HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/16/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z Final Agenda PacketAGENDA
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD -- CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard at the time and place specified. Please
contact the Current Planning Department for further information on any of the agenda items
at 221-6750.
DATE: Thursday, May 16, 2013
TIME: 6:00 P.M.
PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West,
300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO
A. Roll Call
B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, May 16, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the
remaining items may be continued to Thursday, June 20 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, City Hall West.
C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application
topics)
D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or
concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning
Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board,
staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda.
1. Minutes from the April 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing
2. Bella Vira, One-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, # 36-05B
This is a request for a one year extension of the term of vested right, to May 16, 2014,
of the approved Bella Vira, Final Plan. The parcel is located generally at the
southwest corner of West Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail. The Final Plan
has been approved for 60 single family detached dwellings, and 25 multi-family
dwelling units on 34.7 acres.
Applicant: John Minatta, 2037 Lexington Ct, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Staff: Pete Wray
E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on
the following items:
3. Avago Technologies, Building Four, Major Amendment, # FDP130006
This is a request to expand Building Four at 4380 Ziegler Road by adding 138,800
square feet to the west side of the existing building. The total Avago site contains 70
acres and is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor.
Applicant: Avago Technologies Wireless USA, Inc. c/o BHA Design, 1603 Oakridge
Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525
Staff: Ted Shepard
F. Other Business
G. Adjourn
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Minutes
April 18, 2013
6:00 p.m.
Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich
Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994
Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hatfield, Heinz, Kirkpatrick, and Smith
Excused Absence: Hart
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Ex, Lorson, McArdle, Shepard, Holland, Olson,
Gingerich, and Sanchez-Sprague
Prior to the official start of the meeting, Chair Smith provided background on the order of business. He
described the following processes:
• Citizen participation – an opportunity to present comments on issues that are not specifically
listed on the meeting agenda.
• Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. Any member of
the board, staff or audience may request for an item to be pulled from the consent agenda and
discussed in detail as a part of the discussion agenda.
• Discussion agenda items will include a staff presentation, an applicant presentation, and
questions by board members, staff comments and public comment.
• At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and
address for the record, and sign-in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position and he
encouraged them to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion.
• Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment.
• The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken.
• The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon.
• He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda.
Citizen participation:
None
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the March 15, 2013 Special Hearing and the March 21, 2013 Hearing
2. Harvest Park/Ziegler Overall Development Plan, #ODP120004
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 2
Member Carpenter made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes
of the March 15, 2013 Special Hearing and the March 21, 2013 Hearing and the Harvest
Park/Ziegler Overall Development Plan, #ODP120004. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4:0:1 with Member Hatfield abstaining.
Discussion Agenda:
3. Max Flats Project Development Plan, # PDP120034
4. Poudre Valley Health Systems – Harmony Campus Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a Minor
Amendment, # MA130001
5. Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan, # PDP130003
6. Mountain Sage Community School, 2310 E. Prospect, Site Plan Advisory Review, # SPA130001
_______
Member Heinz recused herself and left chambers.
Project: MAX Flats Project Development Plan, # PDP120034
Project Description: This request is This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) for property
located at 203 W. Mulberry Street to demolish the existing King’s Auto and
construction a new five-story, 63,900 square foot, multi-family building. The site
is zoned Community Commercial (CC).
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Seth Lorson said this project proposes to demolish the existing King’s Auto building and
construct a 63,900 square foot, 5-story, mixed-use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439
square feet of ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line, in the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and zoned Community Commercial (CC) in which multi-
family dwellings with more than 50 dwelling units are permitted subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
Lorson said the proposed PDP has been reviewed by staff and is in compliance with all applicable Land
Use Code (LUC) standards with the exception of the proposed modifications of standards for which staff
is recommending approval. He said the applicant has worked to enhance visual interest along the
pedestrian frontage (LUC Sec. 3.10.4) and to provide adequate variation in massing and building
materials (LUC Sec. 3.5.3).
The project is requesting 4 modifications of standards: A) a reduction in parking lot landscaping; B) ability
to provide off-site bike parking; C) a reduction for parking lot setback from 5’ to 4’2”; and D) an increased
percentage of compact parking spaces. Staff recommends approval.
Applicant Presentation
Kevin Brinkman of Brinkman Partners LLC described the project and existing conditions in an area that
has been described as a priority target area for infill and redevelopment in both City Plan and Refill Fort
Collins. He provided neighborhood/downtown contextual information and described the infill project
challenges of floodplain, sewer and utilities, and site width. He said, for example, because the parcel is
located in the City of Fort Collins Old Town Basin 100 Year High Risk Flood Fringe, flood proofing
mitigation is required -- a minimum of 3’ above grade for the entire building. He said the existing sewer
line to Mason is in the alley and has no easement. It will need to be relocated.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 3
Brinkman said MAX Flats’ target market is Old Town employees or CSU students who want to be within
walking distance to both campus and Old Town. He said the building facade and streetscape has been
designed in a way that focuses on the pedestrian experience. An outdoor plaza at Mulberry and Mason
will be near the MAX Mulberry Station and have access to the 1500 square feet of retail located on the
ground floor.
Eduardo Illanes of OZ Architecture described the project’s architectural characteristics including the
elevations and the wall sections. He described the variability in articulation and materials. He described
the landscape plan including use of a ‘green screen’ –a wall trellis system that is wall mounted to create
growing space for various plants and vines.
Lorson said there’s been a lot of interaction between staff and neighbors as well as the applicant and
neighbors. He wanted to highlight the fact that the original design was changed to ‘step down’ towards
the neighbors and to bring a warmer character to the building. He said those changes were made since
submittal of the packet information distributed to the board.
Member Carpenter asked if the only place brick had been added was at the column. Brinkman said
there’ve been 4 changes to the design since the neighborhood meeting: brick replaced metal paneling,
the setback was increased on the south, an element was added to the top of each stair tower, and the
bottom base was changed so it was not one mass going up. Illanes said they also added brick along
the Mason façade.
Member Hatfield complimented the applicant and staff on the detail and the ease of review of the board
agenda packet.
Public Input
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said he’s got concerns about the modification related to bike
parking. Pushing bike parking into the public right-of-way might create problems. He thinks a certain
percentage could be dedicated to indoor bike parking for residents.
Susan Kreul-Froseth, 524 Spring Canyon Ct., said they’ve met with both the developer and staff. She
does not like the project. It fails to ‘feel like’ some of the images they saw with reference to the Mason
Street Corridor and it is a precedent setting project. She thinks articulation is incredibly important on this
project. She urged the board to look at the modification of standards requests related to landscaping. It
is not nominal and inconsequential -- it’s very important to the neighbors that the landscaping and the
setbacks are maintained. She said her feedback is based on the drawings available at a neighborhood
meeting one week earlier—she knows the developer/architect have made some changes but she thinks
it’s a little too late. Chair Smith noted the board received her letter dated April 12 and that will be
considered as well.
Bruce Forseth, 524 Spring Canyon Ct., said he’s opposed to the project. He said the board’s actions
tonight will greatly influence the character and live ability of this neighborhood and will guide future
projects along the Mason Street Corridor. He said according to the City’s development review flowchart
there should have been a neighborhood meeting after the initial submittal. He said the most recent
proposal looks nothing like what was proposed in the fall – its 18,000 square feet larger. The project is
called mixed-use but it’s less than 3%. He does not think its compatible with the neighborhood with
regard to size, character and mass and it makes no attempt to transition to surrounding properties. He’d
like to see a building on this site that was more mixed use and which would contribute to the fabric of the
neighborhood. He’s opposed to this ‘dorm’ building on a corner and he does not believe the project will
help us become a world class city.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 4
Ed Seeley, 415 S. Howes, said he has concern about using the bus transit system when it comes on line
in 2014. He’s concerned about the impact that MAX Flats will have on traffic along Mason between
Mulberry and Myrtle with the confined lanes created by the railroad. It seems like large vehicles like
garbage/moving trucks cannot drive into the site but will need to park along Mason. He thinks sight Sight
lines will be impacted and would increase the probability of accidents.
Dave Michlove, 208 W. Myrtle, said his property is just west of the proposed building. His concern is with
the fence between their properties. They’re talking about a wood privacy fence but he’d prefer a higher
masonry type fence to avoid this fence getting knocked down. He’s concerned about things getting
thrown over the wall at his two dogs who bark. He’s concerned about the amount of available parking in
the area – CSU students fill it up during the day.
Richard Tearnow, 2731 Granada Hills Drive, said he owns a building directly to the south of the project.
He said infill over the past twenty years has been low quality. He likes the fact that this building will look
good for years to come. Parking certainly is an issue – he doesn’t think it’ll ever be great. He said we
want density and public transportation to work – this type of infill will help that. He thinks this is a good
use of that land.
End of Public Input
Applicant Response
Kevin Brinkman said the trash trucks will have access. He said the project is in the TOD (Transit
Oriented District) so there is no parking requirement but they’ve worked pretty hard to optimize the
parking and that’s why there are modification requests. He said the balconies on the west were pulled
back due to neighborhood concern about noise.
Eduardo Illanes said the building materials will be diverse. Stucco is a very long lasting material—it is
cement board with a cement finish. He said there is a lot of detail that articulates the upper floors. He
said with regard to questions about bicycles they are providing a lot of bicycle storage within the building.
Board Questions
Chair Smith said he’s wondering if we’re getting enough parking for bikes for the public. Kirkpatrick
asked if we had bike standards as a part of our transit stop plan. Chair Smith asked how this project fit
into those MAX station bike parking standards. Lorson said there are no standards for developers to
provide bike parking at the MAX station – the city will be providing 3 bike racks to accommodate 6
bicycles at each station. The standard is one bike parking space per bedroom with 60% enclosed (units
or lockers) and 40% outside. This project is providing 106 parking spaces.
Member Carpenter asked how many bike parking spaces are off-site. Lorson said 10. Kirkpatrick asked
if they were to provide 104 of the spaces on site, would there not be any parking in the right-of-way
except for what is planned with MAX stations. Lorson said correct—the 6 provided by the city is in
addition to the 10 provided by the project. Transit Planner Emma McArdle said they have received
feedback that they are ‘under parked’ for all their stations. Any additional parking they can get near
stations is a good thing from their perspective. McArdle said they are planning to get a project underway
this year to address additional bike parking throughout the corridor.
Member Carpenter asked how far the bikes will protrude onto the sidewalk. Illanes said they are beyond
the 8 foot sidewalk but inside of the right-of-way. Carpenter asked how deep the indentation for the
bikes is. Illanes said six feet. Chair Smith asked on what material the bikes will rest in the right-of-way.
Illanes said it’s a continuation of the material used for the sidewalk.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 5
Member Carpenter asked if it’s stucco board and not stucco. Illanes said it’s a hand applied in coats
stucco system.
Member Kirkpatrick asked the applicant to respond to the concerns raised in public input related to
landscaping and set-back modification. Illanes said with regard to landscaping – while parking is not
required in the TOD; it was a great amenity to bring at least one parking space per unit. Most of the
parking is for compact cars underneath the building. That straight line landscape width where there is
diagonal parking along the property line is where the modification is needed. Illanes said the entire
perimeter of the building has landscaping including trees along the street facades.
Member Carpenter wondered why the neighborhood meeting was so late in the process. Director
Kadrich said this is one of the projects that got ‘caught in the middle’ of the transition of LUC changes
related to SHAP and the threshold of units (50) that require a Type 2 hearing. The planner and
developer considered the fact that they were a mixed-use development and therefore a Type 1 review.
When the code was adopted (on 2nd reading) a changed was made to read “any residential in whole or in
part”. Very late in the process for this developer, we discovered because of the code change they were
required to do a Type 2 review. She said they immediately organized a neighborhood meeting to try to
get back on the timeline they had set for a Type 1 review. Kadrich said thhere is no time requirement
from the time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of the hearing.
Member Carpenter asked what percentage constitutes mixed use. Director Kadrich said that has not yet
been determined – its’ one of the topics that will be considered on the board’s work plan. Kadrich said
that this project would quality under the current LUC definition.
Chair Smith asked Lorson to review the requests for modification. Lorson said there are four requests:
.
• Parking Lot Interior Landscaping [3.2.1(E)(5)]
The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring six percent landscaping of
interior spaces in parking lots and no greater than a 15 space parking bay without a landscape
island. The project proposes 2.7% (224 square feet) landscaping of interior parking spaces
instead of the required 6% (505 square feet.). The development site is particularly constrained
being only 100’ wide and thus has hardly enough room for drive aisles. The project is proposing
64 parking spaces (one per unit) in the TOD Overlay Zone, which there is not a minimum parking
requirement. Without this modification, the project would provide less parking and thus potentially
burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking.
• Bicycle Facilities [3.2.2(C)(4)]
The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring bike parking spaces be
provided on site in the amount of one space per bedroom (60% enclosed; 40% fixed) and 4
spaces for the retail element (20% enclosed; 80 % fixed). The project proposes 65 enclosed
spaces (61 required) and 31 fixed spaces (43 required) on site. The project proposes to partially
compensate for the 12 spaces by providing 10 spaces in the Mason Street right-of-way (requiring
a revocable ROW (right-of-way) permit).
If the spaces proposed in the ROW were counted toward the total required spaces, then the
project would be two fixed spaces short but are providing four additional enclosed spaces,
therefore the project would have an overall net of +2 spaces beyond the requirement: 65
enclosed + 31 fixed + 10 ROW = 106 spaces (104 required).
• Parking Lot Setback [3.2.2(J)]
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 6
The applicant is requesting a modification to the standard requiring a 5 foot setback for vehicular
use areas along lot lines. The project proposes an average of 4.15 foot setback along the west
property line. The project site is particularly constrained by its narrow width of 100 feet and is
requesting 3 modifications to compensate for the narrowness and still provide one parking space
per unit.
The project is providing a 6 foot high privacy fence along the west property line and also
providing 3 trees and many shrubs to soften the transition between the parking lot and the
property to the west. Additional trees were not provided due to a sizeable utility easement.
Without the granting of this modification the project would be practically infeasible because there
would not be enough space for the parking lot drive aisles.
• Parking Stall Dimensions [3.2.2(L)]
The applicant is requesting a modification of standard to the requirement that compact parking
stalls make up a maximum of 40% of the parking spaces provided. The project proposes 58%
compact parking stalls. The applicant is attempting to provide one parking space per dwelling unit
with the existing site constraints. By reducing the size of an additional 12 parking spaces to the
permitted compact vehicle size, the project is able to achieve this objective. This proposed
reduction in parking stall size will not negatively affect the public because they are private parking
spaces to be managed by the developer. Without this modification, the project would provide less
parking and thus potentially burden the surrounding areas with overflow parking.
Board Questions
Member Kirkpatrick said she read there was a dedication of 7 ½ feet right-of-way on Mulberry. When
and if Mulberry gets improved, how will that be changing the Mulberry side of the project? Brinkman said
indicated where the southern edge of the Mulberry expansion would end.
Chair Smith asked how many bike parking spaces being provided. Brinkman said one per bed. He said
they’ve found in comparable projects that the resident’s bikes are worth more than their vehicles so they
take them up via the elevator into their units. Practically speaking, many of the bikes will be in their
rooms.
Board Discussion
Member Hatfield made a motion to approve the MAX Flats Project Development Plan
#PDP1200034 along with the proposed modifications A, B, C and D which are not detrimental to
the public good and nominal and inconsequential. It died for lack of a second.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman said City Council has in the past requested the board consider each
modification and the Project Development Plan (PDP) by separate vote.
Member Hatfield made a motion to approve modification A which is not detrimental to the public
good and nominal and inconsequential.
Members Kirkpatrick and Carpenter asked for time to deliberate.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Member Carpenter said she’s struggling because she feels a lot of the reasons for the modifications is
we’re trying to stuff too big of a project on this site. She thinks we’re not getting buffering to adjacent
properties. She’s concerned whether the bicycles will protrude onto the right-of-way where it will be a
constant problem for pedestrians. She loves that there’s parking. She thinks we need to be getting the
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 7
services in the mixed use that she doesn’t think we’re getting here. She doesn’t think the increase in
compact car parking or landscaping in the interior has an impact on the general public.
Member Kirkpatrick said she’d like to see green walls for the parking lot interior landscaping however it is
not required. She thinks the modification given the infill site makes sense. For the bike facilities, while
initially opposed to them she thinks there is some benefit to having the extra spaces in the right-of-way.
She struggles a little for the parking lot setback but she understands the site is 100 feet wide and that’s
tricky. She thinks it’s a relatively small change in setback. She thinks there’s no problem to the last
modification request—the parking stall dimension.
Chair Smith said there’s been a high activity of TOD projects in the past two years. The board
recognizes we need to have continuous improvement in the way that we are implementing urban style
development in the TOD to support BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) and other larger goals of our
Comprehensive Plan. He said the board will be revisiting TOD and will forward some recommendations
to City Council. He said we are finding by specific projects that we could and should have more
available, creative, and mitigating factors for some of the requests for modification. He thinks both the
community and project would gain when there is a give and take process with regard to requests for
modification.
Chair Smith said he thinks the outreach process for what was initially perceived as a Type 1 project is
unfortunate but it’s been well explained why it happened. Going forward a project like this will come
before this board and there will be greater outreach.
Chair Smith said he likes what the applicant’s team has done to design the project—its good design in a
very eclectic neighborhood. He thinks this is a nice way to extend the downtown toward the campus.
This sets a tone to start moving south along Mason. It makes the Mason Corridor come to life and be
functional. He said as we start to develop projects like this along the corridor, it’s important that we have
plenty of bike parking. Smith said he’s supportive of all four modifications of standards requests.
Member Kirkpatrick said she’d like to add that she was really glad to see the changes in the material
selection. She thinks the brick on the north side definitely helps with the transition from downtown where
you see more of it. Smith said as we begin to talk about sidewalks/pedestrian activity, design is going to
become more important than it ever has been. He thinks materials are going to drive a lot of that.
Member Carpenter said we’re going to see huge changes along the Mason Corridor. She thinks it’s
really important that we protect the folks in the neighborhoods that are already there. She’d really like to
the board’s work plan that they look at ways we can do that well. She’d like to see us not intrude on the
neighborhood so that we lose the neighborhoods we have. Kirkpatrick said we seem to focus more on
the pedestrian front and not necessarily on the back side of the house which is equally important to the
neighborhood.
Chair Smith asked the applicant if they would be responsible for maintenance of the shared Michlove
property fence. Brinkman said yes. Member Carpenter asked if it would be a double fence. Brinkman
said they could put up a double fence depending on Mr. Michlov’s preference.
Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard for Parking Lot
Interior Landscaping 3.2.1(E)(5) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the
modification does not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential
because the interior of the parking lot is so constrained and the benefit exceeds the detriment.
Chair Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 8
Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard for Bicycle Facilities
3.2.2(C) (4) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the modification does not diverge
from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential because providing bike facilities in
the public right-of-way is a larger community benefit than having them housed exclusively on the
property. Chair Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0.
Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard for Parking Lot
Setback 3.2.2(J) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the modification does not
diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential because the site is only 100
feet in width and the applicant is providing as much buffer as possible while accommodating the
benefit of parking on the site. Chair Smith seconded the motion.
Member Carpenter said she could not support this modification. She thinks all of these sites are going to
be pretty narrow and for her that’s where we have to hold tight.
The motion passed 3:1 with Member Carpenter dissenting.
Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the Modification of Standard for Parking Stall
Dimensions 3.2.2(L) because it is not detrimental to the public good and the modification does
not diverge from the standard except in a nominal and inconsequential because the benefit of
having increased compact car parking in this district is worthwhile. Member Carpenter seconded
the motion.
Initially Member Kirkpatrick used the equal to or better than standard. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said
on the equal to or better than standard the language of the code that it advances the purpose of the
standard equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard. Chair Smith would
recommend making the standard nominal and inconsequential as opposed to equal to or better than.
Members Kirkpatrick and Carpenter agreed and the change is reflected in the motion above.
The motion passed 4:0.
Member Kirkpatrick made a motion to approve the MAX Flats Project Development Plan, #
PDP120034 and in support of her motion she adopts the findings of fact and conclusion as
contained in E-G on page 10 of the staff report. Chair Smith seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4:0.
Member Heinz returned to chambers.
_______
Member Kirkpatrick recused herself and left chambers.
Project: Poudre Valley Health Systems – Harmony Campus Cancer Center Addition,
Referral of a Minor Amendment, # MA130001
Project Description: This is a request to expand the existing Medical Office Building at the Poudre
Valley Health System Harmony Medical Campus by adding a new wing dedicated
to the medical treatment of cancer. The proposed addition would contain 30,000
square feet and be two stories in height. The location of the addition is to the
north and west of the existing building in the area of the existing parking lot. The
campus is defined as a 95-acre Overall Development Plan and the Final Plans
are defined by 26 acres. The campus includes three buildings containing
294,000 square feet. The proposed 30,000 square foot addition would raise the
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 9
total building floor area to 324,000 square feet. The campus is located at the
southeast corner of Harmony Road and Timberline Road. The parcel is zoned H-
C, Harmony Corridor.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Chief Planner Ted Shepard said the request qualifies as a Minor Amendment given the context of the
larger campus. A Minor Amendment may be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board. The request
complies with the existing Overall Development Plan. The request complies with the applicable
standards of the Harmony Corridor zone and the general development standards of Article Three. The
location of the proposed 30,000 square foot addition is to the northwest of the existing Medical Office
Building within the existing parking lot resulting in the loss of 67 spaces. As mitigation, 105 new spaces
will be constructed south of the Ambulatory Care Center resulting in 38 net new spaces. Other mitigation
measures are offered that address the functionality of the parking on a campus-wide basis.
Staff recommends approval of Poudre Valley Harmony Campus, Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a
Minor Amendment, #MA130001, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the Cancer Center Addition, Poudre
Valley Health Care, Inc. shall designate patient/visitor and staff parking areas as depicted on the
diagram entitled “Harmony Campus-Proposed Parking Revisions, February 28, 2013” and will
install “Staff Only Parking” and “Patient Only Parking” signs to delineate such locations. Harmony
Campus staff will be required to park in designated staff parking areas. Poudre Valley Health
Care, Inc. shall provide an appropriate method of enforcement to discourage staff use of
patient/visitor parking areas, which method will be devised in consultation with the Boards of the
Harmony Valley Condominium Association and the Redstone Professional Office Building
Condominium Association.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the Cancer Center Addition, Poudre
Valley Health Care, Inc. shall complete construction of a new 105-space staff-only parking lot in
generally the location depicted on the attached diagram entitled “Harmony Campus-Proposed
Parking Revisions, February 28, 2013” and shall install “Staff Only Parking” signs in such new lot.
3. Within 120 days after final approval of the Cancer Center Addition, Poudre Valley Health Care,
Inc. shall convert 17 of the designated patient/visitor parking spaces in the West parking lot for
the Medical Office Building to handicapped parking spaces, thus increasing the total number of
handicapped parking spaces in this lot from 26 to 43. The patient/visitor parking spaces to be
converted shall be those that are located closest to the main entrance of the Medical Office
Building as shown on the attached depiction entitled “Potential ADA Space Locations” dated April
2, 2013.
4. Final Plans shall indicate that no parking spaces will be reserved for patients/visitors of any
particular building.
5. Within 60 days after final approval of the Cancer Center Addition, Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc.
shall , in consultation with the Harmony Campus Master Association, provide a snow removal
plan that requires (i) timely removal of snow from all patient/visitor and staff parking areas at the
Harmony Campus; (ii) removed snow shall be deposited in designated snow removal zone(s) that
do not conflict with access to or circulation within parking areas; (iii) all parking spaces within
such lots continue to be useable during winter months; and (iv) the storage of removed snow
anywhere within the patient/visitor and staff parking lots will be prohibited.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 10
6. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. will provide valet parking services for patients and visitors of the
Medical Office Building as approved by the Board of the Harmony Valley Condominium
Association, including details of the services, i.e. days of the week, hours, staffing, etc.
7. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. currently provides a service whereby patients, visitors and staff
members are offered transportation from parked vehicles to building entrances via a golf cart
driven by volunteers. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. will expand this service by providing an
additional golf cart.
Applicant Presentation
Kevin Unger, President and CEO of Poudre Valley Health System (PVHS) provided background and an
overview of the cancer center project. He said the project started 7 years ago and is the combined effort
of health professionals, patients and community members. He said due to health care reform, the rising
number of affected patients, and the increased costs if delayed; the most responsible course for PVHS
was to revise their 2010 plan for a standalone building and add a new wing to the north and west of the
existing building. He said since the fall of 2012 they’ve worked with affected medical office condo
owners to mitigate their concerns and with the conditions of approval, they believe that can be done. He
respectfully asked the board to approve their request for a Minor Amendment.
Angie Milewski of BHA Design provided information on the 95 acre campus including the entire ODP
(Overall Development Plan) and initial filings (Project Development Plans) that have been constructed.
Milewski described the goal is that all services (diagnostic, treatment, recovery, and support) need to be
in one location for the physical benefit and mental well-being of the patient. Over time the decision was
made to combine the cancer center with existing oncology services in the current building. This direction
first arose in late 2010 with the addition of a new Linear Accelerator as part of the growing regional
cancer program. She said it allowed the hospital to finally deliver this much-needed comprehensive
center required to meet the growing demand for services, rather than continuing to wait more years for
the funding for a larger facility.
Milewski said the expanded Cancer Center facility design involved the participation of 25 physicians and
cancer patients/survivors to help translate into an optimum cancer care experience. She said the
addition supports the existing access patterns. The addition will displace 67 parking spaces on the north
end of the west parking lot. She said in general, the parking in the overall west campus filings is not fully
utilized. While there is a perception of a parking shortage, it actually is a matter of how the parking is
distributed. She said the parking is currently shared among all the buildings and is not designated
between patients and staff. She said most morning the nearby parking spaces are filled by staff and then
by patients
Milewski said in response to concerns raised during the outreach process PVHS has offered plans to
designate the entire northwest lot that serves these visitor entrances as patient/visitor parking. Staff will
be required to park in designated staff parking areas in outlying areas. PVHS has also offered plans for
additional measures to help ensure convenience for patient parking including:
- a commitment to timely snow removal from patient/visitor parking areas and snow storage
in areas not in conflict with parking,
- the addition of a valet parking service for the Medical Office Building (MOB) and
- expansion of the current golf cart transportation service from the building entrances to
parked vehicles
They will also construct an additional 105-space staff parking lot. PVHS will convert 17 of the parking
spaces located closest to the main entrance of the Medical Office Building to ADA parking spaces. This
will increase the total number of handicapped parking spaces in this west lot from 26 to 43. While that
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 11
change exceeds the minimum LUC requirement it addresses concerns raised for patient needs for a
medical facility. Milewski said the mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval.
Milewski said PVHS hired Fox Tuttle (Traffic Engineers) to study the parking to access would work for all
involved. The Fox-Tuttle Parking Study determined:
.
• Parking supply complies with Land Use Code requirement – currently and with Cancer Center
Addition.
• Parking supply exceeds peak parking demand – currently and with Cancer Center Addition.
• Parking supply is consistent with latest ITE recommendations (3.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of
building).
• Over parking is inefficient and contrary to City goals.
• Recommendations made by the Delich & Associates Study exceeds maximum allowed by Land
Use Code (5.2 per 1000 square feet of building).
Milewski requested the board approve the Minor Amendment request.
Staff did not have any additional comments.
Public Input
Paul Miller, 1501 Linden Lake, said he and his wife Dr. Tamra Miller are arguably the most affected by
the addition. Their practice (Advanced Urology of Colorado) is located directly adjacent to the proposed
addition and the only practice with an outside entrance and four dedicated parking spots 20 feet from
their entrance. That is why they bought that condo. Those parking spots are going away with this
proposal and it will directly affect their disabled patient population and their practice.
Vickie Fisbeck, 514 Perrot, said she was diagnosed with cancer 5 years ago. She spoke from her
personal experience as a cancer patient. She said the new center will hopefully be coming up in the next
year. They will have navigators (staff/volunteers) who help them navigate how to get where they need.
She likes how it helps patients experience a “come on in – we’re here for you”.
John Dubler, 5428 Gold Star Drive, said he speaks from a cancer patient perspective. He said the true
beam machine is an amazing machine but finding parking in the ‘east 40’ was difficult. He’d rather see a
stand-alone cancer center and that it will never be cheaper.
Mike Agress, 7233 Matheson Drive, said he’s disappointed it will be an addition and parking is terrible.
He shared his experience from a cancer patient perspective. He thinks they should not have put an
accelerator there and removing parking in that area is a problem and bad for patients.
Greg With, 7758 Park Ridge Circle, said he is not in favor of this proposal--he supports a well thought out
and coordinated building. The proposal as submitted will impacts owners, tenants and patients. He
thinks Poudre Valley Hospital Systems has been given preferential treatment in the development review
process. They were not required to hold any meetings with affected businesses. He thinks the decision
should be made on merit, adherence to zoning regulations, impact on affected stakeholders, historical
master plans and what is best for all patients.
Chris Richmond, 918 Short Pine Ct. said he’s a volunteer director for the Poudre Valley Hospital
Foundation. He said he’s been involved since the first meeting when the cancer center was mentioned.
He said this is really all about the cancer patients and the treatment they receive. We’ve already made a
difference in cancer care here in Fort Collins and we know we can make it even better going forward.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 12
The health system has met the conditions of the minor amendment and he encourages the board to
approve the project.
Mark Driscoll, 1906 Pacific Ct, said he’s in support of the applicant and hope they approve the minor
amendment. Far and away it’s better to have it all together.
Keith Wells, 5462 New Light Bay Ct, said he’d like to speak in support of the applicant. He is a cancer
survivor and he’s here to support the next right thing for this community to do. He said the applicant has
done their homework, they’ve done the analysis and they said this is the way we can do it and be
financially responsible. He thinks we should proceed with the addition.
Polly Pierson said she’s worked at Harmony Campus for Dr. Norris since 2009. Her excitement for the
cancer center turned to shock and disappointment after she heard it’s going to consume a huge portion
of a very valuable part of Harmony Campus. She thinks the west parking lot is crucial to patients,
deliveries, and ambulances.
Kathy Beaugard, 2272 Haymaker Lane, said she supports the project. She speaks as an employee who
parks in the northwest lot and she is most willing to move to the south lot. There are many employees
(far more than 67) that are more than willing to do that.
Todd Whitsitt, 2825 Michener Drive, said he’s a cardiologist. He’s here to support the measure. He’s
President of the Employee Physicians Group. He’s also President of the Heart Center of the Rockies—
they are the single largest square foot tenant at the Harmony Campus at this time. He thinks the
measures that Poudre Valley has brought forth to mitigate the parking issues are adequate. The Heart
Center supports those changes.
Amanda Barnaby, 820 Moreganser, said she’s a current employee of the Eye and Laser Center. With an
informal survey they conducted, patients and staff were in favor of the project but no one could
understand why the land to the south was not used. She said many times she’s the last to leave. She’s
nervous about leaving late at night in the winter and not having access to any door but the main one.
Anne Unagi, 8277 Spinaker Bay Drive in Windsor, said she’s the former chair of the PVH Foundation.
She agrees this has been a struggle to find the ideal place to put a consolidated cancer center and do it
in a manner that makes the patient the center of their concerns. When they realized in the last year they
needed to move forward with this project and use what they had. She thinks the System has worked
very hard to make parking viable. She’s an independent physician and not an employee of the System
and she supports this project.
Matt Sorenson said he’s a medical oncologist in Fort Collins. He lives at 919 Skipping Stone Ct in
Timnath. Much of what he thought of saying tonight has already been said. One thing he does want to
bring into the discussion tonight is a view of a cancer provider in terms what truly went into the building of
this cancer center. He thinks the most important part of any medical facility is what’s on the inside. How
can we use our space to take better care of people? The System said they want to have a world class
cancer center, help us figure out what that really means. There were many disciplines and cancer
patients involved in putting the plans together. He’s in full support of the project.
Shawna Streets lives at 1719 70th Avenue in Greeley. She said she’s the Manager of Radiation
Oncology. She wants to speak about time. The reason they pushed forward with linear accelerators is
they knew technology was available for patients that they were not offering. They decided in 2010 to
make the next right decision to move forward with new technology so patients would not have to leave
Fort Collins for treatment. They have patients who wait to see their physicians because they don’t have
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 13
enough exam rooms. Time is an issue. She asked for the board’s approval so they can move forward
without delay.
Vickie Wagner lives at 1769 Dolores River Drive in Windsor. She said she’s spoken many times in
support of the cancer center as the Chair of Survivors Advisory Council. She is a two times breast
cancer survivor treated locally. She never thought she’d find herself in a forum such as this where she
would be defending the cancer center. They are not here tonight to garner sympathy or generate
emotion for this cause. She’s here to tell you that many have been working side-by-side with others in
planning the center. We all wanted a stand-alone building but the reality is we do not have the funds.
Cancer does not wait to raise the money. She urged the board to support the project.
Group in Opposition to the Proposal
Rick Zier, 322 E. Oak said he’s in his 36th year of private law practice. He said none of the people
opposing this proposal are against the idea of the cancer center. He said this is a land use matter and
they are here to talk about the parking issues. He said we are here to decide this under the Land Use
Code. He provided a historical perspective – a large outcry related to parking issues very late in ‘this
game’. Late in the game the applicant came to the city for an essential, critical approval. That puts the
board and those opposed in a terribly awkward position. He thinks there’s are self-created hardships
(need to be near the linear accelerators). He said this is a late in the game attempt to seek approval for
this now amended situation comes too late and there are serious problems under the Land Use Code
(LUC).
Zier said they appreciate very much the application was referred to the board. He said the neighborhood
in this context is the developed 26 acre portion to the west of Snow Mesa Drive are the owners,
occupants and patients who frequent those buildings. He said the board will hear the character of the
parking is substantially altered. He said character is important in the LUC. We’re talking about the
characteristics operationally of the parking. This is not a family feud. This is a major issue for the public
because it involves all the patients in this building. The patients are the primary concern of the
opponents.
Zier said the parking lot has been fully improved having an improved and final appearance for a decade.
This is a fully completed part of the project. How many more times are they going to come in and ask
what are regarded under the code as a minor amendment. It’s a 30,000 square foot building ‘plopped’
into the parking lot. That blights this parking lot. It renders it much less useable than it is today. Zier
said Shepard (Planner) in this view of this has said that Mr. Delich’ s traffic study is on the parochial side
and looks more at the west side of the 26 acres and not at the whole 26 acres. If you’re going to expand
the scope, consider the full 95 acres. There’s ample room for convenient parking and drop off, staff
parking, appropriate exits elsewhere on this site. That would all be with the approved ODP. It wouldn’t
need this proceeding and it wouldn’t have this opposition. He respectfully asked the board to deny the
request.
Matt Delich, of Delich and Associates, said he is a traffic transportation engineering consultant. He
provided his professional credentials and reviewed his parking utilization survey results between 8 a.m.
and 3 p.m. for both the northwest and east lots. He highlighted the fact that the northwest lot was full 5
hours the day of the survey and full 2 hours of the day in the east lot. He reference an article in the
February 2013 ITE Journal, Parking Requirements for Outpatient Cancer Car Centers that stated “A
parking demand study of outpatient cancer centers was conducted to determine the peak period range,
mean, median and 85th percentile values of parked cars 1,000 gross square feet (GSF) of building space.
Providing 3.5 or 4.5 spaces per 1,000 SF for medium/large (greater than or equal to 15,000 SFF) or
small (less than 15,000 GSF) outpatient cancer centers, respectively is an 85th percentile
recommendation consistent with recognized and published industry standards.” In his professional
opinion, the applicants’ recommended parking needs would be higher especially in the northwest lot. He
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 14
said the Medical Office Building has direct access only to the northwest lot. It would be more appropriate
to place this facility east of the Redstone Building would be appropriate.
Dr. Andrew Norris, 2121 E. Harmony, said he’s been an eye surgeon for the past 30 years with an active
patient base of 15,000. His private practice is on the first floor at the entry of the Harmony Medical
Center Office Building. He said this is simply an issue regarding the safety, convenience, and ease of
function of the building for their patients and staff. If they make it difficult for patients to get to them, the
patients will find other options. He said PVHS is quite proud that the Condo Board voted to support the
proposal. He said unfortunately the Condo Board is not impartial – 4 of 7 positions are affiliated with the
Poudre Valley Health System. Private condo owners are in the minority. He said from his experience
PVH has never had a shortage of funds if they wanted to move forward on a project. In summary, he
does not believe the proposal is well thought out affecting current and future patients and staff. He said
the condo owners did not make this error PVHS did and the owners should not be penalized as a result
of those mistakes.
Monica Serrano Toy, 1706 Waterford Lane said she’s a family practice physician. She said their group is
independent and has been a part of the community for over 35 years. They support the establishment of
a cancer center at the Harmony Campus. They don’t want a cancer center at the expense of the rest of
the campus. She would argue the proposed changes cannot ignore the distinct facilities within campus
and assume that making parking available on another part of the campus will adequately serve those
facilities. They believe the optimal plan is to use available land. She urged the board to deny the project
and allow for further study.
Julie and Tim Rickets said they strongly oppose the location of the new cancer center. Ms. Rickets said
Tim has been fighting Stage 4 Pancreatic Cancer for the past 10 years. They were told the cancer
center would be constructed on the east side of Harmony Campus as a separate building with plenty of
room to expand as years go by and population increases. They’ve actively supported the cancer center
with that vision in mind. They think the new plan is a Band-Aid solution that will cause major problems in
the future when expansion is needed. They want PVHS to make good on their promise that they could
stay place in one place where they could see all of their medical practitioners. She asked the board to
please consider the future and what is best for the patients in our area when make the final decision.
Diana Majesia said she’s a medical oncologist and owner of Front Range Cancer Specialists. She owns
a private practice that has 3 medical oncologists and a nurse practitioner. They’ve been treating patients
and their families with cancer and blood disorders for the past 13 years and they believe they serve 50%
of the cancer population in Fort Collins. She thinks Poudre Valley has done a great job in providing
quality care. Majesia said the location of their practice on the east was not reflected on the slides. They
recognize the need for a cancer center and have worked diligently in planning for the construction of it.
The plan all along was that the cancer center would be built on the east side of the Harmony Campus
and be attached to their office in the Redstone Building. She said that last year they learned with great
disappointment that the cancer center would be built as an addition to the west side and if they could not
align with PVHS and become employees of the system, they would not be a part of the project.
Majesia said they’ve participated actively in the process for the past 7 years to discover the project will
now compete against and exclude them. She said we all know that quality care comes from the
expertise of physicians and not necessarily where they are located. She does not think funding is an
issue as she’s seen the system proceed with the acquisition of land and a number of capital
improvements. She strongly proposes the cancer center be built on the east side of the Harmony
Campus.
End of Public Input
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 15
Applicant Response
Member Carpenter requested the applicant respond to the things for which the Board actually have
purview. Angie Milewski said they will limit their response to issues related to land use. She asked Bill
Fox of Fox, Tuttle (traffic engineering consultants) to make a couple of points in rebuttal to the discussion
about the parking study/parking ratios. She’d also like to ask Joanne Levins to talk about the planned
growth for the cancer center. Milewski will speak to LUC planning issues. She said they’ll end with
comments by Kevin Unger, PVHS.
Bill Fox said he’s a Principal with Fox, Tuttle Transportation Group in Boulder and has been in the field
for 27 years. He’s goal is to provide the board with a different perspective than the one provided by Mr.
Delich (for whom he’s got the greatest respect). He’s worked on studies for 2 different hospitals in
Steamboat Springs and a hospital in Boulder – their Foothills Community Campus Hospital, Cancer
Center, and Medical Office Complex. He’s a parking consultant for the 3700 space parking district in
downtown Boulder. He said they had access to three prior parking studies that had taken snapshots of
peak demand on campus. He did a fourth analysis in December, 2012. He said there is a fair amount of
vacant parking on the campus as whole. He’d encourage the board to consider this as a campus that
has and will continue to evolve as a campus. They’ve concluded that at any point (even the worst case
time today), there are 200 vacant parking spaces (15% vacancy of the total 1107). He reviewed how the
future might be different with the removal of 67 spaces on the west and the addition of 105 on the south.
Based on existing observations, he projects there will still be 200 available during the worst case peak
hour. He said in an effort to be green we try not to design more asphalt than is absolutely needed.
Fox said most important is the management of the parking supply. He said right now there are
suggestions but no real regulation. Employees who come in early can occupy some of these close-in
spaces. If employee parking is set for the northeast or southwest corner, it creates a great swath of
close-in readily available parking for patient or visitor space. He said there can easily be enough parking
on this campus it just needs to be managed better.
Joanne Levins, 1407 Fox Ridge Parkway in Severance, is Director for the Cancer Program at PVHS.
She said she has a unique perspective from her experience in opening two other cancer centers. She
spoke to the number of visits and ‘force of treatment’ patients experience today and what they might
expect to experience in 5-10 years. Due to medical advances it’s likely the number of visits will be
significantly reduced. With regard to the distance a patient might have to travel from the center to their
car, she shared an anecdotal story that underscored the need for their goal to have all treatments
required (including rehab) co-located under one roof.
Angie Milewski said there were a number of operational issues raised during public input. She’s not
planning to go into a lot of detail or rebuttal for that. From a Land Use Code/land use issues perspective,
this is a minor amendment. No neighborhood meeting is required in the case of a minor amendment;
however, they have demonstrated there have been countless meetings with affected stakeholders. They
are in compliance with all the city approved plans for this site as they have been for each of the
developments to date on this campus. Milewski said the conditions of approval are important as they
show the intent to follow through on each of the items. She said the proposal tonight is not whether or
not the board should consider another location for the center. The proposal is a minor amendment to an
existing approved building. It will allow PVH to move ahead with this center in a fiscally responsible way
using existing resources without sacrificing patient care.
Kevin Unger said he understands that progress and change are hard. He said the Cancer Center
addition is about progress and improvement for the benefit of patients in our community. In summary,
they have been diligent in meeting all city requirements for the Cancer Center addition. He said, in fact,
they’ve gone over and above the LUC requirements. He urged the board to approve the request for a
minor amendment.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 16
Staff Response
Staff member Shepard had no follow-up.
Board Questions
Andy asked Shepard to review the criteria specific to a minor amendment. Shepard said all applicable
Land Use Code (LUC) criteria apply in the case of a minor amendment. The reason why it’s a minor
amendment is addressed on page 3 of the staff report:
The request for a new 30,000 square foot, two-story medical facility qualifies as a Minor
Amendment because such an addition does not change the character of the Final Plans that
make up the campus. The Final Plans include three buildings containing a total of 294,000
square feet on a site that is 26 acres in size. The Minor Amendment is contained within the
boundaries of the Final Plan and would increase the total floor area to 324,000 square feet. The
proposed land use is comparable to the existing medical facilities and the addition represents
only a 10% increase in building floor area. These factors allow staff to find that the proposed
Minor Amendment is within the established character of the Final Plan and qualifies as a Minor
Amendment.
Deputy City Attorney Eckman said generally a minor amendment is handled by the Director but it can be
referred to the board. He said the general rule is you have to keep it in compliance with the LUC to the
same extent as the original plan.
Member Heinz said in the board’s materials it was noted that in March they were going to analyze
whether they would need 100 additional spaces. Is that still something you are considering? Milewski
said that was an early offer – ‘we don’t think we need the spaces but we’ll check again’. With more
discussion, they made the additional south employee parking lot a condition of approval.
Member Heinz said on one of the slides, it showed access on the east side. Is that an auxiliary access
point? Milewski said there is a corridor that exists today through that wing. With this expansion, the
main entrance will be moved to the west. The east entrance is a good (public entrance) back door for
people having treatments.
Member Heinz asked if valet services and the golf cart separate services. Milewski said yes.
Member Carpenter asked about the reference to a special fob being required for admission to the
building Milewski said there are some PVHS staff entrances on the south side of the building that require
a fob.
Chair Smith referenced page 5 of the staff report where Section 3.2.2(B) – Access, Circulation and
Parking are referenced.
The purpose of this particular standard is not to evaluate the relationship of available parking
spaces to various individual medical practices within the existing building. The standard is
designed to address the parking and circulation elements as a system within the entire
development… (Unlike the requirements for big box retail, there are no parking lot distribution
standards that are specifically related to individual building entrances.) As proposed, the new
parking lot and sidewalk circulation system will function equally well as the existing
improvements.
He asked Shepard to explain in laymen’s terms. Shepard said the model of the single entrance and the
single parking field causes problems. It causes congestion and frustration and creates a difficult
situation if you’re not an early bird. He said it works better to have multiple entrances. Generically
speaking, the more you can distribute parking and the more opportunities you can provide to enter a
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 17
building, the more you can ease congestion. Shepard said this campus has a degree of distributed
parking and a degree of multiple entrances.
Board Discussion
Member Carpenter moved the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Poudre Valley Health System
Harmony Campus Cancer Center Addition, Referral of a Minor Amendment, #MA130001 based on
the findings of fact and conclusions as contained on pages 10 and 11 of the staff report and
subject to conditions 1-7 on pages 11, 12 and 13 of the staff report. Member Heinz seconded the
motion.
Member Carpenter said what the board is charged with what’s in the Land Use Code. There were a lot
of issues here that really don’t pertain to what the board has to decide/their purview. It doesn’t mean
they are not well founded or they’re not important but what we have to look at is parking and does this
minor amendment conform to the LUC. She said to her, it does.
Chair Smith said this is one of the toughest decisions the board has had to make in some time. He’s
proud to be a member of this community because we can have discussion which has been intelligent,
compassionate and professional. We need to narrow it down to what is the board’s purview in the LUC.
He said the board is specifically held to evaluate a proposal on its merits. The applicant has said this is
the space where they’d like to go and they’ve noted how they met the standards. He will support the
request.
The motion passed 4:0
Member Kirkpatrick returned to chambers.
_______
Project: Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan, # PDP130003
Project Description: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.) for the
Banner Health Medical Campus. The project is located at the southeast corner of
E. Harmony Road and Lady Moon Drive on 27.867 total acres. The medical
campus will provide inpatient and outpatient services to the community.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
City Planner Jason Holland said the project proposes at least two phases, with the first phase to include
a 163,300 square foot hospital, medical office health center and central utility plant. The complete build-
out proposed with future phases includes an additional 157,900 square foot hospital area, a 22,800
square foot medical office health center and a two-story, 40,000 square foot medical office building at the
southwest corner of the site for a total campus build-out of 384,000 square feet. Building areas on the
campus are served by three parking areas including one parking structure located west of the proposed
bed towers. The hospital building will contain a clinic, inpatient beds, diagnostics and treatment, as well
as an emergency department. The hospital varies in height from the one-story clinic on the west to the
3-story bed tower on the east side. A proposed heli-stop pad will be located to the north of the hospital
building.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 18
Holland said in evaluating the request for the Banner Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan,
staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The P.D.P. complies with process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review
Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
B. The P.D.P. is in conformance with the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development
Plan 5th Amendment.
C. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.26, Harmony Corridor
(H-C) of Article 4 – Districts.
D. The P.D.P. complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development
Standards, with conditions.
Staff recommends approval.
Application Presentation
Cliff Trausch, Project Executive for Banner Health Development and Construction (Western Region),
said their group supports capital expansions and renovations of all capital projects within 5 states and 10
hospitals as well as other health facilities. He introduced Rick Sutton, CEO of North Colorado Medical
Center in Greeley Colorado.
Sutton provided background on Banner Health System with its western United States 23 acute care
hospitals, its health network, and the Banner Medical Group with more than 900 doctors. He said they
operate McKee Medical Center in Loveland and North Colorado Medical Center in Greeley and that
health care is changing from volume to value reimbursement. They will be serving more people for less
money and will be reimbursed for outcomes not effort. The effort will be to align patients with providers
for the total health care experience from pre to post care.
Trausch said that is why they selected this particular site. Southeast Fort Collins has a growing
population base. The Harmony Corridor is ideal for ambulance traffic via I-25 and US Highway 287. He
said this project will be the 4th amendment to the Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan
(ODP) and occupy Parcels G & H. He said the overall site design philosophy was primary access from
Lady Moon Drive with additional campus access from Le Fever Drive and Cinquefoil Lane, an interior
loop road and distributed parking, distributed storm water detention and water quality as well as
interconnected walkways and outdoor spaces. Additionally, they would plan for a phased campus build
out as growth dictates. They’d use Harmony Corridor Design Standards and a detailed tree mitigation
plan with full tree stocking. Trausch said access, circulation and parking has a campus style organization
with sidewalk connections and access to two transit stops and that parking density and distribution
conforms to standards.
Angie Milewski, BHA Design, said the Harmony Tech Park Overall Development Plan was intended for
larger employers in the area with development on this scale. Jason Messaros, BHA Design, described
the landscape and site layout component of the project. He noted how the site planning and design
standards meet code. Mary Fieri, Boulder Associates, reviewed architectural characteristics describing
elevations, materials, form and colors and how they were use to break up massing on both a horizontally
and vertically basis. Ms. Milewski described the infrastructure improvements which are planned for first
and subsequent phases.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 19
Trausch said the plan is purposeful and good for 30 years. He said Phase 1 is good until 2020 with
future phases good in 5 to 10 year increments and dependent on growth of patient needs. Trausch said
they can start grading September 2013 and expect to open mid 2015. He requested formal approval of
the Project Development Plan.
Staff did not have any additional comments.
Public Input
Melissa Byrne, 3821 Observatory Drive, said she was the only neighbor left. Her prime concern is the
safety of their neighborhood. She said she spent quite a bit of time reading the traffic study. Her areas of
concern are there will be more morning peak hour ins than in the original Harmony Tech Park ODP and
that is the time when their children (many independently) move on foot and by bike to schools including
Kinard, Zach, Preston, and Fossil Ridge. Her concerns relate to how the increase traffic will affect their
ability to maneuver near the round-abouts in the area. She thinks the increased traffic on Cinquefoil
(which runs through the middle of Observatory Village) needs a mitigation plan.
End of Public Input
Applicant Response
Michael Dellich of Dellich Associates, traffic engineering consultant, said with regard to the increased
traffic on Cinquefoil that is true. It is a major collector on the Master Street Plan. It is also true there will
be an increase in the AM peak hour. The AM trips will increase by about 50 vehicles however all of
those are egress trips which are leaving the hospital. He said, however, during the afternoon peak hour
there will be a decrease of peak hour trips by 187 vehicles (both egress and ingress trips). Dellich said
Ms. Byrne referred to an appendix and he can make a copy available to her.
Milewski said while the traffic study volumes are not exactly the same as the ODP, they are within the
range anticipated. They have been reviewed by city staff and they are within acceptable ranges. She
said they are trips from Harmony into the hospital campus and not so much south into the neighborhood.
Staff Response
Holland said what is being proposed is a hybrid street section. He said essentially the differences
between a major and a minor collector (Cinquefoil) as far as the Master Street Plan is concerned is on-
street parking. There will be some on-street parking on the east side of Cinquefoil and past Le Fever. It
will help with traffic calming.
Board Questions
Member Hatfield asked about the resident on Cinquefoil just past Le Fever. Is it still occupied? Holland
said all residences within the 28 acres will be removed. Jason Messaros said there is one home on site
and it will be used temporarily during construction. After construction, it will be removed with no
residential uses on site.
Member Kirkpatrick made a motion for the Planning and Zoning board to approve the Banner
Health Medical Campus Project Development Plan # PDP130003. In support of her motion she
adopts the findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 11 of the staff report. Member
Heinz seconded the motion.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 18, 2013
Page 20
Member Kirkpatrick she thinks it clearly meets our Land Use Code standards. She thinks it’s a very
thoughtful design for the phasing elements. She thinks we are really lucky as consumers of health care
services to have a number of options and it will be a nice addition.
The motion passed 5:0
_______
Project: Mountain Sage Community School, 2310 E. Prospect, Site Plan Advisory
Review, # SPA130001
Project Description: This is a request by Mountain Sage Community School to rent and occupy an
existing office building located at 2310 E. Prospect Road, in the Seven Lakes
PUD, to be used for Mountain Sage Community School. The existing building
would be converted into a school setting with classrooms and room for future
expansion within the building. The adjacent vacant lot to the east may be used for
a playground. The site is located in the Employment (E) Zone District and a public
school use is permitted subject to a Site Plan Advisory Review. The existing
building is approximately 17,500 square feet. The school will occupy
approximately 15,000 square feet of the building, and the remaining 2,500 square
feet is currently occupied by Larimer County Wellness. The proposed addition of
the school use is intended to apply to the entire building in the event that the
Larimer County Wellness space becomes available.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Due to the hour, the board elected not to take formal action. They felt comfortable with the plan specifics
available in their agenda packet materials and the opportunity they had to ask questions of staff at their
work session on April 12, 2013. Mountain Sage Community School, #SPA130001 was automatically
approved without formal board action as State statute allows only 60 days for review.
Other
The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair
ITEM NO _2____________
MEETING DATE May 16, 2013
STAFF WRAY
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Bella Vira, One-Year Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, # 36-05B
APPLICANT: John Minatta
OFP Development Co.
2037 Lexington Court
Fort Collins, CO 80526
OWNER: Same
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for a one year extension of the term of vested right, to May 16, 2014, of the
approved Bella Vira, Final Plan. The parcel is located generally at the southwest corner of West
Elizabeth Street and South Overland Trail. The Final Plan has been approved for 60 single
family detached dwellings, and 25 multi-family dwelling units on 34.7 acres.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Bella Vira Final Plan was originally approved on May 13, 2008. The initial three-year approval
that expired in May of 2011 has since been extended twice administratively per Section
2.2.11(D) (4). These two administrative extensions authorized vested rights to May 13, 2013.
Prior to this expiration date, the applicant forwarded a letter to the Community Development and
Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director, dated April 2, 2013 requesting a third one-year
extension, with the assumption this request could be processed administratively again. Staff
informed the applicant a third extension request is required to be forwarded to the Planning and
Zoning Board, and the next available Hearing date is May 16, 2013. Since the Final Plan is set
to expire on May 13, three days prior to the Hearing, the CDNS Director authorized an
extension of vested rights to May 16, 2013.
The applicant, as stated in his letter, has experienced unprecedented economic conditions and
subsequent market fallout over the past five years to support the development of this project or
related engineering improvements. However, the current market conditions have improved
dramatically in 2013 and the applicant is pursuing due diligence with potential builders, and now
seeks a one-year extension from the Planning and Zoning Board. The project continues to
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
Bella Vira – Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, Project #36-05B
Planning & Zoning Hearing 05/16/2013
Page 2
comply with Article Three – General Development Standards and Article Four, Division 4.2 –
Residential Foothills, and Division 4.5 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District.
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
On May 18, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Bella Vira, Project Development
Plan (PDP) - #36-05A/B.
On May 13, 2008 the Final Plan was approved. Per Section 2.2.11(D) (3), this Final Plan was
granted a term of vested right for three years.
On March 3, 2011, the term of vested right was extended administratively by the CDNS Director
for one additional year per Section 2.2.11(D) (4).
On March 23, 2012, the term of vested right was extended for the second time administratively
by the CDNS Director for one additional year. Section 2.2.11(D) (4) allows for only two
successive administrative extensions.
On April 2, 2013, the applicant formally requested that a one-year extension be forwarded to the
Planning and Zoning Board. This request represents the first action of the Planning and Zoning
Board with regard to extending the term of vested right. The applicant has requested this next
one-year extension in sufficient time to meet the pertinent code section. If approved by the
Board, this extension request will require all engineering improvements in accordance with the
approved utility plans to be completed no later than May 16, 2014.
2. ARTICLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION
Section 2.2.11(D) (4) Extensions (Notes and emphasis added.)
Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director,
upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in
Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for
the extension. (Administrative extensions have been exhausted.)
Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the Planning and Zoning
Board, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards
as contained in Article Three and the Zone District Standards as contained in Article Four at the
time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in
constructing the engineering improvements required pursuant to paragraph (3) above, though
such improvements have not been fully constructed, or (b) due to other extraordinary and
exceptional situations unique to the property, completing all engineering improvements
would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the
applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good.
Bella Vira – Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, Project #36-05B
Planning & Zoning Hearing 05/16/2013
Page 3
A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to
the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the
essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of
the Director, be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board.
The applicant has only recently secured financing for this project by a lender and is in the
process of negotiation with a builder to start initial construction in June for the 60 single-family
lots.
Extending the vested right for the Final Plan for one additional year is not detrimental to the
public good. This is because the project continues to comply with the relatively new L-M-N
standard related to the mix of housing types. Further, the Final Plan continues to meet all
aspects of the Land Use Code.
Finally, the project continues to represent a pattern of land use that complies with the Structure
Plan Map.
The request for an extension of vested rights was made on April 2, 2013, more than 30 days
prior to the date of expiration of May 13, 2013, now extended by the CDNS Director to May 16.
3. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Bella Vira, PDP proposal complies with the following applicable requirements/ standards of
the Land Use Code, more specifically:
Standards located in Division 3.2 - Site Planning and Design Standards, Division 3.3 –
Engineering Standards, Division 3.4 - Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural
Resource Protection Standards, Division 3.5 - Building Standards, and Division 3.6 -
Transportation and Circulation of Article 3 - General Development Standards.
4. ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICTS
A. Division 4.2 – Residential Foothills
The final Plan satisfies the applicable development standards in the RF District, with the
exception of Section 4.2(E) (2) Site Design for Residential Cluster Development, subsection (b),
which states:
Minimum lot sizes may be waived by the Planning and Zoning Board, provided that the
overall density of the cluster development is not greater than one (1) unit per gross acre,
and the units are clustered together in the portion of the property designated on the plan
for residential use at a density of three (3) to five (5) units per gross acre.
The final Plan includes a total of 20 single-family detached dwelling units (lots) on 15.13 acres in
the RF District. This results in a gross residential density of 1.32 dwelling units per acre. Also,
the final Plan preserves 8.22 acres of private open space and clusters the 20 lots on 6.91 acres,
resulting in a residential density of 2.89 dwelling units per acre. The modification of this standard
Bella Vira – Extension of Final Plan Vested Rights, Project #36-05B
Planning & Zoning Hearing 05/16/2013
Page 4
was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board with the PDP and was incorporated into the
Final Plan.
B. Division 4.4 - Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN)
This Final Plan complies with the purpose of the LMN District as it is a project that provides
single-family and multi-family dwellings on a property that is surrounded by developed
properties containing residential and institutional uses. There is existing single-family and multi-
family residential to the east. There is existing single-family residential to the west and south.
Property to the north is owned by Colorado State University and is partially developed.
5. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
A. Bella Vira Final Plan continues to comply with Division 4.2 RF and Division 4.5 LMN
standards in Article Four Districts.
B. Bella Vira continues to comply with the applicable General Development Standards of
Article Three.
C. The request for extension of vested rights satisfies Section 2.2.11(D) (4).
D. The request for extension of vested rights was made at least 30 days prior to the date of
expiration of the approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Bella Vira, Extension of Final Plan #36-05B, for a One Year Term
of Vested Rights to May 16, 2014.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
1. Applicant Letter, dated April 2, 2013
ITEM NO _______3___________
MEETING DATE _______5/16/13______
STAFF _____SHEPARD_____
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Avago Technologies Building Four Expansion, Major Amendment,
#FDP 130006
APPLICANT: Avago Technologies Wireless USA, Inc.
c/o BHA Design
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
OWNER: Avago Technologies Wireless USA, Inc.
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to expand Avago Technologies Building Four which is the most
northwesterly building on their campus located at 4380 Ziegler Road. The proposed
addition would contain 138,800 square feet and be three stories in height. The addition
would be placed on the west side of the existing building. The addition would allow
more space for the current operations which include fabrication for wafer manufacturing,
clean room operations and testing and other support functions. The total Avago site
contains 70 acres and is zoned H-C, Harmony Corridor.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The land use is permitted in the H-C zone and because the building exceeds 80,000
square feet, it is subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. The request complies
with the applicable standards of the Harmony Corridor zone and the General
Development standards of Article Three. The location of the proposed 138,800 square
foot addition is on the west side of the existing Building Four and is buffered to the north
with an earthen berm. The existing parking lot will be reduced from 393 spaces to 84
spaces which remain sufficient to serve the addition. The architecture of the proposed
addition is specifically designed to match the existing building.
Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750
Project Name, Project #FDP130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing May 16, 2013
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: R-L; Woodland Park Estates
N: U-E; Hidden Pond Estates
S: H-C; Harmony Technology Park, Filing One, (Intel)
E: H-C; Preston Kelly 2
nd
Filing, Lot One (Hewlett-Packard)
W: H-C; Symbios Logic Subdivision (A.M.D.)
W: H-C; Front Range Village First Filing (Regional Shopping Center, Office and Public
Library)
The 160 acre campus was annexed in 1977 in a series of annexations called Harmony
Annexations Three and Four. It was platted as the Preston-Kelley Subdivision in 1978.
Buildings One, Two and Three were approved in 1978 and constructed as a single
phase. These were followed by individual phases for each subsequent building. In
order, the next three buildings constructed were Buildings Six, Five and Four. A total of
seven buildings were anticipated on the Master Plan. Prior to adoption of the Land Use
Code, all approvals were processed administratively as an I-L (Limited Industrial) Site
Plan Review.
Building Four is referred to as ICBD Genesis IV and was submitted after the adoption of
the Land Use Code. It was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in 1998 as a
315,000 square foot building for the testing and manufacture of micro silicon chips and
integrated circuits.
In 1999, the campus was divided into two lots by the Preston Kelley Filing Two
Subdivision for the purpose of creating two distinct companies, Hewlett-Packard (94
acres) and Agilent, which has now become Avago, (70 acres).
2. Article Four – Applicable Harmony Corridor District Standards:
A. Section 4.17(B)(2)(c)1. – Permitted Use and Section 4.17(D)(3)(b) – Dimensional
Standards
The proposed land use, research laboratories and light industrial, are permitted subject
to administrative review. However, all new structures greater than 80,000 square feet in
gross leasable area are subject to Planning and Zoning Board review.
Project Name, Project #FDP130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing May 16, 2013
Page 3
B. Section 4.26(E)(3)(a) – Height
The proposed addition will be three stories in height thus under the maximum allowable
height of six stories for nonresidential buildings.
C. Section 4.26(E)(3)(b) – Campus Exception
The campus has been established and is defined by the placement of the existing six
buildings all served by a perimeter loop road. All six buildings are clustered in the
middle of the campus with parking lots located outside the cluster. In fact, Building Four
is connected to Building Two and all buildings are loosely connected by courtyards.
Since the proposed addition is considered to be part of an established campus, and is
oriented internally to the campus framework, the proposed addition is exempted from
having to front on a public street.
3. Article Three – Applicable General Development Standards:
A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) – Landscaping and Tree Planting Standards
The primary change in the landscaping is north of both the existing building and the
proposed addition where the existing earthen berm will be significantly enhanced. In
order to provide buffering to the north to the maximum extent feasible, the new berm will
be lengthened to 800 feet which exceeds the width of the north elevation of the existing
building and proposed addition by 200 feet.
The berm will undulate with the height ranging from 10 to 12 feet. For no less than 500
feet, the berm will maintain the height of ten feet with two peaks reaching 12 feet. In
addition, new trees and shrubs, with an emphasis on evergreens, will be planted along
the earthen berm to further the buffering benefit for the neighborhoods to the north.
New landscaping also includes foundation shrubs along the west elevation featuring a
meandering double row of shrubs. The north side of the 84-space parking lot will be
screened by 13 new trees.
B. Section 3.2.1(E)(6) - Screening
There will be six cooling towers along the north elevation. In terms of height, two of
these towers will be 22 feet, three will be 19 feet, and one will be 15 feet. These towers
will be mitigated by the aforementioned earthen berm and landscaping. The loading
dock is located on the south side and will not be visible from the north.
Project Name, Project #FDP130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing May 16, 2013
Page 4
C. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping
The 84-space parking lot is located internally to the campus and not along a public
street. It is approximately 900 feet south of the north property line and 265 feet from the
west property line. While there will be 13 new trees planted along the north edge, the
primary screening is provided by the existing landscaping along the north and west
property lines that contribute to the overall aesthetics of the entire campus. The
combination of distance and existing and proposed landscaping allows this parking lot
to be sufficiently mitigated in accordance with the intent of the standard.
D. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping
With 84 spaces, the parking lot is required to have 6% interior landscaping. The parking
lot landscaping, primarily due to the prominent entry treatment, exceeds this minimum
requirement.
E. Section 3.2.1(F) – Tree Protection and Replacement
The new addition involves the relocation of five evergreen trees. These trees will be
transplanted to the north of the addition in the area of the earthen berm where their
location and maturity will contribute to the buffering.
F. Section 3.2.2(B) – Access, Circulation and Parking – General Standard
The site of the expansion is presently a temporary outside storage yard and a parking
lot containing 393 parking spaces. Of these 393 spaces, 309 will be eliminated with 84
remaining. At full build-out, the estimated number of new employees is 100 who will be
divided among three shifts. This 84-space parking lot, combined with the existing
parking lots to the south and west of Building One, are sufficient to accommodate the
number of existing and future employees and customers.
G. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities
As an industrial use, the facility is required to provide four bicycle parking spaces in
fixed racks. Building Four West Annex will provide 30 bicycle parking spaces.
H. Section 3.2.2(C)(5)(6) – Walkways and Pedestrian / Bicycle Destinations
The campus as a whole is well-served by a network of private drives which allow for
bicycles and pedestrians to gain access at all entry points. Walkways are provided
between the public sidewalks and the loop road. As part of this project, Avago will
install a new eight-by-eight-foot concrete pad for the Transfort bus stop and a five-foot
wide walkway connecting the main driveway. This walk will be 50-feet in length and tie
into the existing public sidewalk ramp.
Project Name, Project #FDP130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing May 16, 2013
Page 5
I. Section 3.2.2(D) – Access and Parking Lot Design
This standard requires that all vehicular use areas be designed to be safe, efficient,
convenient and attractive, considering all modes of transportation that will use the
system (cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles.) The fundamental
component of the campus circulation system is the established loop road which
circumnavigates the six buildings and their parking lots. Within this circulator are the
buildings and parking lots, while outside are the earthen berms, mature landscaped
areas and perimeter fencing that define the quality and character of the campus.
Access to the campus is limited at the entry points; two off Harmony Road and one off
Ziegler Road. While the manned guard houses have been removed, the campus does
not invite the public as there are no goods or services that are offered to the general
public. The primary users of the system are the employees and customers as well as
the shipping and receiving operations. The semi-open campus is feasible due to
security being provided at each building entrance. This is comparable to other large-
scale industries throughout the community.
J. Section 3.2.2(J) - Setbacks
The demolition and reconstruction of a portion of the parking lot is within the boundary
of the perimeter loop road and would be no closer to Ziegler Road than existing
improvements.
K. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) – Handicap Parking
This standard requires that for a parking lot providing between 76 and 100 spaces,
there shall be a minimum of four handicap accessible spaces. There are four such
spaces located as close to the connecting walkway as possible.
L. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting
The new parking lot light fixtures will match the existing fixtures and remain in
compliance of being fully-shielded down-directional. Because the parking lot serves a
campus framework, and is separated from the public roadways by a significant
landscaped area, there is no spillage of illumination off the property.
M. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility
The proposed addition is specifically designed to match the existing building. There will
be matching split-face concrete block at the lower one-third of the building with
horizontal accent bands of smooth-face concrete block to provide vertical relief. The
upper two-thirds will be a combination of metal panels and synthetic stucco in a pattern
that matches the existing building. The addition will be topped with a standing seam
metal roof, color gray, to match the existing roof.
Project Name, Project #FDP130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing May 16, 2013
Page 6
N. Section 3.5.1(G) – Building Height Review
The building will be three stories and 59 feet high. Buildings over 40 feet in height are
subject to this standard. Although the addition includes three exhaust stacks that are
ten feet high, they are exempt from height considerations per Section 3.8.17(C), which
states that cooling towers and ventilators and other similar rooftop equipment that cover
no more than 5% of the horizontal surface of the roof are exempt from height review.
(1.)Views. With regard to views, the proposed addition does not substantially
alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places,
streets, and parks within the community.
(2.)Light and Shadow. The shadow analysis reveals that at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. on December 21
st
, the length of the shadows do not cross the north
property line.
(3.)Privacy. The proposed height of 59 feet for the addition avoids infringing on
the privacy of adjacent public and private property, particularly adjacent
residential areas and parks.
(4.)Neighborhood Scale. The proposed addition is compatible with the scale of
the Hewlett-Packard / Avago 160-acre campus relative to the existing six
buildings in terms of height, mass, length-to-mass and the human scale.
O. Section 3.5.1(J) – Operational/Physical Compatibility
All operations take place within the buildings. Loading docks and trash enclosures are
located on the south side of the building. Based on existing operations, the potential
noise generated by the mechanical equipment will be attenuated by a combination of
distance, earthen berm and landscaping such that there will be no violation of the City
Code as to decibels at the receiving property line. As noted, illumination does not spill
off-site. The parking lot setback from the north property line by 900 feet and there is
sufficient parking all Avago employees, customers, vendors and visitors.
P. Section 3.5.3(D) – Character and Image
As mentioned, the proposed addition is designed with sufficient detail and provides a
distinct base, middle and top so as to comply with the standard. There is more detail at
the lower level for pedestrian interest and more expansive use of materials on the upper
portions. The sloping roof at the top breaks the vertical plane. For a large-scale
industrial building, the proportions of length, width and height are balanced.
Project Name, Project #FDP130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing May 16, 2013
Page 7
Q. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Impact Study
The requirement to submit a Transportation Impact Study was waived due to the
proposed use being an extension of the existing operation. Also, the estimated number
of additional employees is considered minimal due to shift schedules and relative to the
minor impact on the surrounding streets during peak times. This means that all through
traffic and turning movements at the intersections of Harmony Road / Ziegler Road and
at Ziegler Road / Council Tree Avenue will remain within the range of acceptable Levels
of Service without the need for additional improvements.
The anticipated number of deliveries is not expected to exceed the present level.
Harmony Road, Ziegler Road and Council Tree Avenue are fully improved and include
bike lanes. Transfort Routes 16 and 17 serve Harmony Road. In order to improve the
Transfort bus stop, a new concrete pad will be provided including a connecting
walkway.
4. Neighborhood Input:
A neighborhood information meeting was held March 25, 2013. A summary of this
meeting is attached. The main concerns, and their resolution, are summarized as
follows:
A. The primary concern is the extent of the buffering between the proposed addition
and the north property line. The concern was expressed that with the addition,
now would also be an opportune time to enhance the screening of the existing
building. In response, the applicant has provided the upgraded berm which will
include additional landscaping, particularly evergreen trees. With a length of 800
feet and a height mostly at ten feet, and topped with landscaping, the screening
of both the addition and the existing building will be more effective and will soften
the appearance of the industrial buildings as viewed from the neighborhoods to
the north.
B. Traffic on Ziegler Road was raised specifically the difficulty for the residents of
the two neighborhoods to the north in gaining access onto Ziegler Road. In
response, the City Traffic Operations Department is aware of these issues,
particularly making left turns to go southbound on Ziegler Road. There is a
reluctance, at this time, on the City’s part to locate and install a traffic signal while
there are still large tracts of vacant land on the west side of Ziegler Road. Until
these tracts develop, the necessary warrants for installing a traffic signal may not
be met. As mentioned, the new users of the proposed Avago addition will gain
access from the existing traffic signal at Ziegler Road and Council Tree Avenue
and does not, by itself, generate traffic in sufficient numbers to justify any further
traffic signals on Ziegler Road.
Project Name, Project #FDP130006
Planning & Zoning Hearing May 16, 2013
Page 8
C. The quality of the air emissions emanating from the existing and proposed
industrial buildings was a topic of concern. In response, the applicant explained
that Avago is governed by an air quality emissions permit from the State of
Colorado which establishes a maximum amount of emissions. Avago cannot
exceed this specified amount of emissions or otherwise risk a violation from
Colorado Department of Health and the Environment. Avago does not plan on
exceeding the allowances on its existing permit. In fact, the desire is to reduce
current levels.
D. Noise and illumination were concerns raised by those in attendance. In
response, the aforementioned berm will provide a buffer so that the decibels at
the receiving property line will comply with City Code. Lighting will be setback
from the north property line by a sufficient distance such that there will be no light
spilling across the property line.
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
A. The proposed use is permitted in the H-C zone district and since the building
exceeds 80,000 square feet, the use is subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Board.
B. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable standards of the H-C zone
district of Article Four.
C. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable General Development
standards of Article Three.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Avago Technologies Building Four Expansion, Major
Amendment, #FDP 130006.
SUBFAB
98' - 0"
FAB
117' - 0"
FAB
117' - 0"
B4-SUBFAB
100' - 0"
T.O. STAIRS
168' - 8"
TO RIDGE
169' - 4"
T.O. PARAPET
159' - 1"
T.O. EXHAUST
173' - 0"
STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOF COLOR TO MATCH
EXISTING GRAY
METAL PANELS OR
STUCCO TO MATCH
COLOR AND PATTERN
OF EXISTING
BUILDING
MECHANICAL EXHAUST
STACKS TO MATCH
EXISTING STACK COLOR
METAL PANELS OR STUCCO TO
MATCH COLOR AND PATTERN OF
EXISTING BUILDING
METAL PANEL CANOPY COLOR
TO MATCH EXISTING GRAY
ALUMINUM STORE FRONT
SYSTEM
OVERHEAD
DOORS
DASHED LINE REPRESENTS
MECHANICAL COOLING
TOWERS IN FOREGROUND TO
BE GALVANIZED METAL FINSIH
SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK COLOR
TO MATCH EXISTING FINISH AND
COLOR
SMOOTH FACE CMU BLOCK
COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING
FINISH AND COLOR
EXISTING
EXHAUST
STACKS
REMOVE TOP 8'-0" OF
EXISTING SCREENWALL
AS SHOWN, ALLOWING
FIRE DEPT. ROOF
ACCESS
ALUMINUM STORE FRONT
PUNCHED OPENINGS
EXISTING BUILDING NEW EXPANSION
PRE-FINISHED
MECHANICAL
LOUVERS TO MATCH
BURKETTDESIGN
ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN
1899 WYNKOOP STREET
SUITE 300
DENVER COLORADO 80202
(P) 303.595.4500
(F) 303.595.4505
MAJOR AMENDMENT
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES B4 WEST ANNEX
SHEET
BHA DESIGN, INC 1603 OAKRIDGE DRIVE FT. COLLINS, CO 80525 TEL: (970) 223 - 7577
4380
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
ZIEGLER ROAD
2 OF 2
SHADOW ANALYSIS
1" = 100'-0" MAY 1, 2013
SHADOW ANALYSIS (4PM DEC 21ST) NBDI
ADJACENT MATERIAL
COLOR
TOP OF CUB
PARAPET
135' - 6"
SUBFAB
98' - 0"
FAB
117' - 0"
B4-SUBFAB
100' - 0"
TO RIDGE
169' - 4"
T.O. PARAPET
159' - 1"
ALUMINUM STORE
FRONT SYSTEM
ALUMINUM STORE FRONT
SYSTEM PUNCHED
OPENINGS
PRESSURE RELIEF LOADING DOCK
PANEL
PRE-FINISHED
EXHAUST LOUVER
SMOOTH FACE
CMU BLOCK TO
MATCH EXISTING
FINISH AND COLOR
FUEL CON VAULT
SPLIT FACE CMU
BLOCK TO MATCH
EXISTING FINISH AND
COLOR
METAL PANELS OR
STUCCO TO MATCH
COLOR AND PATTERN
OF EXISITNG BUILDING
MECHANICAL EXHAUST
STACKS TO MATCH
EXISTING STACK COLOR
METAL PANELS OR
STUCCO TO MATCH
COLOR AND PATTERN
OF EXISTING BUILDING
STANDING SEAM ROOF,
COLOR TO MATCH
EXISTING GRAY
ALUMINUM STORE
FRONT PUNCHED
OPENINGS
METAL PANEL CANOPY COLOR
TO MATCH EXISTING GRAY
NEW EXPANSION EXISTING BUILDING
SUBFAB
98' - 0"
SUBFAB
98' - 0"
FAB
117' - 0"
FAB
117' - 0"
T.O. STAIRS
168' - 8"
TO RIDGE
169' - 4"
T.O. PARAPET
159' - 1"
T.O. EXHAUST
173' - 0"
ALUMINUM STORE FRONT
SYSTEM RIBBON GLAZING
SPLIT FACE CMU BLOCK
TO MATCH EXISTING
FINISH AND COLOR
SMOOTH FACE CMU BLOCK TO
MATCH EXISTING FINISH AND
COLOR
ALUMINUM STORE
FRONT SYSTEM
ALUMINUM STORE FRONT
SYSTEM PUNCHED
OPENINGS
ALUMINUM STORE
FRONT SYSTEM
STANDING SEAM ROOF
COLOR TO MATCH
EXISTING GRAY
METAL PANELS OR
STUCCO TO MATCH
COLOR AND PATTERN OF
EXISTING BUILDING
MECHANICAL EXHAUST
STACKS TO MATCH
EXISTING STACK COLOR
METAL PANEL CANOPY COLOR TO
MATCH EXISTING GRAY
CAST STONE CAP TO
MATCH EXISTING BUFF
COLOR
EXISTING BUILDING
BEYOND. METAL PANELS
COLOR : WHITE
TOP OF CUB
PARAPET
135' - 6"
MECHANICAL EXHAUST
STACKS TO MATCH
EXISTING STACK
COLOR
METAL PANELS OR STUCCO
TO MATCH COLOR AND
PATTERN OF EXISTING
BUILDING
OVERHEAD DOOR PAINTED
TO MATCH ADJACENT
MATERIALS
BURKETTDESIGN
ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN
1899 WYNKOOP STREET
SUITE 300
DENVER COLORADO 80202
(P) 303.595.4500
(F) 303.595.4505
MAJOR AMENDMENT
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES B4 WEST ANNEX
SHEET
BHA DESIGN, INC 1603 OAKRIDGE DRIVE FT. COLLINS, CO 80525 TEL: (970) 223 - 7577
4380
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
ZIEGLER ROAD
1 OF 2
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS
MAY 1, 2013
1" = 20'-0"
ELEVATION NORTH
1" = 20'-0"
ELEVATION SOUTH
1" = 20'-0"
ELEVATION WEST