56 feet
tall. And you notice, there are a lot of glass windows in
that building.
And what I'm looking at is the neighbors at night,
when there are people in the offices, the cleaning crews that
are cleaning that building, and that building is going to be
121
1 lit up probably almost 24/7, and how is that light going to
2 impact the people living in those residences? You know, a
3 6-foot fence isn't going to change that.
4 MS. MILEWSKI: It's not a 24-hour facility. It's a
5 medical office, so it's sort of 8:00 to 5:00 hours, and
6 you're right, cleaning crews will be beyond and sometimes
7 after hours. And, again, this is -- by showing evergreen
8 trees here. And again, using our mitigation trees, we are
9 effecting trees on this site by putting those larger sized
10 mitigation trees and focusing them along this edge. We can
11 create a more immediate effect with the larger sized trees
12 than your standard, and use evergreen trees to create that
13 closer in to the residence buffer.
14 So it will make the maximum visual screen that we
15 can with this project, and by locating the building as far
16 away as we possibly can. It's intentional that we're close
17 to those trees, and the reason for that is we want to be,
18 again, be most compatible with this neighborhood, with this
19 structure, and I'm just going to go on to next slide, because
20 I did want to talk about the building height a little bit,
21 and how it impacts the -- actually, I might even slip back to
22 a slide form the main presentation as well as the still -up.
23 These are some cross -sections that we cut, both
24 east/west and north/south. And we did this originally when
25 we were discussing the parking structure. So the bottom
122
1 slide doesn't show the medical office building, but the top
2 slide does. And what it shows, again, is the relative height
3 and neighborhood scale.
4 The hospital is primarily a four and five -story
5 structure. The medical office building is a four-story
6 structure, but designed in a way, not like the hospital,
7 where it's the same materials from the ground to the roof.
8 Designed in a way to minimize its apparent mass.
9 The parking structure is a four-story structure,
10 but even shorter in its mass because of its design. And
11 then, adjacent to that you can see the relationship between
12 that and the one and two-story medical office buildings and
13 even the one and two story residences to the west. We talked
14 about neighborhood scale and compatibility. It's very
15 compatible with that.
16 Let me, if I can, I wanted to talk a little bit
17 about the architecture for the medical office building
18 because I skipped over that in the presentation, and there
19 really are specific themes when we're looking about from your
20 viewpoint and what architectural themes we're looking at. So
21 let me go back.
22 MR. STANFORD: And while she is finding that slide,
23 you do have a full-sized sheet of that in color, if you need
24 it.
25 MS. SCHMIDT: The large plot?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
[OrMIN .YI"M1Xi11391 �
MS. MILEWSKI: Go up one slide if you can, Marcia.
Push the up button. These are the elevations, and what's
happening here is it's a four-story building, but it has a
much lower apparent mass because of the change in materials,
and we're physically taking a four-story and recessing it
back.
So that viewpoint from the south, looking at this
building, you talk about a 56-foot height, but that top story
is pushed back, so you do get a lower apparent height from
that viewpoint, and I think that is important to notice. And
also, the change in materials in the first three stories, and
up to the fourth, again, makes it -- and that is intentional,
because we want to be sure that we are lowering the visual
appearance of the building, and it looks more like a
three-story building than a four-story building.
Go to the next slide. This is a good example. I
think I did show this in the original piece, but if you talk
about the view angle as well from those houses, this is the
side of the building they will be looking at and be seen from
that point. And the distance -- let me just really quickly
-- the distance from the 56 high is, again, not just another
red portion, but the white portion of the building.
The distance from that southern piece of the
building to the fence is 130 feet. The distance from the
124
1 this building to the nearest house is 175 feet. So, again,
2 the location of where those trees, those larger trees that we
3 can put, are shown at their fence and will certainly buffer
4 and impact that view to and from the building to those
5 residences.
6 MS. SCHMIDT: Do you know how tall those trees will
7 be?
8 MS. MILEWSKI: I know the larger size is required
9 for mitigation. Instead of a 6-foot, is it a 10-foot? I'm
10 sorry. I can't remember from the Land Use Code. I can look
11 that up in the Land Use Code while we're talking though.
12 MS. SCHMIDT: It's going to be larger than the
13 standard tree that could go there?
14 MS. MILEWSKI: We do the mitigation tree there,
15 which is our plan, we would do -- there's is minimum height
16 in the Land Use Code for even those taller trees.
17 MS. SCHMIDT: Because I thought usually the
18 mitigation was like a two -for -one, not necessarily size.
19 MS. MILEWSKI: Well, it's a number issue, true,
20 with the trees you put in. So we're meeting the quantities
21 for mitigation that were required, but those mitigation trees
22 are actually sized larger than the standard tree for
23 development that you would put in.
24 So, for deciduous trees, I think it's a two and a
25 half -inch caliper to a three-inch caliper, and then for the
125
1 evergreen, 8 to 10, or rather, 6 to 8. Honestly, if you
2 think it's an issue, we would be interested or willing to
3 look at an even taller, even taller than the 8 to 10 if needed.
4 needed. We want to be sure we're adequately buffering those
5 residences, and that is the goal. That's the goal Ted has
6 had, and we've been in a lot of discussions about that. It's
7 very densely planted at this point.
8 MS. ROLLINS: Was the medical office building
9 located closer to Garfield to give that distance between the
10 neighborhood -- I mean, you could've brought it up much
11 closer, and then you wouldn't really have any transition, per
12 se, at all. You could've had the parking closer to Garfield.
13 MS. MILEWSKI: Well, the intent was to locate it as
14 far north as possible. The Land Use Code requires that as
15 well. There are minimum setbacks for corner lots, and so it
16 works both our intent and from meeting the requirements and
17 the intent of the Land Use Code.
18 MS. ROLLINS: How will construction located in the
19 block -- on the parcel that it's located rather than on the
20 southern parcel? Just to tuck that up closer to the
21 commercial medical office, make it more internal to that E
22 Zone?
23 MS. MILEWSKI: Much more appropriate there, yes.
24 MS. ROLLINS: Thank you.
25 MS. SCHMIDT: Angie, one of the neighbors had
126
1 made a statement about the medical office building and that
2 there was 30,000 square feet up for grabs, so to speak. I
3 was just wondering then, how do you determine parking and
4 then traffic that would be generated by space you don't know
5 who the tenants are going to be?
6 MR. CAMPANA: Do you know the size of the building
7 that's getting torn down?
8 MS. MILEWSKI: The a one-story building. Kevin
9 thinks it's 10,000 square feet, it shows.
10 MR. SMITH: So that would, in effect, be adding
11 50,000 square feet?
12 MS. MILEWSKI: That's correct. To answer your
13 question about the tenant mix, just, again, to tell you what
14 the tenant mix is. The Women's Clinic is the largest, the
15 primary tenant at 20,000 of a 60,000 square foot building.
16 It's intended for some Poudre Valley Hospital administration
17 offices to be located there.
18 And then we have 30,000 square feet of other
19 medical office tenants unknown. And we talked about this,
20 the like uses, the intent is that we have similar medical
21 office, doctor, physician uses at the Women's Clinic to make
22 this a synergy, you know, a health and medical office
23 building. It's based on square feet in total. It's based on
24 square feet and then the use.
25 So, regardless of who those tenants are, they will,
127
1 under the Land Use Code designate or be allowed -- we are
2 allowed to give them the same amount of parking based on the
3 square footage regardless of what the tenant mix is. So,
4 much less than 270, and the intent there is we can then have
5 that surface lot available for patients and visitors.
6 And then, because of our connection to the parking
7 structure, the staff will use the parking structure to use
8 the balance of that space, and that helps. Because, again,
9 the parking structure, from a traffic standpoint, is exiting
10 on Lemay. There was concerns that the surface parking here,
11 actually has exits on Garfield and a concern that may be more
12 trips.
13 There was mention of so many trips per day
14 generated with patients visits coming in and out of this
15 area, and coming down Garfield, will help. They're likely to
16 come and go from the major arterial, not through cut -through
17 streets. And, again, the staff will be in the parking
18 structure and using Lemay because that's where it's focused.
19 MR. LINGLE: Angie, or maybe, Ted. I don't know if
20 this would be a question for you, but another issue brought
21 up by the neighborhood was the reliability of the fact that
22 this parking structure is being justified, that it's positive
23 that it's for the staff only, and what would happen to
24 make it a public lot or a shared lot or something like that?
25 would that trigger a major amendment or it's simply just an
M
1 operational thing, and we have no control over that decision?
2 MR. STANFORD: I think we do have control, as we
3 have stated at the neighborhood meeting when it came up. It
4 is our intention to designate this parking structure as
5 operational, staff only, nonpublic parking lot. If that is
6 to change in the future, an amendment will be required.
7 At that time, we have to ask ourselves, is it a
8 minor amendment that would be referred to the board or is it
9 a major amendment? We don't know yet. We haven't crossed
10 that bridge, but it's our opinion that an amendment would be
11 required.
12 MR. LINGLE: Okay.
13 MS. MILEWSKI: It's not only just an analysis of
14 impact, but one of the speakers mentioned that we have
15 shorter parking spaces than are allowed. They're still
16 allowed by Code, that size of parking space, but it's not the
17 standard used. It's used for long term spaces, specifically
18 for employees.
19 And the Land Use Code allows us to do smaller
20 spaces for long-term employees, because they're coming in
21 there everyday. They know how to negotiate these smaller
22 spaces rather than a first-time user. So the engineering
23 standards allow us to these smaller ones. If we were to
24 suddenly convert this to public, not only would it be a
25 change in use, but we wouldn't meet those parking standards
129
1 anymore. That is not the intent to make that a public lot
2 right now.
3 MR. CAMPANA: I've got a question on the parking on
4 the MOB, the office building, which you are going to be
5 adding in. If you have 50,000 square feet remaining, do you
6 have a concern with 129 spaces being adequate for patient
7 parking for 50,000 square feet?
8 MS. MILEWSKI: Well, sure.
9 MR. CAMPANA: Well, where will they park? I thought
10 the justification for the parking structure is to eliminate
11 parking on Garfield, and now we're going to create another
12 problem then? In my experience with medical office
13 buildings, it's four and a half to one, maximum. Many times
14 is tough to get it to work. Now, I realize that all of your
15 staff is going to be parking in the structure, so four and a
16 half to one isn't the right ratio to use. It's three or
17 lower, but have you considered that?
18 MS. MILEWSKI: We don't know the ratios, but two
19 things are working for us, and we are getting all the staff
20 and employees in the parking structure off that site, but
21 also the administration piece of the tenant mix will help as
22 well. Again, we're getting closer to that 4.5 at the 130
23 spaces that we're showing. There is on -street parking
24 allowed in front of this site on Garfield. I think the most
25 important thing is the Land Use Code does not allow us
130
1 overbuild parking. That's part of the intent of the Code,
2 and so, we want to make sure that we are building enough
3 parking, but we can't overbuild parking. We can't exceed
4 those numbers by nature of the Code.
5 MR. CAMPANA: I fully understand that. I just think
6 there's some data out there. I mean, there are statistics
7 out there, depending on what use is going into that building.
8 If it's the Women's Clinic or a pediatrician or whatever your
9 uses are, depending on how many patients you are going to see
10 per hour. I would like to see some numbers put on there. At
11 least some thought put into that, because, right now, you are
12 just over 2 to 1, and that's going to be tough.
13 MR. BARBER: Could I answer that? My name is Dean
14 Barber, and I'm working with Poudre Valley Health Systems to
15 help them develop the medical office building. And I've
16 developed multiple medical office buildings. That's a great
17 question, and I think from the standpoint of the 50,000
18 square feet is the industry standard. Usually, when we look
19 at the medical staff, the patient ratio, it's about half of
20 that. With four and a half, that would be about two, two and
21 a quarter on a 15,000 square feet. That's right around that
22 110 to 120, or 130 spaces. So, we feel, based on traditional
23 models that we've got for this complex, and that's also
24 assuming that it's a high OB critical medical. There will be
25 some diagnostics. There will be some spaces probably that
131
1 have less than 10 different patients that travel, other than
2 the Women's Clinic. The Women's Clinic will, quite
3 obviously, be probably the highest traffic in and out of the
4 structure, but that count, that is two to two and quarter per
5 1,000, and that's also on there, which is a little bit less
6 than gross.
7 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you, Dean. One other
8 issue before we leave the neighborhood concerns, kind of a
9 broad issue that we heard several times was the possibility
10 of structuring the patient parking lots and building over
11 that, or building staff parking over a ground level patient
12 lot. Did you look at that? Is it cost prohibitive? Did you
13 look at that?
14 MS. MILEWSKI: Well, first, to have the structure
15 makes (inaudible) of the site for the hospital's planning. I
16 fully understand that there is just some data out there,
17 depending on planning and the future growth of that facility,
18 it makes sense in an outlying area, but on this site. It's
19 too far away (inaudible.) It's far enough away that it's not
20 as convenient, so it won't be as much use as some of the
21 surface areas. And, again, on the east side (inaudible) and
22 takes away the potential for surface use. Second,
23 (inaudible) I might even have Jim -- (inaudible)
24 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I think if we're really going
25 to be looking at in -fill in town, you know we will probably
132
1
have the
same sort of issues. That's the whole idea behind
2
in -fill,
is to start finding solutions from those. But I do
3
have a question on -- if you could kind of give us -- someone
4
asked a
question about the hospital land, sort of the north
5
there.
I think it's that reddish color. It's sort of hard
6
for us to
see.
7
MS. MILEWSKI: Parts of it are. I think they are
8
smaller,
disjointed pieces. None of them are large enough
9
parcel to
do something like a parking structure today.
10
MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. And what about the other red
11
piece a
little higher there?
12
MS. MILEWSKI: Here?
13
MS. SCHMIDT: Yeah.
14
MS. MILEWSKI: That is north of Elizabeth Street.
15
I don't
think there are any properties that I am aware of.
16
MS. SCHMIDT: So that's nothing owned by the
17
hospital
then?
18
MS .MILEWSKI: No. One small office building is.
19
MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. I guess another question I had
20
is what
is the major concern -- you know, working at CSU and
21
being on
their parking committee, I certainly hear about
22
parking
issues morning, noon, and night. It seems like
23
there's
a major concern to get the employees' parking really
24
close to
their building.
25
You know, we're also planning on putting a parking
133
1 garage on campus, but it will be quite some distance for most
2 people to have to park and walk to their offices. So, I
3 mean, I'm seeing a lot of options on the site, on the
4 property, but granted, they're not right across the street
5 from the office. So is there a particular reason why that's
6 a necessity or --
7 MS. MILEWSKI: I mean, there are a couple reasons,
8 to the response I would have. You know, one, is we are
9 trying to really -- this is a good plan, because it really
10 retains our compact urban growth pattern. There were a lot
11 of comments tonight I think about not sort of marching these
12 larger structures further west closer to neighborhoods. This
13 is a chance for us again, to put this (inaudible).
14 It's an intensely planned -- you know a parking
15 structure is an intensely planned project, and it has height
16 to it. And to put that immediately adjacent to a
17 neighborhood on the east side where the detention ponds are,
18 where it's directly affecting the western views of the
19 neighbors.
20 And it may be a different zoning, but those are
21 still houses. Those are homes there, and that would be, in
22 our opinion, much more of an impact than putting the parking
23 structure right on Lemay, right adjacent to the hospital.
24 Plus, it's simply the convenience too. It enables us to have
25 a covered, weatherproof walkway for the safety and staff
134
1 convenience. We have night shift workers who travel through
2 there at night, and it's a certainly a good design from the
3 hospital standpoint.
4 MR. UNGER: Mostly, it is for the safety of the
5 employees. We do run a 24-hour shift, and so we have
6 employees coming in and out all night long. So wanted to
7 make sure that it was close. We didn't want to put anybody
8 in any jeopardy having to walk any distance in between the
9 hospital and the parking structure, just because of the
10 nature of the hospital itself.
11 MR. LINGLE: Any other questions? Okay. Thanks,
12 Angie. I guess it's time for us to debate, and I would like
13 to ask -- I think, for us to start our discussion, it would
14 be most appropriate for us to have a motion on the table, and
15 then we can discuss from that point. Yes, Paul?
16 MR. ECKMAN: There is, procedurally, an opportunity
17 for the staff also to respond to what it has heard in both
18 the applicant's rebuttal and also in the public testimony,
19 and I think that Cameron had something to say, and I do, I
20 know.
21 MR. LINGLE: Oh, okay.
22 MR. ECKMAN: I would be happy to start. There was
23 a comment in the public discussion made by a Mr. Mack. Is it
24 Mr. Mack? Regarding the possibility that I might have
25 attempted to muzzle the board members or council members and
135
1 also regarding that comment that I was alleged to have made
2 to the board at a work session. And although I don't
3 particularly want to rise to too much of a debate with regard
4 to that, I think that there ought to be some clarification.
5 And I think this muzzling issue is one that we have
6 always been concerned about with regard to ex parte contact.
7 And my purpose in advising board members and council members
8 also not to have out of this hearing, contact with either the
9 applicant or with the proponents, is that if you have such a
10 contact, it can cause a bias.
11 It can cause that board member who had that contact
12 to be unable to render an impartial decision and would
13 therefore have to recuse themselves from participation. And
14 I don't think that it's in the best interest of the City that
15 any board member or council member get themselves into that
16 type of a situation because we need as full of a board as
17 possible to make these decisions.
18 So that's the real reason why we don't like that.
19 It would be much the same as if there were a plaintiff and
20 defendant in court suing, and the plaintiff goes to a
21 restaurant and sees the judge having lunch with the
22 defendant. It wouldn't be a good situation for the judge to
23 be in. And the judge would probably have to recuse himself,
24 and we would have to get a different judge to hear that case.
25 That's why that advice is consistently given by our
136
1 office. With regard to the comment that there was -- that I
2 had said there was no way that I would countenance a group of
3 homeowners to stand in the way of this project. I listened
4 to that, and I thought, Wow, that doesn't sound like me. But
5 I do remember, though, discussing at that time, we had a
6 condition that is irrelevant tonight, but it was part of the
7 staff report back then.
8 It required the hospital, as a condition of
9 approval, to go and get an agreement with a neighbor to the
10 north regarding snow removal. That was the condition, and my
11 view of that condition was that that would be more likely to
12 be a denial than an approval. Although, it would look like
13 an approval. We approved the plan on the condition that this
14 condition would never be met unless that neighbor signed an
15 agreement, which the neighbor would not have to do.
16 And that to me is what I would think of an
17 abdication of governmental authority to a neighbor, and those
18 kinds of conditions, whether they flow in one direction or
19 another, I think are impossible. Because the decision has to
20 one that can be made by this board without there being some
21 control from a third party that is outside of the context of
22 the Land Use Code and your hearing and your analysis.
23 So I was only saying at that time that we needed to
24 reword the condition, that we if were going to have such a
25 condition, it would have to be reworded in such a way that it
137
1 wouldn't abdicate your decision to a neighbor who would then
2 have full control over whether your approval really was an
3 approval or not. And, obviously, I was misunderstood at that
4 time by Mr. Mack, and I apologize for that.
5 MR. GLOSS: There were some other comments related
6 to potential concerns over the hospital at some point
7 converting all or part of the employee parking spaces to
8 public parking. And I think the board expressed concern over
9 that conversion potential in the future.
10 You may want to consider a condition of approval,
11 which you are authorized to do, under the compatibility
12 standards of the code, to ensure compliance to require at
13 this time that the hospital maintain parking spaces for
14 employees only. Then, if the hospital at some point in the
15 future, wanted to make an amendment, they would have to come
16 back through a formal process, and then that would be very
17 clearly stated as your intent this evening, if you chose to
18 do that.
19 The other comment I had was related to Mr. Harter's
20 concerns about the size of the parking stalls within the
21 parking structure, and he specifically cited the width and
22 length of the stalls as shown on the plan as 9 feet by 18.
23 And those stalls would be compliant with our standards.
24 They are considered to be long-term parking spaces,
25 as the case you have with employee parking lots, and it can
138
1 be as small as 8 and a half feet in width by 19 -- pardon me,
2 18 feet in length. So we have a condition here where these
3 parking spaces would meet the standard as they've been shown
4 on the development plans.
5 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Thank you. All right. Anyone
6 prepared to make a motion or a preference to discuss this
7 first or what?
8 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess my preference would be to
9 discuss it a little bit. Just from the standpoint, I have
10 some very mixed points of views on this, and I guess I can
11 certainly see the comments from the one side that people feel
12 they're very justified for putting these things in this
13 particular zone because that is what it's zoned.
14 I think if we want to go by the letter of the law,
15 there are statements in the code that also address different
16 things, such as the compatibility. And I think, too,
17 whenever you're at the edge of the zone -- you know, we're
18 talking especially the medical office building. It's going
19 to the maximum height that's allowed in the employment zone,
20 and it's at the very edge of the employment zone. And I
21 don't know if that's how we always plan for our zones to
22 work.
23 That one stops and the other starts. I mean, the
24 code already says that when an employment or industrial use
25 abuts a residential area there shall be no drastic or abrupt
139
1 change in scale and height of buildings. When you're going
2 to a one-story ranch to a large four-story building, that's
3 an abrupt change. And I certainly agree, the hospital has
4 its needs and it has its plans.
5 I guess some of the things that I would've hoped to
6 see is that those uses could remain on those sites, but you
7 could have a three-story medical office building there . You
8 could have a smaller medical office building on the other
9 side where the parking structure is.
10 And then, on the other location, somewhere, you
11 could have designed a parking garage that was the smaller
12 uses, like blood banks or something in the bottom, sort of
13 like they do in Old Town with the restaurants. Some of those
14 small scale medical uses, they can also be part of a parking
15 garage structure.
16 And, you know, I certainly recognize the hospital
17 has the land for that particular purpose, that they want to
18 use it for employment, and I think that's a totally
19 legitimate use. I just think that it's sort of max'ing out
20 what the zone allows right on the edge of the zone. I always
21 have difficulty with that. And that's not only from the
22 standpoint of the medical office building, because I think
23 it's very large.
24 From the parking garage, I do feel that they're
25 going to be traffic impacts that are really going to change
140
1 the nature of that neighborhood, and I think that's also in
2 the plan as far as, you know, trying to maintain the
3 neighborhoods as such, because I think it's difficult to
4 maintain a neighborhood when you change the traffic situation
5 in it. It changes the whole character of it. So that's what
6 I've offered for discussion. I would like to hear your
7 feedback on that.
8 MR. STOCKOVER: I would say this is a tough one.
9 It's just a really hard decision to make, and I went out
10 there and visited that site numerous times. I was very glad
11 we were able to go out there as a group. I took the plans
12 and I stood at every corner of every building. I went
13 downtown and stood beside the parking garage downtown, and
14 then I went back out there and stood at the corners of the
15 building again.
16 At first thought, I really was very concerned, and
17 every time I made a visit, that fear level went down. And
18 it's never an easy decision, and we, as the board, do not
19 take this lightly. I have to say, when everybody says, the
20 city this, the city that. We are the city. Everyone of us
21 in the room, everyone of us up here.
22 I've been on the board for two years. I was on
23 Planning & Zoning Board of Appeal before that for my entire
24 eight years. So I do have a little bit of a background in
25 this, but I always come to this looking at it from the
141
1 citizen's point of view, because that's what we are. We are
2 a citizen's board.
3 And on this one, I feel totally comfortable. This
4 is the right thing to do. It's a very hard decision to make
5 because the group that showed up is the most impacted, but I
6 think, as a city, we need to maintain the viability of the
7 hospital, and I keep going back out there and standing on
8 those corners and saying, Could I live with this if I owned
9 one of those houses? And my answer truly has to be, yes, I
10 could live with this, and that's the position -- and that's
11 my conclusion in a nutshell.
12 MS. ROLLINS: Okay. Well, as everybody at the work
13 session knows right now, I was extremely concerned about
14 traffic. The where -- you know, the young woman here that
15 did the memo, she made some really good points in the report
16 that the original impact study that there was no neighborhood
17 analysis in that whatsoever.
18 Now, since I got that, I was provided by the city
19 with some daily traffic volume counts, the appendices to the
20 traffic impact study, and I feel a lot more comfortable.
21 However, I would really like to see some kind of a condition
22 in there that the -- as the City works to evaluate these
23 local streets and local connector streets, that one of the
24 very first things that they consider is limiting the use of
25 Robertson Street entrance and exit into the parking
142
1 structure. Okay?
2 Because if that is only for emergency situations,
3 or if there is something that happens at Doctor's Lane and
4 Lemay Avenue, that will actually probably decrease traffic in
5 this neighborhood because, right now, there's 200-something
6 cars that can go to that parking lot and utilize that
7 cut -through potentially.
8 So, if we eliminate that completely, I would have
9 no motivation to cut through that neighborhood whatsoever,
10 because I get to Garfield and Lemay and I need to make a left
11 turn, and I need to immediately make another left turn into
12 the parking structure. So I would like to see a guarantee
13 that the City would look at that, and that would be one of
14 the very first things they would do. That would really,
15 really have a beneficial impact on this neighborhood.
16 The speeds, the 85th percentile speed, I've done
17 many, many, many speed studies on local streets, and nearly
18 all of them look exactly like this, as Ward would probably
19 attest to. Every single local street out there probably has
20 85th percentile speeds, local streets with 25 miles per hour
21 at 35 miles per hour, some less. That's probably the top
22 end, but that's very, very typical. I don't know how many
23 times I drive down by own street and look down, and I'm going
24 35 miles per hour and don't even realize it.
25 And typically, the people that are speeding on
143
1 those streets are the neighbors, because we're used to our
2 streets. So I thought that you brought up some exceptionally
3 good points in that, but after I reviewed some more
4 information, I'm very, very comfortable as long as we have
5 that one condition, that one of the very first things that's
6 done is the Robertson Street access to that parking structure
7 is used only for emergency situations.
8 MR. SMITH: Dave, can I ask two clarifying
9 questions of staff, please?
10 MR. LINGLE: Sure.
11 MR. SMITH: First of all, I'm wondering, in one of
12 the light shadow standards, it states that creating glare
13 such as sunlight or artificial lighting at night is a
14 concern. Is there any type of analysis? Is there anything
15 that is ever done to look for sun glare along these windows
16 if you're in the backyard of one of those housesm, in the
17 middle of the day that the sun would blind you if you were
18 looking north?
19 And then the second question might be for Angie.
20 The image that you put up with the neighborhood scale with
21 the east/west section, it was from the north. Is
22 there anything that would show that from the south looking
23 over those single family residences.
24 MS. MILEWSKI: Are you talking about the visual
25 analysis, the photo before and after?
144
1 MR. SMITH: No. It wasn't a photo. It was one
2 that you said we actually had, and I couldn't find it, so we
3 may have it and I missed it. It's titled "Neighborhood
4 Scale," and it says, "East/West Section," again approximate
5 cross-section? Yeah. It's looking like it's the north and I
6 was wondering if there is one that is looking from the south?
7 MS. MILEWSKI: I don't believe we have that
8 particular viewpoint in the documents now.
9 MR. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. And then the
10 question about glare analysis, if there is such a thing.
11 MR. STANFORD: No. There isn't. We can work with
12 the applicant about certain window coverings, and I know that
13 building does have overhangs. So I think it's something that
14 we can work on during the final plan, nonreflective-type
15 commercial windows, but, no, there is no glare analysis per
16 se.
17 MR. SMITH: How is that ever measured then? I
18 mean, is it?
19 MR. STANFORD: It's rarely measured. It's been the
20 code for a long time, and I've never done a glare analysis.
21 MR. ECKMAN: I might suggest, I suppose you know
22 what code section we're talking about, 351 (E) 2 about glare,
23 and if you're concerned about glare, you could under 351 (J)
24 impose a condition on the approval that would require that
25 the windows be addressed for glare at the time of the final
145
1 approval to make sure that some kind of mechanism -- I'm not
2 coming up with the magical words, Ted, but be presented to
3 the staff for approval at final.
4 MR. LINGLE: Also, Andy, not the glass type that is
5 being proposed would not potentially be a problem, but one of
6 the things the Land Use Code has done is restrict the use of
7 reflective or mirrored glass that you used to see a lot in
8 the 1960s and 1970s that did create a lot of glare and
9 reflective problems and things like that. Yeah, Dean?
10 MR. BARBER: One of the things that we did take
11 into consideration for this particular incident, if you
12 notice, both the upper level windows above the third story
13 windows and although it's difficult to see, those windows
14 have an overhang contemplated with them, which will reduce
15 solar gain on the windows, thus reducing the amount of
16 reflectivity, direct sunlight, that will hit those windows,
17 both for the comfort inside the building as well as
18 reflectivity back onto the parking lots, and I guess all the
19 way back to the residential area.
20 MS. MILEWSKI: And this also applies to the visual
21 connection you're concerned about, Brigitte, and you're
22 talking about. Also keep in mind the 35 feet is to the top
23 of the roof. The four-story building is lower than that, and
24 they're recessed behind, and we have the overhang there. So
25 there is that visual connection across, and we are just
146
1 trying to do a quick sketch in the triangle of how a house
2 175 feet away and where the buffer would be for those trees.
3 And whether you would see that windows at all. Again if we
4 use those tall trees, it's in the view line of those top
5 windows of that building. So if that buffer is in place, you
6 won't see any of those windows from the eye level of the
7 house, the nearest house.
8 MS. SCHMIDT: Let me just ask because it looks like
9 an overhang. There is no railing, but that is not balcony
10 out there on the top, is it?
11 A I don't believe that's a balcony, no. On this
12 right face? No.
13 MS: SCHMIDT: Okay.
14 MR. LINGLE: Ruth, I just want to follow up on your
15 comments to make sure I understand you. Your comfort level
16 or the fact that you're comfortable now with the traffic
17 analysis and the patterns are dependent on the Robertson
18 access being emergency only or did I misunderstand you?
19 MS. ROLLINS: Well, I'm fine with that, too. I was
20 going to leave it up to City Staff and Ward. You know, with
21 a neighborhood analysis, he's got some right from Jim, and so
22 if this parking structure opens, and the Robertson access is
23 still open, and he goes out and he does a follow-up study of
24 that and finds that there are increases on these local
25 streets in excess of the 12 percent, I was asking that the
147
1 very first thing that's done is that the Robertson Street
2 access garage entrance and exit be closed. I'm very
3 comfortable with it being closed, and an emergency access
4 from the very get -go.
5 MR. LINGLE: But are you requiring that for your
6 support?
7 MS. ROLLINS: No. Well, I just want to know that
8 -- I don't how I would phrase it. But I just want to know
9 that is the first thing that the City would do because a lot
10 of these other measures are good measures, but that is fairly
11 rock solid. That will really, really eliminate a large
12 percentage --
13 MS. SCHMIDT: You are saying that will have to
14 redesign the entrance on Doctor's Lane?
15 MS. ROLLINS: Then I say that they need to
16 redesign. If that's the case, then they need to redesign the
17 entrance on Doctor's Lane and make it bigger. I think that's
18 a small thing to have to do in order to ensure this
19 neighborhood that these impacts are well below that 12
20 percent threshold. So be it, if that's what is necessary. I
21 know that Angie alluded to the fact that may be necessary.
22 I'm not sure she has a plan and an analysis of without that
23 access point, it has to be this. But whatever it has to be.
24 MS. MILEWSKI: And we will look at it very quickly,
25 because it was just brought up last night. So we haven't
148
1 done a redesign but it's -- I think there's a couple ways
2 that we could look at it, and there may be more than one
3 solution. It may require widening it to get an extra lane,
4 and we may be able to get that additional stacking inside the
5 structure again, just like we talked about moving the gates
6 back.
7 So I think there are a couple design solutions
8 there we will certainly look at, and we would be willing to
9 work with City Staff, again if it becomes an issue and as one
10 of the first mitigation measures that we put in place. We
11 can make sure that the design now could have that happen in
12 the future.
13 MS. ROLLINS: And if it's something that has to be
14 done, and I'm glad that you brought that up about the
15 Doctor's Lane. If it has to be done now, then we might as
16 well make that Robertson entrance/exit an emergency exit from
17 the get -go so that we know for a fact that the Doctor's Lane
18 at Lemay access point into the parking structure works
19 extremely well.
20 I also looked at stacking all around here, because
21 I was very concerned when I got back the worksheets, and the
22 stacking looks really, really good. I'm not saying that
23 traffic is going to be fantastic, but stacking for adjacent
24 looks really nice. I guess I would make it a condition
25 from the very get -go.
149
1 MS. MILEWSKI: And we can agree. We can make sure
2 that parking structure is designed to internally -- the
3 intersection to allow that potential to happen in the future
4 that becomes an emergency only use. So, again, I don't think
5 that it's something -- that is not our first preference, but
6 it's something that we could look at and make it something
7 that is available as an opportunity in the future.
8 MR. LINGLE: While we're talking about that, I'm
9 still a little uncomfortable with the operational dependence
10 on -- or dependency to make the occasional visitor, a patient
11 that pulls in there to get them back out onto Lemay. I'm not
12 saying this very well, but I'm uncomfortable with the
13 maneuvers that they would have to make in order to escape.
14 And I would be much more comfortable in this redesign of the
15 access off of Doctor's Lane, if there was an escape lane that
16 would allow them to go straight on through and get out onto
17 Garfield. Instead of -- whether they can do a U-turn or
18 whatever happens.
19 They're going to park there until a security guy
20 notices them and lifts the gate and lets them circulate
21 through, and then they don't know where they're going. All
22 of those things add up to stacking problems out onto Lemay or
23 illegal back-up movements or something.
24 You know, if we're depending on signs first, and
25 then a U-turn, and who knows if they would be able to make
150
1 that maneuver. I think if we're going to ask them to -- you
2 know, we're going to recondition this to a redesign that as
3 far as final plan, I think that needs to be looked at a
4 little stronger.
5 I don't know if it's deal killer in my mind, but
6 I'm just very uncomfortable. Because I think, especially to
7 hear testimony from some of the doctors that say they have
8 patients that come in from Nebraska and Wyoming and eastern
9 Colorado.
10 I think whether they prefer not to park in a
11 parking structure or not, when they're coming down Lemay, and
12 they see a parking structure, their inclination is, that is
13 where they need to go. And for them to then figure out,
14 Okay. I'm supposed to go to Doctor's Lane. Where is that?
15 Oh, I'm already past it.
16 And all of the things that are inherent in all of
17 those decisions that somebody that is unfamiliar with Fort
18 Collins has to make, I think we need to try to help those
19 people out as much as we can. And, if we can do that through
20 the redesign in the final compliance plan, I would like to
21 see that happen. Any comments down here?
22 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. I'll also say that I've been
23 wrestling with this for a time period here, and my initial
24 reaction was there needs to be some transition from the
25 largest building possible in that zoning to the residential.
151
1 But as I continued to go out there, and both you and I sat in
2 on the City Plan update, and at that time, I think that Ralph
3 Waldo put it best tonight.
4 You know, we elected not to push out the GMA for
5 growth, and that was unanimous. We were going to do a lot of
6 redevelopment, and a lot of the end result was going to be
7 like this, this uncomfortable feeling, of four and five -story
8 buildings next to residential was something that we were
9 going to accept. We weren't going to push out the GMA. And
10 this is one of the first projects, but I think we're going
11 see a lot if we're going to live by City Plan. I don't know,
12 so I'm going to support it.
13 MS. SCHMIDT: You know, I agree on that. I think
14 that's my whole point is that, I would bet, probably still
15 within my lifetime, we'll see parking garages and higher
16 structures on the east side of the hospital. If they're
17 going to redevelop as a regional center now, if the quality
18 of care stays the way it is, you're going to have more
19 patients, and parking is not going to be adequate for them.
20 And they are also going to want to improve their
21 facilities. And that's the wave of the future, and I think
22 that almost any hospital you go to has a parking garage. And
23 I think that is what the hospital is saving that land for, so
24 they can develop it more fully with all of the other things
25 they want to do.
152
1 I think this is definitely going to happen, but
2 that's why I think it's important to commit to use those
3 appropriately and be in -fill in the whole range, and I think
4 the people who live on the east side of the hospital, if they
5 think this is going to stay surface parking for long.
6 I don't know what is going to happen, but that is
7 why I think it's important to use your zoning carefully, and
8 I guess my concern is still I think that person has got a
9 point of trying to shift more of the traffic, because we're
10 going to have to keep looking to the future on the east side
11 to try to find what Lemay can only handle, tolerate so much,
12 to find a way to push that traffic to Riverside and head it
13 down, to use the Riverside/Prospect intersection, not the
14 Lemay/Prospect so much.
15 So those kind of overall -- you know, it's just
16 like we talked about -- regional planning and everything
17 else. For I-25 and a center of this nature that is so large
18 and attracts people from so far, really needs to do a lot
19 more regional planning, because people are coming from the
20 interstate all the time, so all of these kind of folks can
21 get to it. We should put a hotel somewhere. Get somewhere
22 for all the relatives to be staying. But you look at all
23 kinds of other things that you're going to be thinking about
24 in the future, so that is why it is important that we do the
25 best planning that we can.
153
1 I'm willing to -- I guess, feel if there are some
2 true mitigations, as far as I think the Robertson Street is
3 really important, because my real concern is, you know, you
4 build everything hoping the traffic is going to be all right.
5 Well, if it isn't, it's sort of a done deal. Here, we have a
6 way to correct it, and I think we should really and to me,
7 the trees would be a really important thing to buffer that
8 neighborhood.
9 And I think the design of the building, that's a
10 very good job there to really help and do the different
11 scale. And seeing this photograph of it makes me feel a lot
12 better than the original photograph that I saw, as far as
13 what it was going to look like, you know, for the neighbors,
14 so I feel better about that.
15 MR. LINGLE: Jim?
16 MR. WETZLER: I want to address, there has been
17 some discussion about employee security. About a year ago.
18 We lost a brilliant surgeon, Manning, an orthopedic surgeon
19 he lived here in Fort Collins and worked in Greeley. Well,
20 one fine day at lunchtime, and he crossed the street, and
21 didn't make it all the way because somebody mashed him.
22 To me, that's the first thing that I thought of
23 when I saw this design, was the inherent benefit for those
24 employees who are crossing that street every day. I
25 guarantee you, if there is a dry walkway path, those people
154
1 will go to that third floor and cross the street, that
2 walkway, because it puts them right where they need to be
3 anyway.
4 And it's inherent. It's not like it used to be.
5 You've got to lock your doors now, and you lock your car to
6 either keep it from ripping it off or emptying it before you
7 get back. And not to mention the fact that this is a 24-hour
8 operation. And these employees, if I'm depending on him
9 getting there, I would rather not have him rolled on his way
10 to and from the parking lot in the middle of the night.
11 To me, that's one of the first things that occurred
12 to me in a 24-hour operation, is those people are in jeopardy,
13 and they don't really need to be if there is a way to remedy
14 that. And at least, somehow, limit their exposure. I like
15 that idea of that close -in parking, and the inherit security
16 that it provides.
17 As far as the abrupt change, you know, I lived
18 across the street from Fort Collins High School, the Old Fort
19 Collins High School, right across the street, and I can't say
20 that abrupt change really bothered me or any of the neighbor
21 because the neighborhood had kind of moved in around it when
22 they built that thing, and it's not an uncomfortable
23 experience. Changes happens. Changes are made, and I think
24 the hospital's design has made every effort possible to
25 mitigate that by moving that to the north of the Women's
155
1 Center, as north as possible as they could to get away from
2 that neighborhood.
3 There is quite a buffer in there, in place. There
4 would be, I think a real advantage in the stipulation of
5 window coverings to mitigate the light emissions after hours
6 if that's a concern with the sunlight. But the emission of
7 the light at night after hours; close the window coverings.
8 And the other thing is that relocation of the
9 second entrance to Doctor's Lane, really, I think is a great
10 idea. So with those window coverings and relocation of the
11 second access, I would support the whole thing. I think it's
12 a great design and everything that's been raised, as far as
13 compliance with the concerns, to me, have been addressed with
14 a willing attitude.
15 I don't see Poudre Valley Health Systems being
16 stubborn, stiff, unwilling to mitigate, mediate, and
17 compromise. And I think you could probably could depend on
18 them to be -- I think they have a real genuine interest in
19 being part of the community and being a good neighbor, so
20 I like it.
21 MR. LINGLE: Anything else?
22 MR. SMITH: I think at a gut level there has been
23 actually a lot of comments that made me uncomfortable
24 tonight, and I do wish that Poudre Valley Health Systems
25 would have looked at some land more further north.
156
1 I think it would've been easier, but that said,
2 they've got property rights, over their strategic plan
3 that they decided this piece of property was the best for
4 their business case to move over there. So it comes down to
5 our purview, which is the code.
6 So my evaluation is really limited to that. I
7 struggled with it -- I struggled with the standard for
8 4.27(E)1(B) where an employment use will not abut the scale
9 and height of buildings. But I think that what I've come
10 across is the section that's in -- what is it? Bear with me,
11 if you don't mind -- 3.51(H) the land use transition section
12 out of the code where, "land uses with significantly
13 different uses set forth in the division, blah, blah, blah."
14 And so, when we get into the compatibility issues,
15 it actually does call for some of the landscaping, I think as
16 far as the condition of approval, is that I think that as many
17 trees, as mature as possible, on that fence line need to be
18 included.
19 The traffic issues I think were not an issue for
20 me. I think at first they were, but they've been resolved,
21 but I would like to see the mitigation measures that we
22 talked about in the residences that we've talked about in the
23 things that we've addressed, and how the MOB is compatible or
24 not with the residential neighborhood to the south.
25 And that land use transition section in 3.51(H)
157
1 does address when these significantly different visual
2 character buildings are proposed, what types of remedies are
3 available to the developer to achieve compatibility. And I
4 think that, you know -- I'm not real comfortable with this
5 all around, but based on a purview that I'm probably going to
6 go ahead and support the proposal.
7 MS. SCHMIDT: So Paul, if we were to add a
8 condition about the -- from what I heard Jim saying, the
9 glare and also the lighting effects of the building on the
10 residences how would we go about that? Do we need to cite
11 that section of the Code?
12 MR. ECKMAN: We've been working on that, Cameron
13 and I, and, as a matter of fact, not knowing how this motion
14 might go. It could be a motion for denial or for approval.
15 If it's denial, we don't need conditions. If it's approval,
16 we do have at least two conditions. One, Cameron has for
17 glare, and the other that we talked about here.
18 And I think it's important, would be the one
19 regarding employee parking only, because this purports to be
20 long-term parking, and that's why the parking spaces of 18
21 feet long, fit, because it's long-term parking. And I think
22 we ought to make it clear that must be for employee
23 parking, and it can't be changed for anything else, then I
24 believe this code requires 19 foot spaces, if I'm not
25 mistaken. So Cameron's got some conditions in mind, and
158
1 there was also some talk about Robertson Street, which I will
2 let Cameron address for you.
3 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. Because I guess I'm willing to
4 make a motion with Cameron's conditions coming up, but I
5 think four, maybe three or four conditions, basically, the
6 employee only, the closure at Robertson for use of the
7 emergency use only, dealing with mitigating the glare and
8 privacy issues on the building through the large tress or
9 whatever measures they have. I don't know if those would be
10 separate, other glare mitigation, or do you think they could
11 be achieved in one? I guess that I would like to make them
12 separate.
13 MR. GLOSS: I think you would want to separate
14 those. They are really separate sections in the Land Use
15 Code.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: So do you have recommendations for
17 some of those?
18 MR. GLOSS: I have some text here that I could read
19 into the record, if that would be helpful. "With respect to
20 glare, the applicant shall submit a building glare analysis
21 as part of the final compliance plan that ensured compliance
22 with section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code. The applicant shall
23 restrict the use of the parking garage to employees only."
24 And I understood that you wanted to place a restriction on
25 the parking garage access to Robertson Street; is that
159
1 correct? You want a separate condition there?
2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
3 MR. GLOSS: "The applicant shall amend the final
4 plan to restrict the parking garage access to Robertson
5 Street for emergency access only."
6 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay.
7 MR. GLOSS: And then you had some other question
8 about privacy, and I wasn't entirely clear how you wanted us
9 to craft that condition.
10 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess, Jim, does it satisfy the
11 concerns if we just say the most mature landscaping possible?
12 I don't know what limitations, if there are any, that we have
13 with the Code. And then, the glare analysis, they would take
14 a look at, and if they would have to mitigate it, if that was
15 found to be an issue.
16 MR. SHEPARD: I think you could say that the
17 mitigation trees could be concentrated on the south property
18 line, knowing that they have to be oversized, provided
19 mitigation.
20 MS. SCHMIDT: So we will have oversized mitigation
21 between the south property line?
22 MR. SMITH: I know what we talked about
23 currently, was it 8 to 10 feet would be an oversized tree?
24 To me, that doesn't seem big enough. I don't know if there's
25 bigger. I'm thinking like 100 feet. You know, something
160
1 that looks fairly mature. I know they're pricey, but we
2 talked about it quite a bit in work session, and I think it's
3 appropriate in this case.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Someone who lives half a mile down
5 the road from me just had two of them hauled in that were
6 probably like 20 feet or something tall, so I know it can be
7 done. I don't know, in a way, I would like to leave it sort
8 of up to them to work it out with the neighborhood.
9 Would they like fewer trees that are bigger or more
10 trees that are smaller that will eventually be bigger? I
11 mean, that's certainly an option, too, for the hospital. If
12 they have to buy one really huge one to go in the back of
13 everybody's yard or do they have to buy two small ones? I
14 hate to micro manage this stuff.
15 MR. SHEPARD: We understand what you're saying, and
16 we're not prepared to design the landscape plan here
17 tonight, and I know that's your comfort level as well, and
18 I would offer that your condition to direct us to maximum
19 screening possible for privacy purposes along the south
20 property line, and we can roll our sleeves up and get to work
21 on that.
22 And we know that you want -- there's a
23 concentration factor, and there's a size factor. Sometimes,
24 the combination of the two can be effective. Sometimes a
25 three-inch conifer tree grows faster than a four -inch conifer
161
1 tree. So there's all kinds of things to consider, and I know
2 that you don't want to specify tonight, but I think you've
3 given us language, and I think I understand your intent.
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I liked your language about
5 the, "maximum screening possible."
6 MR. WETZLER: I have a question. Are these
7 deciduous or are those evergreens?
8 MR. SHEPARD: Well, it will be a combination.
9 MR. WETZLER: In the wintertime what kind of
10 mitigation privacy is in the spot if their deciduous? That
11 doesn't make sense.
12 MR. SHEPARD: But in contrast, an evergreen tree
13 takes a lot of time to gain height, and its conical shape and
14 as it gets thinner as it grows up. So these are a tradeoff.
15 That is why we have to look at the site lines, look at
16 property lines, look where windows are, and look for
17 landscape parking lot islands. There are things we can do
18 with parking lot islands.
19 MR. WETZLER: But I'm concerned about the light
20 emissions at night. You know, with the cleaning people in
21 there or whatever, and the glare from the light, and that's
22 why I specified window coverings, which should be closed
23 after dark.
24 MR. SHEPARD: It would be -- most of the
25 illumination studies that we've seen indicate that foot
162
1 candles from indoor lighting is pretty hard to measure at a
2 property line. What is measured at the property line is
3 outdoor lighting. Foot-candles are usually caused by parking
4 lot light fixtures that are between 20 and 30 feet, and we've
5 worked on that and we've got solutions with backside
6 shields. It would be difficult I think for us, as staff, to
7 regulate indoor lighting, and then to measure those foot
8 candles at the property line.
9 MR. WETZLER: It's probably -- I think what I'm
10 addressing is the concern from one of the neighbors that, as
11 far as a visible sense, just seeing the lights up there at
12 night. If that's acceptable to the neighbors, I certainly
13 have no objection to all that. But that's exactly what I'm
14 trying to address is the concerns of the neighbors on what
15 they see at night.
16 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I think our best shot would be
17 to try to buffer it with the trees. I mean, that's what the
18 goal is there, if they provide that screening.
19 MR. LINGLE: It becomes really difficult for us as
20 the board to try to mitigate through operational controls
21 that we don't have any control over, which would be whether
22 they would close the window coverings or not.
23 MR. WETZLER: That would be up to the occupants of
24 the building to agree to that, I'm sure.
25 MR. SHEPARD: I just checked the online Poudre
163
1 Valley Hospital, the Women's Clinic is not a 24/7 operation.
2 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Is anybody ready to make a
3 motion?
4 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. I'll make a motion the
5 Planning & Zoning Board approve the Poudre Valley Hospital
6 and Medical Office Building, PDP Number 14-07 based on the
7 facts and findings in the Staff Report on page 14 with the
8 following conditions.
9 One, that the parking structure be designated for
10 employee use only. Number two, that the final plan be
11 amended to change the parking garage access on Robertson
12 Street to be for emergency use only. That -- I think that
13 the final plan will include a glare analysis study, and that
14 there be sufficient landscaping on the south border of the
15 medical office building to provide the maximum screening
16 possible to buffer the neighborhood. We need a second,
17 first.
18 MR. STOCKOVER: I'll second it.
19 MR. LINGLE: Dean?
20 MR. BARBER: Just for clarification, I want to make
21 sure we're on line with this. I think as a representative of
22 Poudre Valley Hospital Systems we agree with the conditions
23 in concept. The lose the street to Robertson, the street
24 engineering and other things may not be obtainable. If the
25 board would consider it, our language would be that the
164
1 applicant in the final compliance plan would work with City
2 Staff to evaluate the option of closing or utilizing the
3 Robertson Street exit for emergency purposes only, is feasible
4 and does not negatively impact Lemay or other things, just to
5 give us the ability to make sure the engineering and other
6 things work.
7 In concept, we agree with pursing it. We just know
8 if it fully works because it does have some impact to some
9 traffic counts and a few other things. And I thought that
10 was the intent of what you said before was to kind of monitor
11 and see if we could design into it, but make sure that it's
12 feasible before we make that final step.
13 MR. LINGLE: I think we're going to hold the line
14 on that, and if it wasn't feasible, we'll talk about it
15 again.
16 MR. SCHMIDT: I guess, at least we'll leave the
17 motion the way it is, I think. And that's what we would
18 recommend, and then, if you find that you guys can't go with
19 that, we'll come back with an amendment or something like
20 that. But the motion, it will stay as it stands.
21 MR. STOCKOVER: Ted, would that be a major
22 amendment or a minor?
23 MR. SHEPARD. I don't know the answer to that yet.
24 MR. BARBER: We also need to include physicians
25 that may or may not be employees of Poudre Valley Health
165
1 System, because I did make an agreement with Dr. Griffin with
2 the snow removal that if we utilize or took up any of his
3 parking spaces that he would be able to use the parking
4 garage for the spaces that he could not use because of the
5 snow that was piled there.
6 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I would imagine then the
7 hospital -- because you would be giving him a badge to have
8 to enter the garage. I think as long as they're maintaining
9 it and they feel the person meets the employee qualification
10 and that would be something that we would leave that up to
11 your discretion.
12 MR. ECKMAN: Doctors do work in the hospital though
13 they are not employed necessarily by the hospital, but they
14 are there probably on a fairly long-term basis.
15 MS. SCHMIDT: So would you rather it say long-term
16 parking rather than employee, would that be better? So
17 physician or employee parking?
18 MR. ECKMAN: Yes.
19 MS. SCHMIDT: So, Angelina, if we would amend that
20 part to the parking structure to be designated for physicians
21 and employees only.
22 MR. LINGLE: Do we have a second?
23 MR. WETZLER: If we designate employee but we
24 didn't say employees, and I think what I just heard the
25 gentleman say that he had opted to make available some
s
1 parking to another entity, which I didn't find is a problem
2 at all.
3 MR. ECKMAN: It doesn't matter to me. It is still
4 long-term parking.
5 MR. WETZLER: Right. As long as that's clear in
6 there, then the agreement can still stand.
7 MR. LINGLE: Okay. Any other comments, discussion?
8 I guess one thing I didn't say anything earlier, but the one
9 part of this that had continued to bother me was the
10 evaluation of alternatives, and I wasn't really satisfied
11 that that was explored, at least what we heard, that it was
12 explored enough.
13 But having said that, I don't know that that
14 negates the appropriateness of the proposal as it sits before
15 us tonight. It is allowed by zoning, and it's consistent
16 with our Structure Plan. And I think one of the early points
17 that Angie made was that the uses are not being changed on
18 this land. It is just being intensified, so what that means
19 to me is the intensification being adequately mitigated.
20 What I have kind of concluded through what we've
21 heard tonight in concessions, and the agreement from the
22 applicant is that I think that we are adequately mitigating
23 those. I think the materials of both buildings is very well
24 done. I think it will be a nice addition to this area.
25 I keep going back to the fact that the hospital was
167
1 built in 1925 before there was anything there, and I keep
2 coming back to the point: Well, should they be allowed to
3 grow and prosper in that location? And I say, yes, they
4 should. As long as those issues of their growth can be
5 properly mitigated, then I think they've made a really good
6 effort to do that.
7 And I wasn't a part of the City Plan update
8 process, so it's good to hear those comments from you about
9 the debate that occurred at that time and the decision that
10 were made by the city and a governmental entity, so with all
11 that, I have become much more comfortable with this. Any
12 other final comments? Okay. Angelina, could we have a roll
13 call, please?
14 THE SPEAKER: Campana.
15 MR. CAMPANA: Yes.
16 THE SPEAKER: Smith.
17 MR. SMITH: Yes.
18 THE SPEAKER: Stockover.
19 MS. ROLLINS: Yes.
20 THE SPEAKER: Rollins.
21 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
22 THE SPEAKER: Wetzler.
23 MR. WETZLER: Yes.
24 THE SPEAKER: Schmidt.
25 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE SPEAKER: Lingle.
MR. LINGLE: Yes. Okay. The PDP is approved.
MS. ROLLINS: I would just like to thank the
neighborhood for coming out, for doing so much research and
looking at this. It's great to see involvement by the
neighborhoods, whether they're supporting a project or
opposed to a project, and all of the work done by the
applicant and City Staff. They got me some information
really, last minute, and I appreciate that.
MR. STOCKOVER: And I'll second that. It's great
to see everyone getting involved and staying here to 11:00 on
these issues, and I would say a very difficult decision.
(Other proceedings were had but not requested.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
STATE OF COLORADO )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
I, Lela A. Brister, a Court Reporter and Notary
Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing
tape was taken down by me in stenotype notes and thereafter
reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 168 pages; that
said tape was transcribed to the best of my ability of the
proceedings so taken.
I further certify that I am not related to,
employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or
attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of
the proceedings.
Attested to by me this 6th day of October, 2007.
Lela A. Brister
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
315 West Oak Street, Suite 710
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) 482-1506
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF COLORADO )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF LARIMER )
I, Lela A. Brister, a Court Reporter and Notary
Public, State of Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing
DVD recording was taken down by me in stenotype notes and
thereafter reduced under my supervision to the foregoing 168
pages; that said DVD recording was transcribed to the best of
my ability of the proceedings so taken.
I further certify that I am not related to,
employed by, nor of counsel to any of the parties or
attorneys herein nor otherwise interested in the outcome of
the proceedings.
Attested to by me this 6th day of October, 2007.
Lela A. Brister
Meadors Court Reporting, LLC
315 West Oak Street, Suite 710
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) 482-1506