The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/02/2014 - CONSIDERATION OF TWO APPEALS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVEAgenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 2, 2014 City Council STAFF Seth Lorson, City Planner SUBJECT Consideration of two Appeals of the Administrative Hearing Officer’s September 9, 2014 Remand Hearing Decision to Approve the Summit on College Parking Structure, Major Amendment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Two separate parties filed a Notice of Appeal; the grounds for appeal are as follows: Appellant Councilmember Cunniff:  Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code and Charter. Appellant Jeffrey Leef et al.:  Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: o The board, commission or other decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter; o The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.  Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code and Charter. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On May 20, 2014, Council provided direction regarding interpretation of the Land Use Code and remanded the project back to the Hearing Officer to consider the following issues: 1. Whether Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code was properly interpreted and applied with regard to impacts on the Spring Creek viewshed; and 2. Whether Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code was properly interpreted and applied with regard to the number of off-street parking spaces. Council remanded the decision to the Hearing Officer to consider the possible reduction of number of parking spaces to a number closer to the minimum parking requirement in the TOD Overlay Zone (358 total parking spaces), and consider the impact on the Spring Creek viewsheds and a possible reduction in the parking structure’s size. In response to the direction from City Council, the applicant submitted an alternative design for consideration at the remand hearing. The alternative design removes one story from the parking structure consisting of 345 parking spaces (442 total) reduced from 440 parking spaces (535 total). It is proposed to be built over the top of the existing surface parking lot resulting in a net gain of 251 spaces over existing conditions. The parking structure consists of 3 levels, reduced from 4 levels, including parking on the roof, for an overall height of 2 ½ stories. Additional vertical vegetation has been proposed at the south aspect of the parking garage to help Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 2 screen and soften visual impacts on the Spring Creek viewshed. On September 4, 2014, the alternative design parking structure was reviewed by the Hearing Officer who considered additional evidence related to the two Land Use Code sections cited above. The Hearing Officer issued a decision of approval on September 9, 2014. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL CUNNIFF APPEAL Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code? Specifically the appellant asks, “does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(I)(2) ‘Projects shall be designed to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site’? If so, what evidence supports this finding?” The Hearing Officer’s finding of fact and decision regarding the impact on the Spring Creek viewshed follows: 10. The Hearing Officer concludes that both the Original Design and the Alternative Design have an impact on Spring Creek viewsheds. The Hearing Officer concludes the Alternative Design includes additional green screening along the southern elevation of the proposed structure and removes the top level of the parking structure, and therefore has a significantly reduced impact on the viewsheds to and from Spring Creek. The Hearing Officer finds that the Alternative Design best achieves the purpose of Section 3.4.1 of the LUC, in that the Alternative Design will best protect the Spring Creek viewsheds on the site and in the vicinity of the site. The Hearing Officer finds that the character of the existing views to and from Spring Creek are somewhat degraded by the existing development and surrounds Creek Side Park, including but not limited to the mini- storage and auto repair located south of the Park. The Alternative Design will enhance existing views to and from the Spring Creek Corridor by providing increased green screening, landscaping, trees and other plantings (with some landscaping to be installed by the City utilizing the Applicant’s fee-in-lieu contribution). The Hearing Officer further finds that the Alternative Design best complements the visual context of the Spring Creek Corridor and that the Applicant’s architectural design, choice of colors, building materials and other aspects of the project design that appear in the record as specifically pertains to the Alternative Design, including but not limited to the reduced overall height and the additional green screening, will sufficiently blend with the natural visual character of the area. The reduction in height of the garage and the additional green screening on the southern elevation of the structure (facing Creek Side Park) minimizes the scale of the parking structure and significantly minimizes the obstruction of scenic views to and from the Spring Creek Corridor. At the hearing, the applicant’s consultant, Mr. Williamson, discussed slides from the presentation (Attachment 7) depicting the landscaping and views from Spring Creek on page 11, line 9 - 21, and page 12, line 12 - page 13, line 11 of the verbatim transcript: This is a rendering that we have prepared of the garage. It shows, to the north, which is on the right hand side of the screen, the existing Summit building, and then center in the rendering is the garage. You’ll see the landscaping that we’re showing on the north and east sides of the garage and then…what I’d like to call your attention to is what’s happening on the south side of the garage. If you’ll look, you can see the path that runs through Creekside Park there, and there’s two red dots where we have done some simulated viewpoints from. And then, on the north side of the creek, you can see the buffer planting that has been proposed through a fee in-lieu opportunity with the City. Really the impetus behind that is that, right now that’s in a floodplain and the City is currently working on kind of reshaping that area. So, rather than have us go in and make any improvements to that area that would eventually be just torn out, we’re going to say, these are the reasonable improvements that we’ve worked through with City staff, and Capstone is going to pay for those improvements, and then they’ll be installed when the City makes the larger-scale improvements to the area. This is a slide that we’ve looked at before, and I just want to call attention to the green screen that Hoshi had pointed out. We’ve basically doubled the green screen that’s on the face of the garage. Part of that is that the garage has shrunk in overall height, but we have added multiple panels that really will…will disguise more of Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 3 that…as you’re viewing it…from Spring Creek. Those green screens are going to be composed of vines. There’s a couple different types of vines…they’re living vegetation…they will be on there year-round; they don’t die back. But, some of the species will lose leaves; others will retain them through the winter. They won’t remain green through the winter, but they turn a nice red, bronzy color for that time period. And then, we’ve selected a range of vines that will flower throughout the season; some will flower early spring, mid-spring to late summer, and then another that will go in late summer as well. So…kind of keep that interest happening. The ones that flower early will green up early; the ones that flower late will stay green later, so that kind of bridges that season. Also, we want to emphasize that the structural lighting will be improved from the current surface parking lot. The protection of the night sky will have no spillover into Spring Creek. Now we can go to the next slide. So these are a couple views showing the existing vegetation from Creekside Park. These really…we’ve done two renderings, but really these kind of show the rest of the park and what you see in both the right…the upper right and then the lower two on the center and the right, are…that’s the path and those are looking towards our building. So you can see that there’s a fair amount of vegetation already existing on the…that’s on the south side of the creek between the path and the creek. So those…that’s the view today and you can see, then, some of these are the ones that we actually used for the renderings. This is the first rendering that we’ve done…this is from the southeast corner of the building…or, sorry, this is from Spring Creek looking at the southeast corner of the building. These are…they’re not the specific plants since we didn’t do a specific plan for the fee in-lieu; however, these are the plants…these plants are shown in the locations of the approved fee in-lieu exhibit. The shrubs and the trees you can see really run the full gamut from Spring Creek all the way back to our garage. And you can see how…how really that the garage is really no more visible than the other buildings that are…that are over there, and really we feel like creating any more dense of a screen than that would really provide a buffer that wouldn’t really be appropriate for this…for this area. You know, it’s a park in an urban area. If we were to do a really strong vegetative buffer, it’s never going to be a hundred percent, but really we feel like this is the most appropriate and, you know, working through it with City staff, they’ve agreed. Can we go to the next slide? So this one is a little bit further west, standing on the path looking directly head on at our building. And you can see that, in the original picture that’s inset in the bottom corner, you know, there’s some existing vegetation. That vegetation will also continue to mature, but we haven’t shown that; we’ve shown the existing vegetation in the current state. So really this view would crowd in with the existing vegetation and then the proposed vegetation would further buffer the building. LEEF APPEAL The remand hearing was limited in scope to the presentation of questions before the Hearing Officer as it relates only to Sections 3.4.1(I)(2) and 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code. Many of the allegations of the Leef appeal go beyond the limited scope. The allegations cited in this section are only those that pertain to the relevant sections of the remand hearing. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that he exceeded his authority as contained in the Code or Charter? As alleged: “D. The hearing officer received no land-oriented justification for the number of parking spaces to exceed the new TOD parking requirement, which the hearing officer approved although the intent and purpose of the TOD is to have limited parking and vehicle use.” The Hearing Officer’s finding of fact and decision regarding the number of parking spaces in relation to the TOD parking requirements follows: 12. The Hearing Officer concludes that City Council intended that the Hearing Officer interpret and apply Section 3.5.1(J)(7) of the Land Use Code to analyze the potential reduction in the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements codified at Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code. Applying the parking spaces per dwelling unit ratio set forth in subparagraph 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) of the Land Use Code, the Hearing Officer concludes that a minimum of 358 parking spaces would be required Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 4 for the 665 bedrooms (in 220 units) in the Summit on College Development. The Original Design contains 440 parking spaces in the structure (for a total of 535 parking spaces). The Alternative Design contains 345 parking spaces in the structure (for a total of 442 parking spaces). The Hearing Officer concludes that the total of 442 parking spaces included in the Alternative Design is closer to the minimum parking requirement set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that he exceeded his authority as contained in the Code or Charter? As alleged: “I. The hearing officer exceeded his authority and jurisdiction by not adhering to the intent of the City Council in its remand. Because of the ambiguity of the term "closer" in the Council's remand instructions concerning reducing the number of parking spaces in the parking structure to a number closer to that contained in the City's interim TOD parking ordinance for minimum parking, the undisputed evidence of the City Council's intent was that the hearing officer approve a number that was the same as or extremely close to the minimum parking space number in the interim ordinance. In addition, although the 442 total parking spaces proposed by the Alternative Design is closer to the minimum number of spaces called for in the interim ordinance, the decision does not conclude it is enough of a reduction to be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses, as it must be.” The Hearing Officer’s finding of fact and decision regarding the number of parking spaces in relation to the TOD parking requirements and the City Council’s “intent” is the same as the previous allegation: Paragraph 12 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on page 4 of the Decision. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that he exceeded his authority as contained in the Code or Charter? As alleged: “J. While the evidence may have shown that the Alternative Design was better than the original design in protecting the viewsheds, it did not show that the Alternative Design best achieves it, as the hearing officer, exceeding his authority and jurisdiction, and as unsupported in the record, so determined.” The Hearing Officer did not reference the alternative design in terms of being a “better” design as it relates to protecting the viewsheds. However, the decision does note that the alternative design “will best protect the Spring Creek viewsheds on the site and in the vicinity of the site,” and “best complements the visual contest of the Spring Creek Corridor.” Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that he considered evidence relevant to his findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? As alleged: “A. The applicant submitted a grossly inaccurate, obviously staged photograph in an attempt to minimize the effect of the proposed structure on the view of the mountains from appellants' leased property. When attacked during the hearing about the cynicism of this attempt, the applicant quickly asked to withdraw the photograph. Another member of the audience suggested that it should not be allowed to be withdrawn, as proof of the insincerity of the applicant. The hearing officer made no ruling and the photograph continued to be part of the record, so far as is known. It was relevant to the decision the hearing officer made not to apply the view protection standards.” All material submitted by the applicant are included in Attachment 5 as attachments to the staff report and Attachment 7 as a presentation. The photograph cited in the allegation was not presented at the remand hearing. Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing in that he considered evidence relevant to his findings which were substantially false or grossly misleading? As alleged: “D. The hearing officer received and considered evidence from the applicant that the "project" was compatible under applicable zoning even though the basis for the statement was simply a few architectural features. The existing project is incompatible with the surrounding area in terms of enormous massing, and the proposed Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 5 parking structure will only materially exacerbate the project incompatibility. Architecture is just one of many important factors contributing to compatibility, as the code (Section 5.1) defines: "Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean 'the same as.' Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development." The Hearing Officer’s finding of fact and decision regarding compatibility strictly addresses the amount of parking spaces and does not address height, scale, mass etc… follows: 11. Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC reads as follows: (J) Operational / Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on: . . . (7) location and number of off-street parking spaces. 12. The Hearing Officer concludes that City Council intended that the Hearing Officer interpret and apply Section 3.5.1(J)(7) of the Land Use Code to analyze the potential reduction in the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements codified at Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code. Applying the parking spaces per dwelling unit ratio set forth in subparagraph 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) of the Land Use Code, the Hearing Officer concludes that a minimum of 358 parking spaces would be required for the 665 bedrooms (in 220 units) in the Summit on College Development. The Original Design contains 440 parking spaces in the structure (for a total of 535 parking spaces). The Alternative Design contains 345 parking spaces in the structure (for a total of 442 parking spaces). The Hearing Officer concludes that the total of 442 parking spaces included in the Alternative Design is closer to the minimum parking requirement set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC. At the hearing, the applicant’s consultant, Mr. Engineer, discussed slides from the presentation (Attachment 7) depicting the size of the original proposal versus the alternative proposal on page 7, line 35 - page 8, line 21 of the verbatim transcript: Okay, this view is really taken from the South College Avenue, and again it kind of depicts the three elevated levels, which was proposed in…original scheme. And you can see the mass and scale of the structure and you can compare that with the next slide that we have over…this is the mass and scheme for the two elevated alternative design as viewed from the same viewpoint from the South College Avenue. And…the next slide has a better depiction of the comparison of the original scheme versus the alternate scheme. You can see significantly the smaller size of the garage, of the two elevated levels versus the three elevated levels, keeping in mind that we have kept everything else the same in terms of architecture, aesthetics, and visuals. This is the elevation from the Spring Creek Park on the south side, which we felt was an important elevation based on the concerns that were raised by the City Council and by the others…at the City Council hearing. The first elevation, the top elevation, represents the alternate design, two elevated levels, versus the three elevated original design. And one thing you can see…again, the texture and visuals are pretty much we have kept the same; the flavor of the garage has not changed in terms of the exterior aesthetics, but we have added significant green screening as…requested by the Council. You can see the density of the green screen, significantly more than the original design. Let’s move on to the next one. Well, I just want to say, can you go back to the original slide please…the one before it…I think there are some important things that I want to bring up regarding the architectural aesthetics and the visuals. Like I said…I want to re-emphasize this point over here, that we are maintaining the natural colors that were proposed in the original scheme, as in the elevated design. We are keeping the siding, the windows, the cornices and overhangs similar to The Summit residential complex, similar materials as The Summit development, and the most important thing is we have reduced the scale, the height and mass of the structure significantly, to Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 6 improve the view corridors from the Spring Creek Park. Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code? As alleged: “Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.5.1: Assessing compatibility of the physical characteristics of a proposed building within the context of its surrounding area must include a comparison with other buildings in the area. Similarity of building mass and proportion are critical. Whether or not the existing architectural character is definitively established, comparison of building mass and proportion with existing area buildings must be made. That comparison, in this case, should not be made only with the other buildings recently constructed by the applicant; rather, it must take into account the long-existing buildings in the immediate area, some of which have been remodeled according to the same mass and proportion as they existed before. The existing buildings in the area apart from the applicant's recently constructed large, angular apartments, are predominantly one story in height and of much lesser mass.” And, “LUC 3.5.1: Despite undisputed evidence that the proposed structure will completely block views of the mountains from pre-existing, adjacent buildings whose owners and occupants highly value such views, the hearing officer made no determination concerning the applicability or inapplicability of code provisions protecting such views. He did, however, describe the Alternate Design for the proposed structure as having an "overall" height of two and one-half stories (with one stair tower extending considerably higher), and that it would consist of three parking levels, including parking on the roof. The clear intent of the Code is to protect views of the mountains. The 40' standard prompts an automatic review, but if a structure is under 40' the Code does not provide that views will be ignored. View protection is a central component of building compatibility. Moreover, without reserving the general power to protect views, the City by enforcing the 40' standard alone would be regulating completely irrationally. This is because there is no horizontal distance element to the bare 40' standard (by contrast, the shadow standard requires examination of a 25' wall on property lines). Thus, a structure 39' in height that is 25' from a property line won't be reviewed, but a 41' high structure in the middle of a mile section will be. Obviously, each case is different, and the distances between other buildings and uses are vitally important in assessing view compatibility. The code allows the City to do so, whether a structure is over 40' or not.” The Hearing Officer’s finding of fact and decision regarding compatibility is the same as the previous allegation: Paragraph 11 and 12 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on page 4 of the Decision. Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply other cited provisions of the Land Use Code? As the appellant alleges for the following sections: Land Use Code Section:  4.21(b)  5.1  3.10  5.1.2 Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 7  2.2.10(B)(1)  3.2.2  2.8.2 The Hearing Officer’s Decision notes: The Alternative Design satisfies the Article 3 General Development Standards set forth at Section 3.4.1(I) and 3.5.1(J). The Alternative Design satisfies all other applicable Article 3 and Article 4 standards, as more fully analyzed and set forth in the March 19, 2014 decision, which is incorporated herein by reference. To the extent of any conflict between this written decision and the March 19th decision, the conditions of this September 9th decision shall control. Staff has not identified any new evidence from the Remand Hearing related to any of the Land Use Code Sections noted above. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk's Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit (PDF) 2. Notice of Appeal-Councilmember Ross Cunniff (PDF) 3. Notice of Appeal, Jeffrey Leef, et al (PDF) 4. Administrative Hearing Officer Decision (PDF) 5. Staff report (with attachments) provided to Administrative Hearing Officer (PDF) 6. Staff materials presented at the Administrative Hearing (PDF) 7. Applicant Materials presented at the Administrative Hearing (PDF) 8. Materials Presented to the Hearing Officer at the Administrative Hearing (PDF) 9. Verbatim Transcript of Hearing (PDF) 10. Powerpoint presentation to Council (PDF) ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal -Notice of Appeal filed by Councilmember Ross Cunniff, September 23, 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 Notice of Appeal -Notice of Appeal filed by Jeffrey Leef, et al., September 22, 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 Administrative Hearing Officer Decision, September 9, 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 Staff Report (with attachments) Provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer, Hearing held September 4, 2014 ITEM NO _________________ HEARING DATE September 4, 2014 _ STAFF Seth Lorson__ ____ REMANDED ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 MEMORANDUM PROJECT: The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 APPLICANT: Walker May Capstone Development Corp. 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 OWNER: Fort Collins Associates, L.P. 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 BACKGROUND: The proposed parking structure was reviewed at an administrative hearing on March 3, 2014 and the Hearing Officer issued a decision of approval on March 19, 2014. The decision was appealed to City Council by three appellants. At the appeal hearing on May 20, 2014, Council provided feedback regarding interpretation of the Land Use Code and remanded the project back to the Hearing Officer. Council determined that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret Section 3.4.1(I)(2) with regard to impacts on the Spring Creek viewshed, and Section 3.5.1(J) with regard to the number of off- street parking spaces required. Council remanded the decision to the Hearing Officer to consider the possible reduction of the parking structure in terms of number of parking spaces and its height and mass. For more information, attached to this memo are the video of the May 20 appeal hearing and the appeal resolution (2014-063). The applicant is requesting approval of the original submittal (Attachment 5) which City Council has determined does not meet the standards in the Land Use Code. This memo addresses only the additional information submitted in response to City Council’s direction. Staff recommends approval of the Summit Parking Structure as amended by the above-mentioned additional information with conditions outlined in the “recommendation” section of this memo. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Remanded Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In response to the direction from City Council, the applicant provided additional information for consideration at the remand hearing. The additional information removes one story from the parking structure consisting of 345 parking spaces reduced from 440 parking spaces. It is proposed to be built over the top of the existing surface parking lot resulting in a net gain of 251 spaces over existing conditions. The parking structure consists of 3 levels, reduced from 4 levels, including parking on the roof, for an overall height of 2 ½ stories. Additional vertical vegetation has been proposed at the south aspect of the parking garage to help screen and soften visual impacts on the Spring Creek viewshed. The site is located just west of the intersection of South College Avenue and Stuart Street, where Stuart Street dead ends into the railroad tracks and the future MAX Bus Rapid Transit line. The lot is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is also within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The proposal is processed as a Major Amendment to the approved Choice Center (The Summit on College) Project Development Plan and is subject to review by an Administrative Hearing Officer at a public hearing. The project is requesting a Modification of Standard for a drive aisle width of 15 feet instead of the required 20 feet. LAND USE CODE – REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Section 3.4.1(I): (2) Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site. The above section requires that projects minimize impacts to the visual character of the natural habitat (in this case, Spring Creek) and to minimize obstruction of any scenic views both to and from the natural features within the site. City Council found that the Hearing Officer should consider “…the impact of the major amendment on Spring Creek viewsheds…” Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Remanded Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 Page 3 The amended proposal minimizes the obstruction of any scenic views from Spring Creek by reducing the mass of the parking garage from 3 1/2 to 2 1/2 stories along the south elevation. In addition to reducing the mass of the parking garage, the applicants have provided additional vegetative screening along the south wall to soften the appearance of the garage. As with the original proposal, the project proposes to install a multi-structured vegetation buffer that includes 104 trees and shrubs and a native grass seed mix. Finally, the applicant will provide a fee-in-lieu payment to the City of Fort Collins to enhance the planned restoration of Spring Creek, anticipated within the next two years. Renderings have been provided to compare the existing viewshed to the proposed viewshed from Spring Creek (see Attachment 1). Section 3.5.1: (J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on: (1) hours of operation and deliveries; (2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare; (3) placement of trash receptacles; (4) location of loading and delivery zones; (5) light intensity and hours of full illumination; (6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines; (7) location and number of off-street parking spaces. The above section allows restrictions to be placed on the “location and number of off- street parking spaces”. City Council found that the Hearing Officer should consider “the reduction of the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements as established…for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone…” (Resolution 2014-063) The referenced parking requirement (Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1)) requires a minimum of 358 parking spaces for the 665 bedrooms in 220 units in the Summit on College development. The additional information submitted proposes a total of 442 parking spaces which is a 17.4% reduction from the original proposal of 535 parking spaces. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Remanded Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 Page 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION: In evaluating the request for The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056, as revised with the additional information provided in response to City Council direction, staff makes the following finding of fact and conclusions: A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in the drive aisle width (Sec. 3.2.2(L)) is not detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which compiles with said standard because the drive aisle width as proposed is considered wide enough to garner a Level Of Service B by national standards. B. The Major Amendment contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land development standards of the General Commercial District in Article 4, Division 4.21 of the Land Use Code. Summit Parking Analysis 665 Total Bedrooms Existing Required Outside TOD (required spaces per unit) Required Within TOD (required spaces per unit) Proposed Parking March 3, 2014 Additional Information September 4, 2014 In 220 units Parking 18 27 1.5 19.8 1.1 1-Bd Units 54 94.5 1.75 64.8 1.2 2-Bd Units 53 106 2 74.2 1.4 3-Bd Units 95 285 3 199.5 2.1 4-Bd Units Total Spaces 185 513 358 535 442 % of Bds to Spaces 27.8% 77.1% 53.9% 80.5% 66.50% Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Remanded Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 Page 5 C. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modification of standard. D. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056, as revised with the additional information provided in response to City Council direction, with the following conditions of approval: 1. The Capstone property is partially located within the FEMA-regulated Spring Creek 100-year high risk floodplain and floodway. The project shall comply with all applicable sections of Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code (Ch. 10 Code). 2. Capstone and its consultants and subconsultants shall execute all components of the action plan for amendment of the Floodplain Use Permit (FPUP) #11048 as outlined in the memorandum from Walker P. May on February 14, 2014. Specifically, all of the 5 bulleted items included in said memo shall be completed and approved prior to the issuance of a FPUP for any site work or building construction. 3. An approved FPUP and no-rise certification must precede any site work, building construction, or building or grading permits. No development work, as defined in Section 10-16 of the Ch. 10 Code, shall commence until the FPUP and no-rise certification are approved by City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration. The FPUP and no-rise documentation must clearly document compliance with the Floodproofing or venting requirements of Ch. 10 Code if elevation requirements of Section 10-37 cannot be satisfied. Capstone and its consultants and subconsultants shall complete all applicable items included in the City of Fort Collins Floodproofing Guidelines, provided previously by e-mail exchange and available online at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fp- floodproofing.pdf. 4. A pre-construction FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be provided as part of the no-rise certification materials, and must be approved prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Remanded Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 Page 6 5. All no-rise certifications shall be re-certified by the professional engineer of record prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on the site. The no-rise re- certification shall include a FEMA Elevation Certificate of as-built conditions, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the as-built Elevation Certificate is approved by City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Additional information 2. Additional information provided by Applicant 3. Appeal Resolution 2014-063 4. Video of appeal hearing, May 20, 2014 (DVD) 5. Staff report and attachments, March 5, 2014 St Av e Su mme r Smi t h St Dr F lic k e r cet Rd Ra i n t r e e Ln H i l l P o n Mirro rma reCir Gi l gal ad Wa y S h e e l y Ln Ba y Dr Johnson Dr Da r t mo u t h Heat her Heat her i dge A v e Av e Ro b e r t s o n El l i s St St Ci r Dr Dr Worthington Cl Centre Dr eel Ct LEMAY AVE COLLEGE AVE DRAKE ROAD PAR W LA Suddering Spring Creek ett Rd stward ood Dr versity St North Dr Meridian Ave South Dr University Ave 8' TRAIL CONNECTION LOT 2 48,783 sf 1.120 ac 5.00' 8.00' 8.00' 8.00' 12.00' SIDEWALK 6.00' WALK CREEKSIDE PARK EXISTING ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) EXISTING ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) EXISTING ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) EXISTING ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) 52.52' 141.70' 20.55' 8.00' DRAINAGE AREA EASEMENT WIDTH VARIES CAR CATCHER (TYP) 21.58' 28.00' 16.00' 69.13' 83.82' 100' SPRING CREEK BUFFER GARAGE OVERHANG EDGE OF GROUND LEVEL PARKING WATER QUALITY AREA BIKE PARKING AREA 30.01' 70.70' 77.74' 100.73' 21.60' 21.56' 8.50' 18.00' 8.50' 19.00' 22.00' STAIRS STAIRS ELEVATOR PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA 30.01' 19.00' 18.16' 8.50' EXISTING ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) GARAGE OVERHANG St Av e Summer Smi t h St Dr Flicker cet Rd Ra i nt r ee Ln H i l l P o n Mi r r o r ma r e Ci r Gi l gal ad Wa y S he e l y Ln Ba y Dr Johnson Dr Da r t mout h Heat her Heat her i dge A v e Av e Rober t son Ellis St St Ci r Dr Dr Worthington Cl Centre Dr eel Ct LEMAY AVE COLLEGE AVE DRAKE ROAD PA W LA Suddering Spring Creek nett Rd estward wood Dr niversity St North Dr Meridian Ave TURF CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE WALK PARKING LOT LIGHT (TYP) 100' SPRING CREEK BUFFER CONCRETE WALK COBBLE (TYP) SPRING CREEK CREEK SIDE PARK RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS OF LANDLOK 450 TRM PER CIVIL DRAWINGS (3) PE (3) QF (3) PE (8) CR (15) CL TALL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX SEE COVER FOR MIX 21.51' 28.06' EDGE OF BASE FLOOR PARKING COVERED BIKE PARKING AREA (132 BIKES) PROPOSED WATER QUALITY AREA SEED WITH PLD MIX ON COVER COLUMN (TYP) SPRING CREEK BUFFER WIDTH VARIES 16.00' GARAGE OVERHANG (TYP) GARAGE BOUNDARY (TYP) JOHNSON DRIVE EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP) EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE (TYP) SPRING CREEK TRAIL 84.45' 69.02' PROTECT EXISTING PLANTINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER PROTECT EXISTING PLANTINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE LINE PROPERTY LINE CONCRETE WALK CREEKSIDE PARK GREEN SCREEN (SEE ARCH PLANS) CAR CATCHER RELOCATE PLANTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ARE TO REMAIN TO THE NEW ISLAND AREA BENCH (TYP) (3) RC (4) BG TURF CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE WALK PARKING LOT LIGHT (TYP) 100' SPRING CREEK BUFFER COBBLE (TYP) SPRING CREEK CREEK SIDE PARK RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS OF LANDLOK 450 TRM PER CIVIL DRAWINGS (3) PE (3) QF TALL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX (3) PE SEE COVER FOR MIX 21.51' 28.06' EDGE OF BASE FLOOR PARKING COVERED BIKE PARKING AREA (132 BIKES) PROPOSED WATER QUALITY AREA SEED WITH PLD MIX ON COVER COLUMN (TYP) SPRING CREEK BUFFER WIDTH VARIES 16.00' GARAGE OVERHANG (TYP) GARAGE BOUNDARY (TYP) ) 84.45' 69.02' PROTECT EXISTING PLANTINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER PROTECT EXISTING PLANTINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE LINE PROPERTY LINE CONCRETE WALK E PARK GREEN SCREEN (SEE ARCH PLANS) CAR CATCHER RELOCATE PLANTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ARE TO REMAIN TO THE NEW ISLAND AREA BENCH (TYP) (2) PI (4) PE SPRING CREEK BUFFER - WIDTH VARIES FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE, REFER TO SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS WITH NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX - SEE COVER FOR MIX RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SHADE TOLERANT SEED MIX - SEE COVER FOR MIX TYPICAL FOR ALL 12' GREEN SCREENS UP UP NORTH A S S O C I A T E S Fort Collins, Colorado Parking Garage The Summit on College LEVEL 1 STRIPING & SIGNAGE PLAN A801 NORTH UP UP A S S O C I A T E S Fort Collins, Colorado Parking Garage The Summit on College LEVEL 2 STRIPING & SIGNAGE PLAN A802 NORTH UP DN NORTH A S S O C I A T E S Fort Collins, Colorado Parking Garage The Summit on College LEVEL 3 STRIPING & SIGNAGE PLAN A803 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Cementitious lap siding system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTO [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Split face CMU base to match adjacent development. PHOTO [1] Cementitious panel reveal system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] [3] Stone veneer to match adjacent development over light gauge metal framing system. PHOTO [1] 38' - 10" Projected cornice treatment White vinyl windows. Color/finish to match adjacent development. 27' - 3" TOP OF GRADE TO TOP OF PRECAST PARAPET 25' - 1" AVERAGE HEIGHT A B C D Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Cementitious panel reveal system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] 8" horiz. projection 8" horiz. projection Green screen panel with climbing vegetation. TOP OF GRADE TO TOP OF PRECAST PARAPET 26' - 5" AVERAGE HEIGHT COLOR CHART Summit on College Parking Garage Fort Collins, CO East and South Elevations 07/30/14 PHOTO [1] SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION PHOTO [2] PHOTO [3] 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Cementitious lap siding system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Split face CMU base to match adjacent development. PHOTO [1] Cementitious panel reveal system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] [3] Stone veneer to match adjacent development over light gauge metal framing system. PHOTO [1] White vinyl windows. Color/finish to match adjacent development. 8" horiz. projection 8" horiz. projection 2'-0" overhang Projected cornice treatment 32' - 3" 29' - 2" 39' - 10" 27' - 4" D C B A Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Cementitious lap siding system, finished to match adjacent development. PHOTO [2] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Cementitious lap siding system, finished to match adjacent Sheet metal cap. Color to match development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] cornice. PHOTO [2] Split face CMU base to match adjacent development. PHOTO [1] Split face CMU base to match adjacent development. PHOTO [1] White vinyl windows. Color/finish to match adjacent development. White vinyl windows. Color/finish to match adjacent development. 38' - 10" dŚĞ^ƵŵŵŝƚŽŶŽůůĞŐĞͲŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϴͬϱͬϮϬϭϰ ƵƌƌĞŶƚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ KŶ^ŝƚĞ KƌŝŐŝŶĂůWƌŽƉŽƐĂůͲ dŽƚĂůWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ KŶ^ŝƚĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ;ϰůĞǀĞůĞĐŬͿ EĞƚ^ƉĂĐĞƐĚĚĞĚ ƉĞƌKƌŝŐŝŶĂů WƌŽƉŽƐĂů ;ϰůĞǀĞůĞĐŬͿ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚKŶ ^ŝƚĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐͲ ZĞǀŝƐĞĚ WƌŽƉŽƐĂů ;ϯůĞǀĞůĞĐŬͿ EĞƚ^ƉĂĐĞƐ ĚĚĞĚͲZĞǀŝƐĞĚ WƌŽƉŽƐĂů ;ϯůĞǀĞůĞĐŬͿ йŚĂŶŐĞ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƉĂĐĞƐ ĨƌŽŵKƌŝŐŝŶĂů WƌŽƉŽƐĂů ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϲϬ ϰϲϳ ϯϬϳ ϯϳϰ Ϯϭϰ ͲϯϬ͘Ϯϵй ,ĂŶĚŝĐĂƉWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϯ ϭϳ ϰ ϭϳ ϰ Ϭ͘ϬϬй ŵƉůŽǇĞĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϬ ϭϬ Ϭ ϭϬ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬй sŝƐŝƚŽƌWĂƌŬŝŶŐ Ϭ ϯϯΎ ϯϯ ϯϯΎ ϯϯ Ϭ͘ϬϬй ^ŚŽƌƚƚĞƌŵWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϴ ϴϬϴ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬй dKd>^ ϭϵϭ ϱϯϱ ϯϰϰ ϰϰϮ Ϯϱϭ ͲϮϳ͘Ϭϯй 'ƌŽƐƐWĂƌŬŝŶŐй Ϯϵй ϴϬй ϲϲй ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůWĂƌŬŝŶŐй;ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚ^ƉĂĐĞƐKŶůǇͿ Ϯϰй ϳϬй ϱϲй Ύ ϱйŽĨƚŽƚĂůďĞĚƐ dŚĞ^ƵŵŵŝƚŽŶŽůůĞŐĞĂĐĐŽŵŽĚĂƚĞƐƵƉƚŽϲϲϱƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ƉůƵƐƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐ Summit on College Parking Garage Fort Collins, CO View 1 of Garage with Mature Landscaping 07/30/14 Summit on College Parking Garage Fort Collins, CO View 2 of Garage with Mature Landscaping 07/30/14 Carolynne C. White Attorney at Law 303.223.1197 tel 303.223.0997 fax cwhite@bhfs.com 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 main 303.223.1100 bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP August 22, 2014 VIA EMAIL Marcus A. McAskin Administrative Hearing Officer City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue, Suite 100 P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: City Council Remand for Administrative Review of Major Amendment to the Previously Approved Choice Center Project Development Plan for The Summit on College Parking Structure Dear Mr. McAskin: This letter accompanies Capstone Development Corporation’s, on behalf of Fort Collins Associates, LP (“Capstone”), August 5, 2014 alternative design submittal for a Major Amendment (“Major Amendment”) to the previously approved Choice Center Project Development Plan to add a parking structure (“Parking Structure”) at the existing mixed-use property known as The Summit on College (the “Summit”). The Summit is located just west and north of the intersection of South College Avenue and Stuart Street. On March 5, 2014, an Administrative Hearing was held before you on this matter. On March 19, 2014, the Findings of Fact and Decision were issued. The Administrative Hearing Officer decision was appealed and City Council held a hearing on May 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-050, which was amended and readopted via Resolution No. 2014-063 on July 22, 2014. Specifically, Resolution No. 2014-063 sets forth the following findings of fact in support of City Council’s decision on the appeal: 1. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing by exceeding its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter of the City. 2. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. 3. That the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code with regard to the impact of the major amendment upon Spring Creek viewsheds; and Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code with regard to the number of off- street parking spaces. 4. That the Decision is hereby remanded to the Hearing Officer for further consideration of the impact of the major amendment on Spring Creek viewsheds and for consideration of the possible reduction of the size of the parking structure building and the reduction of the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements as established by Ordinance No. 121, 2013, and presently contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented Development "UUBDINFOU Marcus A. McAskin Administrative Hearing Officer August 22, 2014 Page 2 (TOD) Overlay Zone, with a view toward compliance with the Land Use Code sections set out in paragraph [3] above. 5. That except for those provisions in paragraph [3] above, the Hearing Officer did not fail to interpret and apply any other provisions of the Land Use Code… Capstone’s original submittal continues to meet all of the criteria in the Land Use Code (“LUC”) for approval, as more fully outlined in Capstone’s March 5, 2014 Administrative Hearing submittal packet and cover letter. Nonetheless, should the Administrative Hearing Officer determine that additional conditions must be imposed on the Major Amendment in order to grant approval, Capstone has taken the liberty of submitting an alternative design of the Parking Structure for consideration. As detailed below, Capstone’s alternative design fully addresses the two items City Council directed the Administrative Hearing Officer to further consider on remand. Capstone requests administrative approval of the Major Amendment as originally submitted. That said, if the Administrative Hearing Officer determines that additional conditions must be imposed, Capstone encourages adoption of the proposed alternative design. I. Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the LUC - Further Consideration of the Impact of the Major Amendment on Spring Creek Viewsheds Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the LUC states: “Projects shall be designed to minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site.” Although the criterion refers to “natural features within the site” and Spring Creek is located in Creekside Park and not within the property site, Capstone’s Major Amendment submittal and alternative design are nonetheless specifically designed to minimize any potential visual degradation or obstruction to or from Spring Creek. As further discussed below under Section II, to directly address City Council’s concern, Capstone’s alternative design proposes to remove the top level of the Parking Structure and introduces additional green screening on the south elevation facing Creekside Park. This reduction in height along elevations facing Spring Creek further minimizes both the scale of the Parking Structure and obstruction of scenic views to and from Spring Creek. As outlined in the City Staff Report for the March 5, 2014 hearing, the Major Amendment enhanced the visual character by incorporating various elements into the design, including: 1. No fencing; 2. Multi-structured vegetation screen (vertical trellis); 3. Plants of native vegetation; and 4. Payment of a fee-in-lieu based on a conceptual landscape plan. On the south façade of the Parking Structure, vertical trellis green screens were introduced to soften the building’s appearance and provide vertical habitat and refuge areas, and colors were carefully chosen to minimize the impact to the adjacent Creekside Park. In response to City Council’s concern, Capstone has doubled the amount of “green screening” planned for the south side of the Parking Structure beyond what was originally considered at the March 5, 2014 Administrative Hearing. This additional green vertical trellis will serve to further screen the Parking Structure from Spring Creek, minimizing any potential impact on views. Marcus A. McAskin Administrative Hearing Officer August 22, 2014 Page 3 The character of the existing views to and from Spring Creek are already somewhat degraded by the area that surrounds Creekside Park which consists of mini-storage units and an automotive repair shop on the south, the Burlington Northern Railway on the west, College Avenue on the East, and the Dairy Queen and the Summit on the north. Currently, the view from Spring Creek to the north is of a surface parking lot and the Summit. The Parking Structure will enhance the existing view with increased landscaping, trees, plantings, and green screening. While Section 3.4.1(E) on buffer zones is a separate LUC criterion which was not identified by City Council for consideration on remand (in fact, City Council expressly found that the Hearing Officer did not fail to interpret Section 3.4.1(E)), the Major Amendment also addresses the Spring Creek Buffer Zone. Specifically, as confirmed by the Administrative Hearing Officer in the May 19, 2014 Findings of Fact and Decision, an Ecological Characterization Study was performed in compliance with Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the LUC and a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is proposed to buffer the Parking Structure from Spring Creek. The Major Amendment applies the performance standards at Section 3.4.1(E) and incorporates the above-described landscaping elements into the design. To the greatest extent possible, traffic and the use of the Parking Structure have been oriented away from Spring Creek. All of the surface traffic is located on the north side and all of the internal traffic is buffered by walls. On the ground floor, a 28’ water quality area, which includes additional landscape plantings and screening, and a 16’ bike parking area have been used to buffer vehicles. The upper levels of the Parking Structure include the vertical trellis green screen. All stormwater is to be treated by a bio-swale on-site, prior to entering Spring Creek. This is an improvement from the existing condition, where the stormwater from the parking lot sheet flows untreated across a planting area and into Spring Creek. Lighting has been designed so that no light will spill over past the southern face of the Parking Structure. This project was developed as part of the TOD overlay district and, as a part of the review, the elevations and four-sided architecture of the Parking Structure were placed under heavy scrutiny by City Staff. Not only did this Parking Structure need to be compatible with the character of the adjacent developments, it needed to be sensitive to and complement the visual context of the natural area and Creekside Park adjacent to the south. Capstone’s design team put forth a significant effort, working in conjunction with City Staff, to make sure that this Parking Structure meets Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the LUC by minimizing any potential visual degradation or obstruction to or from Spring Creek. II. Further Analysis of Shifting Parking Structure to the North Although initially considered in the siting of the Parking Structure, Capstone has further modeled and analyzed the possibility of shifting it further to the north, away from Spring Creek and closer to the Summit. A maximum shift of 17’ (to comply with Fire Department clearances) and a minimum shift of 8’ were both considered. In this analysis, the following limiting factors were considered: 1. Impacts to traffic flow, particularly at the intersection of Stuart St. and Choice Center Dr.; 2. Impacts to existing crosswalks at the intersection of Stuart St. and Choice Center Dr.; 3. Required Fire Department easements and clearances for adequate equipment access in the event of a fire emergency (60’ is preferred, but 45’ is the minimum distance required, of which a paved 30’ clear easement must be maintained); 4. The loss of six handicap parking spaces (two van accessible) on the south end of the Summit, which would negatively impact accessibility from the south for the disabled, with the van accessible spaces likely being relocated to the parking lot on the north end of the property (adding as much as 650’ of travel for an individual requiring van accessible handicap parking); Marcus A. McAskin Administrative Hearing Officer August 22, 2014 Page 4 5. Relocation of existing utilities including power and telephone services to the Summit, resulting in lengthy outages to occupied residences. In order to maintain the minimum clearances needed for vehicles turning into and out of the Parking Structure while maintaining minimum Fire Department building separation and access clearances, Capstone calculated and modeled the maximum shift of the structure 17’ to the north. The enclosed August 8, 2014 ELB Engineering Memorandum is the result of that analysis and makes the following findings: 1. The 17’ offset creates a direct alignment between eastbound and westbound vehicles. This alignment creates a safety hazard and is “deficient in sound intersection design practice.” 2. “The pedestrian connection on the north side of Stuart, crossing Choice Center Drive, and then gaining access to the garage is awkward and circuitous.” 3. A 17’ shift would result in the “loss of 12 premium/HC handicap spaces.” 4. “It is my recommendation that the 17’ alternative be abandoned from further consideration.” Capstone also analyzed a potential shift of the Parking Structure 8’ to the north. The 8’ shift assumes that the Fire Department would grant a variance to allow for a 24’ wide drive easement in lieu of the normally required 30’ easement. This would avoid the loss of handicap parking spaces as well as eliminate the relocation of the existing transformer, which would reduce the impact of associated service disruptions to residents of the Summit. The enclosed August 8, 2014 ELB Engineering Memorandum is the result of that analysis and makes the following findings: 1. “In both designs, the north and south drive entrances do not line up well. The extreme offsets will make any through movements awkward for drivers” and is “deficient in sound intersection design practice.” 2. “The 8’ alignment still has the same issues as the 17’ alternative as it relates to north- south movements. The east-west movements are still not aligned [but] there appears to be a 3-4’ offset. At slow speeds of 20 mph, this alignment will work, but it is far from ideal and should be well lighted to promote safety.” 3. “Additional pavement markings should be used to redirect traffic from on-coming vehicles. An all-way stop is the most appropriate control of the intersection.” 4. “The 8’ alignment is not ideal but will work if it is well lit, controlled by an all-way stop, and supplemental pavement markings are in place to redirect east-west traffic.” A northward shift of the Parking Structure as much as 8’ is possible, but not prudent given the complicating factors outlined above. A variance for a 24’ access easement would likely have to be granted by the Fire Department and modifications to the existing intersection of Stuart St. and Choice Center Dr. would have to be deemed acceptable to the City and adjacent land owners. A shift of such a small magnitude is not worth the impaired function at the intersection of Stuart St. and Choice Center Dr., resulting in the potential for negative impacts to drivers and pedestrians at this intersection. It is because of these very marginal benefits, decreased functionality, and safety concerns that relocation of the Parking Structure from the currently proposed location is both imprudent and impractical. The original proposed location in the Major Amendment continues to be the safest and most appropriate location. Marcus A. McAskin Administrative Hearing Officer August 22, 2014 Page 5 III. Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC - Further Consideration of the Possible Reduction of the Size of the Parking Structure and the Reduction of the Number of Parking Spaces in the Structure to a Number Closer to the Minimum Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Development in the TOD Overlay Zone Capstone’s alternative design directly addresses both of City Council’s concerns regarding the size of the Parking Structure and the number of parking spaces. While compromising Capstone’s ability to meet market-demand for Summit resident parking, Capstone proposes to remove the top level from the Parking Structure and, in doing so, reduce the number of parking spaces to a number closer to the minimum required for multi-family development in the TOD Overlay. Enclosed is a Parking Table, updated from the version provided to City Staff on August 5, 2014, summarizing the current number of parking spaces, proposed parking under the Major Amendment, and proposed parking under the alternative design, along with TOD parking information. The removal of the top level from the Parking Structure reduces the average height of the south elevation facing Creekside Park by 10’-4”. This translates to an average precast parapet height on the south elevation of approximately 26’-5” and an average height of 25’-1” on the east elevation. Enclosed for your consideration is a comparison of the south elevation of the Parking Structure contrasting the original submittal and the alternative design (which reads as a two level building). This exhibit clearly demonstrates the reduction in height and scale, as well as the approximate doubling of green screening that is proposed relative to the elevation facing Spring Creek. This significant reduction in height provides for a façade that is comparable in height to a conventional two-level structure and further enhances the Parking Structure’s “compatibility with surrounding development in terms of building size, height, bulk, mass and scale” pursuant to Section 3.5.1 of the LUC. Further, the design incorporates architectural elements such as overhangs, projections and recesses of varied heights and depths. These design elements include cornices, stair towers, simulated tower and window elements, reveals, stone clad piers, and horizontal banding of stone veneer to create a strong architectural base component. All of these elements subdivide the elevation, add visual interest, articulate the facade, and provide relation to human size and scale. At the time the Summit was approved by the City, the TOD zoning overlay did not require any minimum number of parking spaces for this type of development. Nonetheless, the Summit provided 390 bike parking spaces and 185 on-site vehicle parking spaces. As detailed in Capstone’s March 5, 2014 Administrative Hearing submittal packet, although 76% of the Summit residents walk or bike to school, 73% still bring their cars with them to school and need a place to park them. CSU’s studies on this issue similarly indicate 80% of students bring their cars to school. In the fall of 2013, the City adopted interim minimum parking requirements within the TOD Overlay via Ordinance No. 2013-121, found at Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC. While the interim requirements are not applicable to the Summit, if they did apply, 364 parking spaces (beds-to-parking spaces ratio of 54.7%) would be required. The Parking Structure originally considered at the March 5, 2014 Administrative Hearing and May 20, 2014 City Council hearing proposed adding 344 parking spaces for a total of 535 spaces on-site (including residential, handicap, visitor and employee parking). Capstone’s alternative design reduces the number of proposed parking spaces by over 27% to a net add of 251 parking spaces in the Parking Structure for a total of 442 on-site spaces (including residential, handicap, visitor and employee parking), for a beds-to-parking spaces leasable ratio of 56%. Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC allows conditions to be imposed upon the Major Amendment approval to ensure that the Parking Structure is compatible with the existing context, including the location and number of off-street parking spaces. If the Administrative Hearing Officer determines that additional conditions must be imposed, Capstone’s alternative design reduces the height of the Parking Structure Marcus A. McAskin Administrative Hearing Officer August 22, 2014 Page 6 and the number of parking spaces, the two issues identified by City Council for further consideration by the Administrative Hearing Officer on remand. IV. Conclusion In closing, the originally proposed Major Amendment continues to meet or exceed all of the applicable criteria set forth in Articles 3 and 4 of the LUC. Nonetheless, Capstone’s alternative design fully addresses the two items City Council requested the Administrative Hearing Officer further consider on remand by: 1) removing the top level to reduce the height, scale and sense of mass of the Parking Structure, therefore minimizing any potential impact to the Spring Creek viewshed; 2) doubling the use of vertical trellis green screening, which further softens views from Spring Creek; and 3) reducing the total number of proposed parking spaces by 93, representing a 27% decrease. The Summit has been a catalytic in-fill project for the area, fulfilling City goals. As desired by the City, the Summit has already been a major force in stimulating redevelopment in the area including the adjacent Maytag Building acquisition and renovation, the Chuck E. Cheese/Harbor Freight building to the immediate north, and the renovation of the Choice Center by the Johnson family. Additional renovations, and infill developments have been completed or are underway to the north, all of which are a testament to the Summit’s impact on the Mason Corridor. While many college students walk or bike to school, most students still bring their cars with them to college and need a place to park these vehicles. Adjacent commercial and residential neighbors and current residents of the Summit have expressed significant concerns about spillover parking from Summit residents. Instead of looking to the City for a solution, such as street permit parking or other methods, Capstone recognized both the community and market need for an on-site solution via the Parking Structure and submitted its proposal. The Land Use Code is purposely objective. The City should review and either approve or deny an application based on the applicable LUC criteria. Therefore, the only question to be asked is in this instance is whether, upon further consideration of the two remand issues identified by City Council, the Major Amendment meets Sections 3.4.1(I)(2) and 3.5.1(J) of the LUC for approval -- which it does. Accordingly, Capstone respectfully requests administrative approval of the Major Amendment as originally submitted. That said, if the Administrative Hearing Officer determines that additional conditions must be imposed, Capstone encourages adoption of the proposed alternative design. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Carolynne C. White Enclosures: Memorandum from ELB Engineering, LLC dated August 8, 2014 Comparison of South Elevations of Parking Structure Parking Table (updated from 8/5/14 to incorporate TOD, other parking numbers have not changed) Marcus A. McAskin Administrative Hearing Officer August 22, 2014 Page 7 Documents Submitted to City Staff on August 5, 2014 Parking Table Site Plan (alternative design – revised only for updated parking counts) Architectural Floor Plans (alternative design) Landscape Plan (alternative design) Elevations of Parking Structure (alternative design) Landscaping Visual (alternative design) CC (via email): Seth Lorson, Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Laurie Kadrich, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Karen Cumbo, Director, Planning, Development & Transportation Carrie Daggett, City Attorney John Duval, Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney 017186\0001\11481773.3 Summit on College Parking Garage Fort Collins, CO A B C D Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Cementitious panel reveal system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] 8" horiz. projection 8" horiz. projection Green screen panel with climbing vegetation. TOP OF GRADE TO TOP OF PRECAST PARAPET 26' - 5" AVERAGE HEIGHT SOUTH ELEVATION A B C D Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Cementitious panel reveal system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] 8" horiz. projection 8" horiz. projection Green screen panel with climbing vegetation. SOUTH ELEVATION (3 ELEVATED LEVEL STRUCTURE) (2 ELEVATED LEVEL STRUCTURE) SUMMIT SOUTH ELEVATION COMPARISON EXHIBIT dŚĞ^ƵŵŵŝƚŽŶŽůůĞŐĞͲŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĂŶĚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϴͬϮϮͬϮϬϭϰ dK ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĂƚ WW EŽǀĞŵďĞƌ ϮϬϬϴ dK/ŶƚĞƌŝŵ ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ ;ĞƐƚ͘ϮϬϭϯͿ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ dK ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ ƵƌƌĞŶƚ ^ƵŵŵŝƚKŶ ^ŝƚĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ dŽƚĂůKŶ^ŝƚĞ WĂƌŬŝŶŐƉĞƌ DĂũŽƌ ŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ;ϯůĞǀ>ǀůƐͿ EĞƚ^ƉĂĐĞƐ ĚĚĞĚƉĞƌ DĂũŽƌ ŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ;ϯůĞǀ>ǀůƐͿ dŽƚĂůKŶ^ŝƚĞ WĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ĞƐŝŐŶ ;ϮůĞǀ>ǀůƐͿ EĞƚ^ƉĂĐĞƐ ĚĚĞĚƉĞƌ ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ ĞƐŝŐŶ ;ϮůĞǀ>ǀůƐͿ WĂƌŬŝŶŐKƉƚŝŽŶ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ ;ϯƚŽϮůĞǀĂƚĞĚ >ĞǀĞůƐͿ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ŶŽŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ ƚŽhŶůŝŵŝƚĞĚ ϯϲϰ;ŵŝŶͿͲ hŶůŝŵŝƚĞĚΎ ϰϵϵͲϱϳϰΎ ϭϲϬ ϰϲϳ ϯϬϳ ϯϳϰ Ϯϭϰ ͲϯϬ͘Ϯϵй ,ĂŶĚŝĐĂƉWĂƌŬŝŶŐ ϭϯ /ŶĐů͘ďŽǀĞ /ŶĐů͘ďŽǀĞ ϭϯ ϭϳ ϰ ϭϳ ϰ Ϭ͘ϬϬй ŵƉůŽǇĞĞWĂƌŬŝŶŐ EͬΎ /ŶĐů͘ďŽǀĞ /ŶĐů͘ďŽǀĞ ϭϬ ϭϬ Ϭ ϭϬ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬй sŝƐŝƚŽƌWĂƌŬŝŶŐ EͬΎ /ŶĐů͘ďŽǀĞ /ŶĐů͘ďŽǀĞ Ϭ ϯϯΎΎ ϯϯ ϯϯΎΎ ϯϯ Ϭ͘ϬϬй ^ŚŽƌƚƚĞƌŵWĂƌŬŝŶŐ EͬΎ /ŶĐů͘ďŽǀĞ /ŶĐů͘ďŽǀĞ ϴ ϴ Ϭ ϴ Ϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬй dKd>^ EŽŵŝŶƚŽ hŶůŝŵŝƚĞĚΎ ϯϲϰͲ hŶůŝŵŝƚĞĚΎ ϰϵϵͲϱϳϰΎ ϭϵϭ ϱϯϱ ϯϰϰ ϰϰϮ Ϯϱϭ ͲϮϳ͘Ϭϯй 'ƌŽƐƐWĂƌŬŝŶŐй ϭ͘ϵйн ϱϰ͘ϳйн ϳϱйͲϴϲ͘ϯй Ϯϵй ϴϬй ϲϲй ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůWĂƌŬŝŶŐй - 1 - RESOLUTION 2014-063 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING AND READOPTING RESOLUTION 2014-050 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE MARCH 19, 2014, ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER DECISION REGARDING THE MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on March 19, 2014, Administrative Hearing Officer, Marcus McAskin (the “Hearing Officer”) approved a major amendment to the Summit on College Project Development Plan (#130056) located west of the intersection of College Avenue and Stuart Street (the “Decision”); and WHEREAS, on April 2, 2014, a Notice of Appeal of the Decision was filed by Jeffrey Leef, et. al, on behalf of the owners of a new restaurant known as The Laboratory (Appellant Leef); and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, an Amended Notice of Appeal of the Decision was filed with the City Clerk by Councilmember Ross Cunniff (Appellant Cunniff); and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2014, an Amended Notice of Appeal of the Decision was filed by Lester M. Kaplan as owner of the subject property located at 1801 South College Avenue (Appellant Kaplan); and WHEREAS, Appellant Leef, et. al., Appellant Cunniff and Appellant Kaplan will hereinafter be referred to collectively as the Appellants; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered said appeals, reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations from the Appellants and other parties-in-interest and, after discussion remanded the Decision to the Hearing Officer for further consideration; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-57(g) provides that no later than the date of its regular meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on the appeal, which the Council did in this appeal by the adoption of Resolution 2014-050 at its June 3, 2014, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-57(g) of the City Code, the City Council hereby amends and readopts Resolution 2014-050, by making the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Appellants’ Notices of Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code. "UUBDINFOU - 2 - 2. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing by exceeding its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter of the City. 3. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. 4. That the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code with regard to the impact of the major amendment upon Spring Creek viewsheds; and Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code with regard to the number of off-street parking spaces. 5. That the Decision is hereby remanded to the Hearing Officer for further consideration of the impact of the major amendment on Spring Creek viewsheds and for consideration of the possible reduction of the size of the parking structure building and the reduction of the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements as established by Ordinance No. 121, 2013, and presently contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, with a view toward compliance with the Land Use Code sections set out in paragraph 4 above. 6. That except for those provisions in paragraph 4 above, the Hearing Officer did not fail to interpret and apply any other provisions of the Land Use Code including, without limitation, that the Hearing Officer did not fail to properly interpret and apply the following sections of the Land Use Code: (a) Any subparts of Section 3.5.1, other than Section 3.5.1(J); (b) Section 4.21(B); (c) Section 5.1; (d) Section 3.10; (e) Section 2.2.10(B)(1); (f) Section 3.2.2; (g) Section 2.8.2; (h) Section 5.1.2; (i) Section 2.2.1; and (j) Any subparts of Section 3.4.1 other than Section 3.4.1(I)(2). - 3 - Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 22nd day of July, A.D. 2014. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 1 August 26, 2014 Marcus McAskin Widner Michow & Cox RE: Video of City Council Appeal Hearing (May 20, 2014) for Summit Parking Structure Mr. McAskin: Please find attached two DVD videos of the appeal to City Council of your decision to approve the Summit Parking Structure. At the May 20, 2014 appeal hearing City Council remanded the project back to the Hearing Officer and provided direction in terms of Land Use Code interpretation. This video should serve as an attachment to the remand hearing (September 4, 2014) staff report that will be delivered via email prior to 6 P.M. on Thursday, August 28, 2014. Please contact me with any questions. Best regards, Seth E. Lorson, AICP | City Planner City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.224.6189 slorson@fcgov.com Planning, Development and Transportation Services Current Planning 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/currentplanning "UUBDINFOU Staff Report Attachment 4 Link to Video of City Council Appeal Hearing (May 20, 2014) for Summit Parking Structure - Item #24 – Summit on College Parking Structure Appeal May 20, 2014 City Council Meeting ITEM NO _________________ HEARING DATE March 5, 2014 _ STAFF Seth Lorson__ ____ ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 APPLICANT: Walker May Capstone Development Corp. 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 OWNER: Fort Collins Associates, L.P. 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to construct a parking structure consisting of 440 parking spaces. It is proposed to be built over the top of the existing surface parking lot resulting in a net gain of 352 spaces over existing conditions. The parking structure consists of 4 levels, including parking on the roof, for an overall height of 3 ½ stories. The site is located just west of the intersection of South College Avenue and Stuart Street, where Stuart Street dead ends into the railroad tracks and the future MAX Bus Rapid Transit line. The lot is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is also within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The proposal is processed as a Major Amendment to the approved Choice Center (The Summit on College) Project Development Plan and is subject to review by an Administrative Hearing Officer at a public hearing. The project is requesting a Modification of Standard for a drive aisle width of 15 feet instead of the required 20 feet. Attachment #5 Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 with the following conditions of approval: 1. The Capstone property is partially located within the FEMA-regulated Spring Creek 100-year high risk floodplain and floodway. The project shall comply with all applicable sections of Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code (Ch. 10 Code). 2. Capstone and its consultants and subconsultants shall execute all components of the action plan for amendment of the Floodplain Use Permit (FPUP) #11048 as outlined in the memorandum from Walker P. May on February 14, 2014. Specifically, all of the 5 bulleted items included in said memo shall be completed and approved prior to the issuance of a FPUP for any site work or building construction. 3. An approved FPUP and no-rise certification must precede any site work, building construction, or building or grading permits. No development work, as defined in Section 10-16 of the Ch. 10 Code, shall commence until the FPUP and no-rise certification are approved by the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration. The FPUP and no-rise documentation must clearly document compliance with the Floodproofing or venting requirements of Ch. 10 Code if elevation requirements of Section 10-37 cannot be satisfied. Capstone and its consultants and subconsultants shall complete all applicable items included in the City of Fort Collins Floodproofing Guidelines, provided previously by e-mail exchange and available online at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fp-floodproofing.pdf. 4. A pre-construction FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be provided as part of the no-rise certification materials, and must be approved prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. 5. All no-rise certifications shall be re-certified by the professional engineer of record prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on the site. The no-rise re- certification shall include a FEMA Elevation Certificate of as-built conditions, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the as-built Elevation Certificate is approved by City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Capstone Development Corp. is proposing a parking structure in order to provide additional parking for the tenants of The Summit on College (The Summit) which has 665 bedrooms in 220 units. Currently, the project provides 185 parking spaces serving Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 3 27.8% of the bedrooms, as a ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms. The project proposes to add 352 parking spaces for a total of 537 spaces serving 80.8% of the bedrooms, as a ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms. The purpose of the parking structure is to relieve the “spill-over” parking that is being experienced in adjacent neighborhoods to the south and east of The Summit, and for the student housing development to remain competitive and marketable. Property and business owners directly to the east have expressed opposition to the project noting that it will contribute to the massing along College Avenue and that it is inconsistent with City policies and the original approval. The structure itself is constructed primarily with precast concrete spandrel panels with reveals. The ground level has a stone veneer with matching accent columns stretching the entire height of the building. Cementitious panel elements with windows are protruding on corners and in several locations along the façade to break up the overall size of the building. The exterior panels are painted to match the existing Summit buildings. The roofline is capped with a sheet metal cornice. In an effort to bring the Summit project into compliance with current Land Use Code (LUC) standards, this proposal is including an additional 272 bicycle parking spaces configured in a mix of outdoor bike racks, sheltered and secured bike racks, and indoor bike stands available at tenant request. The 3 ½ story structure is sited with vehicular access from the north (toward the existing Summit residences) with a drive aisle continuing west from Stuart Street. A pedestrian sidewalk is provided along the east side leading to Creek Side Park to the south. City Staff has worked with the development team to ensure an adequate landscape buffer between the park and the parking structure by accepting a fee-in-lieu of constructing/planting the full landscape plan until after the City’s Parks and Stormwater Departments are done improving the Spring Creek channel and surrounding banks (anticipated in 2016). The parking structure is partially sited in the Spring Creek floodplain and is taking measures to ensure compliance with floodplain requirements. Because of the floodplain, no landscaping is permitted along the west side of the structure. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 4 COMMENTS: 1. Background The site is in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone District and the TOD Overlay Zone. The purpose of the TOD Overlay Zone is to encourage transit-supported, compact, walkable infill and redevelopment projects. Adopted in 2006-07, the TOD Overlay Zone standards removed minimum parking requirements for mixed-use and multi-family dwellings. The intent was to incentivize redevelopment on challenging infill sites, show commitment to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investment, and to encourage urban densities as a result of the Growth Management Area (GMA). The amount of parking was expected to be driven by market demand, balancing the need to provide adequate parking as an amenity, with the constraints of maximizing development potential on difficult infill sites. The Summit was approved as Choice Center in 2011 as a transit-oriented development which is why the parking currently provided is lower than is required outside the TOD Overlay Zone. When asked about the lower amount of parking, which is now deemed to be inadequate, the applicant responded as follows: During the early planning and design phases of The Summit, Capstone anticipated that we would be able to provide on-site parking for roughly 50% of our 665 beds and 7,400 sf of retail development. As it turned out, to meet City and FEMA regulations for storm water and flood mitigation, we were only able to build on-site parking for about 30% of our residents. Our strategy and hope was that roughly 30 to 50% of our residents annually would be able to park on campus with commuter passes, and roughly 20 to 30% of our residents annually would not have a car. Working closely with senior City officials who led discussions with CSU officials, Capstone believed a verbal understanding was reached with CSU officials that residents of The Summit would be able to park without restriction in designated commuter parking lots on the CSU campus. Capstone and City officials sought to have this understanding confirmed in writing by CSU, but we and City officials were told that since this was consistent with CSU’s parking policies, no special dispensation or agreement was needed or desired by CSU. Since several of CSU’s storage parking lots were in the southeast quadrant of the campus and thus convenient to The Summit, we marketed this parking option to our residents during the months leading to our initial opening in August 2013, and indicated Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 5 Capstone would purchase the first year commuter parking pass for residents choosing this parking option. (Roughly 200 residents elected this parking option during the pre-leasing phase, roughly 161 opted for an on-site, reserved space, and roughly 174 indicated they would not need either parking option). In the summer of 2013, just months before our scheduled opening, Capstone was informed by CSU officials that with the loss of on-campus parking spaces to the BRT and other developments on-campus, that CSU would not be able to issue permits allowing Summit residents to park on an extended basis in on- campus commuter lots. This was a major departure from the understanding we believed we had, and from CSU’s stated policies. As a result, much discussion ensued between Capstone, City and CSU officials about whether this decision could be changed or postponed, and if not, how we could ease or overcome the impact of this decision both near term (in the first operating year), and long term (in future operating years). The City has heard from many community members that spill-over parking from Summit into their neighborhood has impacted their ability to park and to accommodate guests. 2. Public Comment Discussion Adjacent property owner, Les Kaplan, and business owners Jeffrey Leef, David Rose and Angela King have provided comment letters in opposition to the proposed parking structure (attached). They have five primary concerns: 1. Off-site parking should be required, as it was part of the approval for URA funding and it encourages transit use. 2. The project should be marketed as a “transit-oriented development,” with full disclosure to students and parents that parking is limited. 3. The parking demand evaluation should not be completed until after the MAX is operational and can fulfill the intent of a TOD development. 4. A bike and pedestrian path extending to the north to Prospect Road was required to be built by The Summit, but has not yet happened. 5. The project is adding to the building massing along College Avenue and blocks views of the mountains. The first four concerns were forwarded to the applicant to which their responses are as follows. The concern regarding views of the mountains is addressed by the Land Use Code for buildings greater than 40 feet in height. Because the proposed parking structure is less than 40 feet in height, Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(1)Views is not applicable. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 6 1. Off-site parking should be required, as it was part of the approval for URA funding and it encourages transit use. Capstone was and remains committed to provide a significant percentage of parking for Summit residents in off-site, shared parking lots. We have concluded, however, that we need to provide at least 60 to 80% parking on- site in order for our community to be marketable and economically viable. (Background to this discussion is found in the previous section of this staff report.) During the summer and early fall of 2013, Capstone officials spent months evaluating and pursuing alternative off-site parking options with CSU, City staff, and various landowners, churches, retailers with large unused parking areas, and brokers in the area. These explorations yielded little in the way of satisfactory, workable, sustainable parking alternatives. CSU ultimately agreed to provide commuter storage parking for one year for only 150 residents, in a lot that was over 1 mile from The Summit. Capstone purchased parking passes in this lot for all students who would use them, but the designated location (in Lot 240), proved too far and not particularly appealing to Summit residents. After searching the Midtown Corridor, we ultimately were able to lease enough spaces to meet demand in the nearby Discount Tire lot and in a remote lot we improved and leased from the Foothills Assembly Church (roughly 1.2 miles south of The Summit). We have utilized shuttle transportation to provide access to this remote parking location. Going forward, the CSU Lot and the Discount Tire lot will not be available beyond this first operating year (assuming Discount Tire goes through with its plans to rebuild its College Avenue store); Foothills Assembly has been approached by the City for BRT parking. Additionally, each of these off-site options are at distances and locations that the majority of Summit tenants have told us is unacceptable, contributing to the overflow parking into neighborhoods and businesses surrounding our development. As Capstone approaches the renewal and re-leasing of The Summit for Operating Year 2, it is clear that the shortage of on-site parking is proving to be a leasing dis-incentive, as we are currently only19% leased for the 2014- 15 operating year. By comparison, we only have 39% of the new leases this year as we had at the same time last year, which is alarming considering we Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 7 were under construction. Capstone, our equity investment partners, and our lender are very concerned about this situation and the clear negative feedback we have received from residents and prospects about our on-site parking deficiency. Given the low tolerance of most Summit residents and prospective students for non-proximate off-site parking, we have concluded that for the Summit to maintain economic viability, and avoid catastrophic results, we will need to provide on-site parking for 60% to 70% of our residents, another 2.5 % handicap spaces, and 5% parking for visitors and guests. This ratio is consistent with the policy we understand the City has adopted on an interim basis for TOD zones and student housing generally. We have further concluded that we can only achieve this improvement in the overall on-site parking ratio by constructing a multi-level parking structure on the surface parking lot south of our Building 1. Even after constructing this structure, this will leave roughly 31% of the total beds without on-site parking spaces. So it will continue to be our goal to attract this percentage of residents annually who will (a) not have a car, or (b) be willing to accept an off-site shared or storage parking solution. 2. The project should be marketed as a “transit-oriented development,” with full disclosure to students and parents that parking is limited. The Summit management and leasing staff, through handout materials, posters, website and verbal communications, has and continues to represent that The Summit is a walking and biking friendly community located in a transit-oriented district adjacent to the (future) MAX BRT, with limited on-site parking. Our lease states, “Parking is limited and subject to change”. 3. The parking demand evaluation should not be completed until after the MAX is operational and can fulfill the intent of a TOD development. Based on a recent survey of residents, approximately 75% of our residents own cars and require storage parking. While the MAX Bus Rapid Transit will undoubtedly reduce the need for daily use of cars, it will not reduce the need for storage parking and we do not see that need decreasing materially in the foreseeable future. The feedback from current and prospective Summit residents is that the lack of resident and guest parking is the primary negative in considering a re-lease or lease at The Summit for next year. The need for at least 60% to 70% on-site parking is supported by resident feedback as well as the City’s adoption of recent parking minimums in the Land Use Code for Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 8 TOD projects. Our survey of Summit residents indicates that a majority (approximately 73% of students), walk or bike to campus on a daily basis, which indicates our efforts to encourage residents to utilize alternate forms of transportation whenever possible is succeeding. However, a vast majority still depend on their cars to travel to work, home, or to run errands. 4. A bike and pedestrian path extending to the north to Prospect Road was required to be built by Summit but has not yet happened. Capstone has for some time been working with one of our neighboring property owners to the north of The Summit to amend the easement for the bike path to allow for a slight reconfiguration of the pedestrian and bicycle pathway. This is being done in a cooperative effort to minimize the impact on the neighbor’s existing parking. The neighboring property owner is working with his lenders to obtain approval, which is reported to be imminent. We have a contractor lined-up to perform this work to create the pedestrian and bicycle pathway and we anticipate beginning construction this spring (late March/ early April), once local asphalt plants are back operational. We believe this pathway will further encourage bike/ pedestrian traffic flow, but on-site storage parking will still be needed. 3. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North General Commercial (C - G) Retail and Restaurant South General Commercial (C - G) Creekside Park East General Commercial (C - G) and Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L – M – N) Retail along College Avenue and single- and multi- family residential farther to the east West Employment (E) and CSU Burlington Northern Railroad, MAX guideway, Spring Creek Trail, and vacant land. 4. Compliance with Division 4.21, Applicable C-G Zone District Standards. Staff finds that the Summit Parking Structure Major Amendment complies with the applicable standards in Division 4.21 General Commercial District, as explained below. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 9 Section 4.18 (A) Purpose: The purpose of the General Commercial District is as follows: The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto- related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City’s intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians. The proposed parking structure supports the existing multi-family housing development and the project is providing adequate pedestrian connections and bicycle facilities. The applicant anticipates completion of the bicycle/pedestrian connection to Prospect Road by late March or early April 2014. Section 4.21(B) - Permitted Use: The proposed parking structure is considered an accessory use to the existing multi- family housing development and is thus permitted as a Major Amendment to the existing development plan. Major Amendments are processed in the same manner as required for the original approval so, in this instance; it is subject to Administrative Review. Section 4.21(E) – Development Standards: This standard requires pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces to be placed next to activity areas that generate the users. This proposal is connecting to the existing network of plazas and sidewalks to the north and the public park to the south. 5. Compliance with Article Three – General Development Standards: Staff finds that The Summit on College Parking Structure Major Amendment complies with all applicable General Development Standards, as explained below. Section 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection: Standards in this section require a fully developed landscape plan that addresses relationships of landscaping to the street, the building, abutting properties, and users on site. The project does not abut a public street and therefore is not required to provide Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 10 street trees. The landscape plan provides for dense landscaping along the east side of the property. The developer is providing a fee-in-lieu of constructing/planting the full landscape buffer area to the south until after the City’s Parks and Stormwater Departments are done improving Spring Creek (anticipated in 2016). Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking: Standards in this section require safe, convenient, efficient, parking and circulation improvements that add to the attractiveness of the development. At the time that The Summit developed, there were not minimum parking requirements within the TOD Overlay Zone for multi-family and mixed-use developments. Currently, there are minimum parking requirements both inside and outside the TOD Overlay Zone as indicated in the chart below (Sec. 3.2.2(K)). Summit Parking Analysis 665 Total Bedrooms In 220 units Existing Parking Required Outside TOD (required spaces per unit) Required Within TOD (required spaces per unit) Proposed Parking 18 1-Bd Units 27 (1.5) 19.8 (1.1) 54 2-Bd Units 91 (1.75) 62.4 (1.2) 53 3-Bd Units 100 (2.0) 70 (1.4) 95 4-Bd Units 303 (3.0) 212.1 (2.1) Total Spaces 185 521 364 537 % of Bds to Spaces 27.8% 78.4% 54.7% 80.8% The proposed increase in parking will create a total of 537 parking spaces including 12 staff spaces, 33 guest spaces, 8 short term spaces, 18 handicap spaces, and 466 leaseable spaces. With the proposed parking, 80% of bedrooms in the residential development will have an on-site parking space. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 11 The applicant is requesting a modification to the drive aisle standard that requires a 20 foot wide drive aisle for diagonal parking at a 60 degree angle. The modification request is for one one-way drive aisle per floor of the parking structure. Further analysis of this request is in the modification section of this report. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements: This standard requires at least one bicycle parking space per bedroom (665 spaces). 60% must be enclosed (399 spaces) and 40% must be fixed (266 spaces). The applicant has requested to meet the requirements of this section through alternative compliance as permitted in Sec. 3.2.2(C)(4)(c). (Request and plans are attached.) Adding to the existing 393 fixed bike spaces at Summit, this proposal will add 36 – 42 fixed bike spaces in the limited spaces around the residential buildings, an additional 112 – 118 in the parking garage in secured and covered spaces, and offer up to 118 bike stands for tenants to use within their units. This will provide a total of 665 bike parking spaces, equal to one per bedroom. Because the residential portion of this development was developed prior to these bike parking standards, the development did not originally provide additional space either within each unit or in the hallways for bike storage, as is commonly seen with multi-family developments. Staff finds that the additional bike parking that is being provided as an augmentation to an existing development plan accomplishes the purposes of this section equally well or better than would a plan that complies entirely with the standards of this section. Section 3.2.3 – Solar Access, Orientation, Shading The section requires that buildings not cast a shadow greater than that of a hypothetical 25 foot tall wall on the property line on the shortest day of the year (Dec. 21 between 9 am and 3 pm). The shadow study shows that the proposed parking structure does not cast a shadow larger than permitted in this section. Section 3.4.1 – Natural Habitats and Features This section applies to any development within 500 feet of a natural habitat or feature, in this case Spring Creek, to ensure protection of said habitat or feature. The project’s Ecological Characterization Study reports that the proposed parking structure is just north of Spring Creek and abuts Creekside Park. A Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is proposed to buffer the development from Spring Creek. The standard buffer requirement for Spring Creek is 100’ (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)), and the approved plans for the Summit provided an average 100’ buffer to the creek. The site’s habitat value is largely contained within the adjacent creek corridor; this corridor is highly impaired due Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 12 to College Avenue, the railroad, and the lack of woody vegetation cover. The site has also been evaluated for Threatened and Endangered species and no suitable habitat for such species was observed on the site. To meet the standards associated with Section 3.4.1, the project has proposed to apply the performance standards contained in Section 3.4.1(E). The plans for the parking structure would reduce the 100-foot buffer to: about 60 feet over a 60-foot length; 60 to 80 feet over a 30 foot length; and 70 to 80 feet over an 80-foot length. The project meets the standards in Section 3.4.1 by incorporating the following elements into the design: • No fencing is proposed between the creek and the development, which will allow for wildlife movement across the site (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(b)). • As the buffer area proposed is less than 100’, the applicant has incorporated native plantings and extensive screening to ensure that the ecological value of the Spring Creek corridor is protected and enhanced to the maximum extent feasible. This will be achieved in two ways. First, the project proposes to install a multi-structured vegetation screen that includes 104 trees and shrubs and a native grass seed mix. Second, the applicant will provide a fee-in-lieu payment to the City of Fort Collins to enhance the planned restoration of Spring Creek, anticipated within the next two years. A conceptual landscape plan has been developed to determine the fee-in-lieu amount (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(g)). • There is no light spillover into the buffer zone to minimize impacts to the area as a wildlife corridor (Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(e)). Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting: All lighting is down-directional with sharp glare cutoff fixtures. No foot-candles levels exceed one-tenth as measured 20 feet from property lines as required under this standard. This section requires that maximum on-site lighting shall not exceed 10 foot- candles and yet inside the parking structure the light levels during the day reach levels in excess of 50 foot candles and then at night a photocell will automatically reduce the light level below the maximum of 10 foot-candles. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility: Standards in this Section require compatibility with the context of the surrounding area in terms of building size, massing proportions, design character and building materials. Where the established character of the relevant area is not definitively established, or is Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 13 not consistent with the purposes of the Land Use Code, projects must set an enhanced standard appropriate for the area. The proposed parking structure is compatible with surrounding development in terms of building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale in that it is 3 ½ stories tall (37’-9” with one stair tower extending to 49’-4”). The building to the east (known as the Maytag Building) is one story with a garden level and approximately 100 feet in length, and directly to the north is the residential portion of Summit which is 4 and 5 stories in height and a maximum length of 560 feet. The east and west sides of the parking structure is 230 feet in length and the north and south sides are 175 feet in length. The building materials and colors are designed to clearly indicate that it is part of the Summit development. It is constructed primarily with precast concrete spandrel panels with reveals. The ground level has a stone veneer with matching accent columns stretching the entire height of the building. Cementitious panel elements with windows are protruding on corners and in several locations along the façade to break up the overall size of the building. The panels are painted to match the existing Summit buildings. The roofline is capped with a sheet metal cornice. Section 3.5.3 – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings: This section is intended to promote human scale development and to create attractive street fronts and walkways. Staff worked extensively with the applicant in order to bring the project into compliance with these standards. Buildings are supposed to orient to streets and utilize connecting walkways (Sec. 3.5.3(C)). The proposed parking structure is not abutting a public street and sits at the end of a private drive used to access the garage which is currently a parking lot. The site plan does provide a connecting sidewalk both to the residential portion of the development and to the public park to the south. This sidewalk connects to doorways on the east side that lead to the vehicle parking and bike parking. The building is required to vary its building mass so that it does not exceed a height:width ratio of 1:3 without projecting or recessed elements and shall relate to the interior spaces (Sec. 3.5.3(D)). The building provides stone veneer pillars and projections of cementitious siding and panels in varied colors to break up the massing of the building. The building may not have blank walls or building bays exceeding 30 feet in width without incorporating architectural features, and also have recognizable base and top Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 14 treatments (Sec. 3.5.3(E)). The principal material is precast architectural concrete spandrels with 3” wide and ¾” deep reveals to add visual interest. The voids that open into the parking garage are broken up with vertical concrete spans. The entire base is stone veneer protruding out from the concrete face. Each stone veneer pillar and cementitious projection panel extends above the concrete roofline providing variation and all rooflines are capped with sheet metal cornices. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service: A Traffic Engineering Study was submitted and accepted by the City’s Traffic Operations Department. Staff finds that the project adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the City’s adopted standards Levels of Service. Section 3.10 – Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone The standards in this section are to encourage land uses, densities, and design that enhance and support transit and mixed-use walkable developments. Where parking structures face the street, they are required to be wrapped in retail and other uses. The proposed parking structure does not face the street and thus this standard is not applicable. The site plan is required to provide outdoor gathering spaces (Sec. 3.10.3). This proposal is incorporating into an existing development that already includes plazas and courtyards. A public park is directly to the south with a connecting walkway, along which are benches. The auto entrances are required to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts (Sec. 3.10.4). The auto entrance to the garage is oriented so that pedestrians will not be crossing in front of vehicles. The west side of the entrance directly abuts the floodplain in which there are no pedestrian improvements. Buildings in the TOD Overlay Zone are required to be constructed with high quality materials and utilize neutral or earth tone colors (Sec. 3.20.5(C)). The entire base level façade is constructed with stone veneer and the upper section is tinted concrete. Both materials are noted in this section as acceptable. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 15 6. Compliance with Modification of Standards (2.8) – Drive Aisle Width (3.2.2(L): The project is requesting a Modification of Standard for a drive aisle width of 15 feet instead of the required 20 feet found in Section 3.2.2(L) Table A for parking angled at 60 degrees for one drive aisle on each of 4 levels of the parking structure. The applicant asks that the Hearing Officer find that the requested modification be granted on the grounds that is not detrimental to the public good and that the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the drive aisle width for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which compiles with the drive aisle width as required in Section 3.2.2(L). The applicant hired parking consultants Desman Associates to analyze the proposed modification. The National Parking Association (NPA) has classified Level Of Service (LOS) for parking based on the conditions of the situation. In this case the applicant is basing the analysis on a composite vehicle that is in the 85 th percentile for size: Chevrolet Traverse and the user familiarity as “low turnover”. The NPA LOS chart for these categories recommends a drive aisle width of 15’-4” for a LOS B. Please see the attached modification request for more details. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION: In evaluating the request for The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056, staff makes the following finding of fact and conclusions: A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in the drive aisle width (Sec. 3.2.2(L)) is not detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which compiles with said standard because the drive aisle width as proposed is considered wide enough to garner a Level Of Service B by national standards. B. The Major Amendment contains permitted uses and complies with the applicable land development standards of the General Commercial District in Article 4, Division 4.21 of the Land Use Code. C. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code with the exception of the requested modification of standard. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 16 D. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 with the following conditions of approval: 1. The Capstone property is partially located within the FEMA-regulated Spring Creek 100-year high risk floodplain and floodway. The project shall comply with all applicable sections of Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code (Ch. 10 Code). 2. Capstone and its consultants and subconsultants shall execute all components of the action plan for amendment of the Floodplain Use Permit (FPUP) #11048 as outlined in the memorandum from Walker P. May on February 14, 2014. Specifically, all of the 5 bulleted items included in said memo shall be completed and approved prior to the issuance of a FPUP for any site work or building construction. 3. An approved FPUP and no-rise certification must precede any site work, building construction, or building or grading permits. No development work, as defined in Section 10-16 of the Ch. 10 Code, shall commence until the FPUP and no-rise certification are approved by City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration. The FPUP and no-rise documentation must clearly document compliance with the Floodproofing or venting requirements of Ch. 10 Code if elevation requirements of Section 10-37 cannot be satisfied. Capstone and its consultants and subconsultants shall complete all applicable items included in the City of Fort Collins Floodproofing Guidelines, provided previously by e-mail exchange and available online at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fp- floodproofing.pdf. 4. A pre-construction FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be provided as part of the no-rise certification materials, and must be approved prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. 5. All no-rise certifications shall be re-certified by the professional engineer of record prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on the site. The no-rise re- certification shall include a FEMA Elevation Certificate of as-built conditions, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the as-built Elevation Certificate is approved by City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration. Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056 Administrative Hearing March 5, 2014 Page 17 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Plan 2. Landscape Plan 3. Elevations 4. Floor Plans 5. Plat 6. Photometric Plan 7. Shadow Study 8. Bike Parking Alternative Compliance Request 9. Drive Aisle Modification Request 10. Ecological Characterization Study 11. Ecological Characterization Study Checklist 12. Fee in Lieu Estimate for Landscape Buffer 13. Transportation Impact Study Memorandum 14. Public Comments St Av e S u mme r Smi t h St Dr F lic k e r cet Rd Ra i n t r e e Ln H i l l P o n Mi r r o r ma r e Ci r Gi l gal ad Wa y S h e e l y Ln Ba y Dr Johnson Dr Da r t mo u t h Heat her Heat her i dge A v e Av e Rober t son El l i s St St Ci r Dr Dr Worthington Cl Centre Dr eel Ct LEMAY AVE COLLEGE AVE DRAKE ROAD PAR W LA Suddering Spring Creek ett Rd stward ood Dr versity St North Dr Meridian Ave South Dr University Ave 8' TRAIL CONNECTION LOT 2 48,783 sf 1.120 ac 5.00' 8.00' 8.00' 8.00' 12.00' SIDEWALK 6.00' WALK CREEKSIDE PARK EXISTING ONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) EXISTING ONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) EXISTING ONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) EXISTING ONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) 52.52' 141.70' 20.55' 8.00' DRAINAGE EASEMENT WIDTH VARIES DRAINAGE AREA EASEMENT WIDTH VARIES CAR CATCHER (TYP) 21.58' 28.00' 16.00' 69.13' 83.82' 100' SPRING CREEK BUFFER GARAGE OVERHANG EDGE OF GROUND LEVEL PARKING COLUMN (TYP) WATER UALITY AREA BIKE PARKING AREA 30.01' 70.70' 77.74' 100.73' 21.60' 21.56' 8.50' 18.00' 8.50' 19.00' 22.00' STAIRS STAIRS ELEVATOR PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA 30.01' 19.00' 18.16' 8.50' St Ae Summer Smi t h St Dr Fl i c k er cet Rd Ra i nt r ee Ln H i l l P o n Mi r r o r ma r e Ci r Gi l gal ad Wa y S he e l y Ln Ba y Dr ohnson Dr Da r t mout h Heat her Heat her i dge A e Ae Rober t son Ellis St St Ci r Dr Dr Worthington Cl Centre Dr eel Ct LEMAY AVE COLLEGE AVE DRAKE ROAD PA W LA Suddering Spring Creek nett Rd estward wood Dr niersity St North Dr Meridian Ae RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS WITH NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX TURF CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE WALK PARKING LOT LIGHT (TYP) 100' SPRING CREEK BUFFER CONCRETE WALK COBBLE (TYP) SPRING CREEK CREEK SIDE PARK CHOICE CENTER DRIVE RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS OF LANDLOK 450 TRM PER CIVIL DRAWINGS (3) PE (3) QF (3) PE (8) CR (15) CL TALL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX SEE COVER FOR MIX 21.51' 28.06' EDGE OF BASE FLOOR PARKING COVERED BIKE PARKING AREA (132 BIKES) PROPOSED WATER UALITY AREA SEED WITH PLD MIX ON COVER COLUMN (TYP) SPRING CREEK BUFFER WIDTH VARIES 16.00' GARAGE OVERHANG (TYP) GARAGE BOUNDARY (TYP) OHNSON DRIVE EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE (TYP) EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE (TYP) SPRING CREEK TRAIL 84.45' 69.02' PROTECT EXISTING PLANTINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER PROTECT EXISTING PLANTINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE LINE PROPERTY LINE CONCRETE WALK CREEKSIDE PARK GREEN SCREEN (SEE ARCH PLANS) CAR CATCHER RELOCATE PLANTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ARE TO REMAIN RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS WITH NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX TURF CONCRETE WALK CONCRETE WALK PARKING LOT LIGHT (TYP) 100' SPRING CREEK BUFFER COBBLE (TYP) SPRING CREEK CREEK SIDE PARK RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS OF LANDLOK 450 TRM PER CIVIL DRAWINGS (3) PE (3) QF TALL NATIVE GRASS SEED MIX (3) PE SEE COVER FOR MIX 21.51' 28.06' EDGE OF BASE FLOOR PARKING COVERED BIKE PARKING AREA (132 BIKES) PROPOSED WATER UALITY AREA SEED WITH PLD MIX ON COVER COLUMN (TYP) SPRING CREEK BUFFER WIDTH VARIES 16.00' GARAGE OVERHANG (TYP) GARAGE BOUNDARY (TYP) ) 84.45' 69.02' PROTECT EXISTING PLANTINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER PROTECT EXISTING PLANTINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OR BETTER LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE LINE PROPERTY LINE CONCRETE WALK E PARK GREEN SCREEN (SEE ARCH PLANS) CAR CATCHER RELOCATE PLANTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ARE TO REMAIN TO THE NEW ISLAND AREA BENCH (TYP) (3) PE (2) PI (4) PE SPRING CREEK BUFFER - WIDTH VARIES FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE BUFFER ONE, REFER TO SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Cementitious lap siding system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTO [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Split face CMU base to match adjacent development. PHOTO [1] Cementitious panel reveal system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] [3] Stone veneer to match adjacent development over light gauge metal framing system. PHOTO [1] 49' - 4" Projected cornice treatment White vinyl windows. Color/finish to match adjacent development. 37' - 9" A B C D Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Cementitious panel reveal system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] 8" horiz. projection 8" horiz. projection Green screen panel with climbing vegetation. COLOR CHART Summit on College Parking Garage Fort Collins, CO East and South Elevations 02/07/14 PHOTO [1] SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION PHOTO [2] PHOTO [3] SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Cementitious lap siding system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Split face CMU base to match adjacent development. PHOTO [1] Cementitious panel reveal system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] [3] Stone veneer to match adjacent development over light gauge metal framing system. PHOTO [1] White vinyl windows. Color/finish to match adjacent development. 8" horiz. projection 8" horiz. projection 39' - 4" 2'-0" overhang Projected cornice treatment 32' - 3" D C B A Precast concrete column with stone veneer to match adjacent development to project approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels. PHOTO [1] Cementitious lap siding system, finished to match adjacent development. PHOTO [2] Precast architectural concrete spandrel panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals, painted to match adjacent development. PHOTOS [1] [2] Cementitious lap siding system, finished to match adjacent development color. PHOTOS [1] [2] Sheet metal cap. Color to match cornice. PHOTO [2] Split face CMU base to match adjacent development. PHOTO [1] Split face CMU base to match adjacent development. PHOTO [1] White vinyl windows. Color/finish to match adjacent development. White vinyl windows. Color/finish to match adjacent development. 49' - 0" 2'-0" projection NORTH ASSOCIATES Fort Collins, Colorado Parking Garage The Summit on College LEVEL 1 PARKING PLAN AP101 AS NOTED 12/23/13 60-13118 SM SM HE NORTH ASSOCIATES Fort Collins, Colorado Parking Garage The Summit on College LEVEL 2 PARKING PLAN AP102 AS NOTED 12/23/13 60-13118 SM SM HE NORTH ASSOCIATES Fort Collins, Colorado Parking Garage The Summit on College LEVEL 3 PARKING PLAN AP103 AS NOTED 12/23/13 60-13118 SM SM HE NORTH ASSOCIATES Fort Collins, Colorado Parking Garage The Summit on College LEVEL 4 PARKING PLAN AP104 AS NOTED 12/23/13 60-13118 SM SM HE ³ ´ ³ ´ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.6 3.6 3.8 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.4 2.1 2.6 3.4 4.2 4.9 4.8 5.1 4.1 3.4 3.5 4.2 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.4 3.8 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.1 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.1 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.9 4.2 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.8 4.4 3.7 3.8 5.2 5.4 5.5 4.6 3.6 4.0 4.9 4.8 5.1 3.9 3.5 4.4 4.9 4.8 5.1 3.8 3.7 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.8 3.8 3.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 9:00 AM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUBN 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 10:00 AM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUBN 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 11:00 AM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUBN 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 12:00 PM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUQN 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 1:00 PM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUQN 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 2:00 PM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUQN 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 3:00 PM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUQN 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 9:00 AM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUBN±XJUIGU8BMM 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 10:00 AM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUBN±XJUIGU8BMM 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 11:00 AM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUBN±XJUIGU8BMM 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 12:00 PM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUQN±XJUIGU8BMM 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 1:00 PM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUQN±XJUIGU8BMM 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 2:00 PM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUQN±XJUIGU8BMM 4:12 PM December 21 7:11 AM 3:00 PM W S E N 'PSU$PMMJOT$PMPSBEP %FDFNCFS8JOUFS4PMTUJDF 4VO4IBEPX4UVEZ 5IF4VNNJUPO$PMMFHF 8JOUFS4PMTUJDFBUQN±XJUIGU8"MM :KDOHUV:D\ %OGJ&6XLWH )RUW&ROOLQV&2 PDLQ PHWUR ID[ LGHDV#WVWLQFFRP ZZZWVWLQFFRP 7+(6800,721&2//(*(3$5.,1**$5$*( 0$-25$0(1'0(1768%0,7$/ %LNH3DUNLQJ±5HTXHVWIRU$OWHUQDWH&RPSOLDQFH 5HTXHVWRYHUYLHZ 7KLVSURMHFWZDVRULJLQDOO\DSSURYHGLQDQGWKH&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV /DQG8VH&RGHDWWKDWWLPHUHTXLUHGELNHSDUNLQJDWWKHUDWLRRIRIWKHQXPEHU RIYHKLFOHSDUNLQJVSDFHV7KLVUHVXOWHGLQDWRWDORIUHTXLUHGELNHSDUNLQJ VSDFHV7KHGHYHORSHUIHOWWKDWWKLVZRXOGQRWEHHQRXJKELNHSDUNLQJIRUWKLVW\SH RIGHYHORSPHQWDWWKDWWLPHVRDWRWDORIVSDFHVZHUHLQVWDOOHGSULRUWRWKH 3URMHFWRSHQLQJLQIDOORI &XUUHQWO\WKLVSURMHFWLVDSSO\LQJIRUD0DMRU$PHQGPHQWWRWKHDSSURYHG )'3WRLQFOXGHDQRQVLWHSDUNLQJ*DUDJH%HWZHHQWKHWLPHWKHSURMHFWZDV RULJLQDOO\DSSURYHGDQGWKH0DMRU$PHQGPHQWZDVVXEPLWWHGWKH&LW\RI)RUW &ROOLQV/8&ZDVXSGDWHGWRUHTXLUHSHUVHFWLRQ & E EDVLVIRUXVHLQVWRUDJHRIELNHVLQLQGLYLGXDOXQLWVLIGHVLUHGE\WKHLQGLYLGXDOWHQDQWV7KH VWDQGWKDWZHSURSRVHLVPRYHDEOHVRDVWRQRWLQWHUIHUHZLWK$'$)+$FOHDUDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWV DQGFDQEHYLHZHGDWKWWSZZZRUVUDFNVGLUHFWFRPGHOWDPDQHWIORRUVWDQGKWPO7KH GHYHORSHULVZLOOLQJWRSXUFKDVHDGGLWLRQDOVWDQGVVKRXOGPRUHEHGHPDQGHGE\WHQDQWVEXWIHHO LWLPSUXGHQWWRDJUHHWRSXUFKDVH DQGVWRUH 36 EXISTING 18 NEW 72 EXISTING 48 EXISTING 12 EXISTING 36 EXISTING 18 EXISTING 30 NEW 52 EXISTING 46 EXISTING 40 EXISTING 12 EXISTING 12 EXISTING 6 EXISTING 1"100' 100 50 108 NEW COVERED AND SECURED BIKE PARKING SUMMARY: 390 EXISTING OUTDOOR SPACES 48 NEW OUTDOOR SPACES 102 NEW COVERED AND SECURED SPACES 125 AVAILABLE IN ROOM STANDS 665 TOTAL BIKE PARKING SPACES The Delta Manet 1 Bike Floor Stand (RS8500) is a simple solution for storing and parking your bicycle. No more leaning the bike against the wall where it can leae marks or potentially fall oer. The Delta Manet bike parking rack holds one bicycle and accommodates any bike wheel sie. Bike rack includes rubberied feet to protect floor surface. The perfect bike floor stand for use in the garage, basement, home, apartment, condominium, office, dorm room, porch etc. Dimensions: 16.5" x 9" x 14". Easy-to-follow Delta Manet assembly instructions manual included. RACKS TO BE PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS FREE OF CHARGE ON AN AS REQUESTED BASIS. (DEPOSIT REQUIRED TO ENSURE RETURN) UP UP PLAN NOTES 1. DENOTES NOMINAL SPOT ELEVATION IN BUILDING DATUM OF TOP OF STRUCTURAL SLAB EXCLUSIVE OF ALL CANTS, CURBS, WASHES AND FLOWLINES. 2. BUILDING DATUM +/- 0'-0" EQUALS C.C.D. +XX'-XX". 3. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, TOP OF UPTURNED BEAMS AND EXTERIOR CRASH WALLS SHALL BE 3'-8" ABOVE NOMINAL SPOT ELEVATIONS INDICATED. 4. PROVIDE 1/2" PRE-MOLDED JOINT FILLER AT SLAB TO WALL JOINT, U.N.O. 5. ALL JOINTS AND PENETRATIONS IN FIRE RATED ASSEMBLIES TO BE COMPATIBLE SYSTEMS WITH EQUAL OR GREATER FIRE RATINGS. 6. ALL PARKING AREA SLAB SLOPES TO DRAINS MIN. 1/8" PER FOOT U.N.O.. 7. NO PARKING AREA SLAB SLOPES TO EXCEED 2.08% AT ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND ACCESS ISLES. (INCLUSIVE OF ALL CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES) . 8. ALL PARKING AREAS TO RECEIVE BROOM FINISH PER SPEC. J033000, U.N.O. 9. FOR STRIPING AND SIGNAGE LAYOUT SEE SHEET AP101 THRU AP104. XX.XX A201 2 D C B A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1' - 0 3/8" 44' - 0" 45' - 0" 45' - 0" 40' - 0" 28' - 0" 16' - 0" 3' - 1" 0" 222' - 0 1/4" 1' - 0 3/8" 53' - 0" 60' - 0" 60' - 0" 1' - 0 3/8" 175' - 0 3/4" A202 2 A201 1 A202 1 A401 1 3 A301 3 A301 1 A301 1 A301 2 A301 2 DESMAN ARCHITECTS x ENGINEERS x PLANNERS x PARKING CONSULTANTS x RESTORATION ENGINEERS ASSOCIATES DENVER CORPORATE CENTER III 7900 EAST UNION Ave #925 PHONE 303/740-1700 FAX 303/740-1703 email@desman.com NEW YORK x CHICAGO x WASHINGTON, D.C. x BOSTON x CLEVELAND x HARTFORD x FT. LAUDERDALE x DENVER February 3, 2014 Mr. Seth Lorson Project Planner Community Development & Neighborhood Services City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Request for Modification of Standards The Summit on College Parking Structure Dear Mr. Lorson: Table A in Section 3.2.2 (L) of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code indicates a drive aisle width of 20’ for 60° angled parking and one-way traffic circulation. The 20’ width of the drive aisle for 60° angled parking and one-way traffic flow, in our opinion as parking professionals, is wider than generally required for parking storage and can be reduced to approximately 15’ in width with no detrimental effect on the users of the Summit on College parking structure or to the public good. Parking dimensions have been developed to comfortably accommodate the composite design vehicle, which refers to the dimensions of the 85th percentile vehicle in the range of all cars, pickups, vans, sport utility and crossover vehicles from smallest (zero Percentile) to largest (100th percentile) based on 2010 sales. The composite design vehicle is currently the size of a Chevrolet Traverse, pictured below. The dimensions of this crossover vehicle are 6’-7” in width by 17’-1” in length. The dimensions of the composite design vehicle have varied minimally over the past 25 years in the United States. DESMAN ASSOCIATES Modification of Standards February 3, 2014 Page 2 The table on the following page lists parking geometrics (dimensions) by Level of Service (LOS) for parking modules from the National Parking Association (NPA). Traffic engineers developed the LOS approach to classify traffic conditions on roadways from A (free flow) to F (gridlock). The LOS approach has been adopted by many parking consultants to help classify conditions in parking facilities. The LOS categories for parking geometrics are as follows: LOS A = Excellent LOS B = Good LOS C = Acceptable LOS D = Poor (minimally acceptable) LOS criteria should be related to the needs and concerns of users. Users with low familiarity and high turnover should be accorded a higher LOS than users with high familiarity and low turnover. Generally recommended for moderate to high turnover parking (retail, restaurant, service, etc.) are minimum LOS B geometrics and recommended for low turnover parking (employee, commuter, resident, etc.) are LOS C geometrics. ParkingModuleDimensionsbyLevelofService LevelofServiceALevelofServiceB Parking Vehicle DriveAisle Module Parking Vehicle DriveAisle Module Angle Projection Width Width Angle Projection Width Width 45 17'Ͳ6" 14'Ͳ6" 49'Ͳ6" 45 17'Ͳ6" 13'Ͳ6" 48'Ͳ6" 50 18'Ͳ1" 14'Ͳ10" 51'Ͳ0" 50 18'Ͳ1" 13'Ͳ10" 50'Ͳ0" 55 18'Ͳ6" 15'Ͳ6" 52'Ͳ6" 55 18'Ͳ6" 14'Ͳ6" 51'Ͳ6" 60 18'Ͳ10" 16'Ͳ4" 54'Ͳ0" 60 18'Ͳ10" 15'Ͳ4" 53'Ͳ0" 65 19'Ͳ0" 17'Ͳ6" 55'Ͳ6" 65 19'Ͳ0" 16'Ͳ6" 54'Ͳ6" 70 19'Ͳ1" 18'Ͳ4" 56'Ͳ6"70 19'Ͳ1" 17'Ͳ4" 55'Ͳ6" 75 18'Ͳ11" 19'Ͳ8" 57'Ͳ6" 75 18'Ͳ11" 18'Ͳ8" 56'Ͳ6" 90 17'Ͳ10" 25'Ͳ10" 61'Ͳ6" 90 17'Ͳ10" 24'Ͳ10" 60'Ͳ6" LevelofServiceC LevelofServiceD Parking Vehicle DriveAisle Module Parking Vehicle DriveAisle Module Angle Projection Width Width Angle Projection Width Width 45 17'Ͳ6" 12'Ͳ6" 47'Ͳ6" 45 17'Ͳ6" 11'Ͳ6" 46'Ͳ6" 50 18'Ͳ1" 12'Ͳ10" 49'Ͳ0" 50 18'Ͳ1" 11'Ͳ10" 48'Ͳ0" 55 18'Ͳ6" 13'Ͳ6" 50'Ͳ6" 55 18'Ͳ6" 12'Ͳ6" 49'Ͳ6" 60 18'Ͳ10" 14'Ͳ4" 52'Ͳ0" 60 18'Ͳ10" 13'Ͳ4" 51'Ͳ0" 65 19'Ͳ0" 15'Ͳ6" 53'Ͳ6" 65 19'Ͳ0" 14'Ͳ6" 52'Ͳ6" 70 19'Ͳ1" 16'Ͳ4" 54'Ͳ6" 70 19'Ͳ1" 15'Ͳ4" 53'Ͳ6" 75 18'Ͳ11" 17'Ͳ8" 55'Ͳ6" 75 18'Ͳ11" 16'Ͳ8" 54'Ͳ6" 90 17'Ͳ10" 23'Ͳ10" 59'Ͳ6" 90 17'Ͳ10" 22'Ͳ10" 58'Ͳ6" Source:GuidelinesforParkingGeometrics, NationalParkingAssociation,2011. DESMAN ASSOCIATES Modification of Standards February 3, 2014 Page 3 Proposed for the Summit on College parking structure is a parking module that is 53’-1” wide for 60 parking and one-way traffic flow (19’-0” vehicle projections and 15’-1” drive aisle), as shown on the concept plan below. The 19’-0” vehicle projection is of sufficient length to accommodate the 6’-7” x 17’-1” composite design vehicle, as illustrated in the graphic below the floor plan. Summit on College Parking Structure Typical Level Parking Plan DESMAN ASSOCIATES Modification of Standards February 3, 2014 Page 4 As indicated in the table from the NPA on page 2, a 53’-0” wide parking module rates LOS B, which is more than comfortable for low turnover residential parking. It is further illustrated on the flowing page with the use of our AutoTURN program that the 53’-1” parking bay will accommodate vehicles parking on each side of the proposed 15’-1” wide drive aisle and the turns into and out of the parking bay are very comfortable even with the use of a large vehicle template. The parked vehicles are set back a minimum distance of over three feet from the passing vehicle. The circulation will be even more comfortable for small cars. Additionally, vehicles will be able to comfortably back out of the first 60° stall and enter and exit the other 60° stalls without conflicting with parked vehicles in adjacent stalls, as illustrated in the second AutoTURN image. DESMAN Associates was recently involved in the design of the East Wing Addition Parking Garage for Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHC) in Aurora. In order to preserve a view corridor, the Anschutz Medical Campus Design Review Board requested that the width of the parking structure be reduced in order to preserve a view corridor. In order to narrow the garage as much as being requested, two parking bays with 90° parking and two-way traffic were reduced with the use of 60° angled parking and one-way traffic flow. The clear width of the angled parking bays are 51-8” wide (19’-0” vehicle projections with 13’-8 wide drive aisles). The garage was greeted with rave reviews by the staff parking in it with respect to ease of traffic flow. Contact information for CHC is below: Ms. Kathy Hurley Ms. Selina Burridge Manager, EOC Parking and Access Control Supervisor Children’s Hospital Colorado Children’s Hospital Colorado (720) 777-2793 (720) 777-9775 Kathy.Hurley@childrenscolorado.org Selina.Burridge@childrenscolorado.org The granting of the requested modification of standards would not be detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally as well as the standard for which the modification is being requested. Based on the information presented herein, the request for modification of standards is very reasonable and should be granted. Respectfully submitted, DESMAN Associates Scot D. Martin Stephen J. Rebora, R.A. Senior Parking Consultant President December 12, 2013 Walker May Capstone Development Partners, LLC 402 Office Park Drive, Suite G50 Birmingham, AL 35223 RE: Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Letter Report for the Summit Parking Garage at 1807 South College Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado Mr. Walker May This letter ECS Report is submitted in response to the City’s request for an ECS Report for the proposed Summit multi-level parking garage. The parking garage development site is located at the south end of the recently constructed Summit student housing development at 1807 South College Avenue. The current development proposal calls for the construction of a four-level parking structure at the existing ground level parking lot previously constructed. Ecological characteristics of the property were evaluated during a field review of the property on December 9, 2013. The following provides a summary of ECS information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items (a) through (k). ECOLOGICAL STUDY CHARACTERIZATION CHECKLIST (a & i) The proposed parking structure development site has low ecological value and supports no natural habitat features since it was previously developed as a ground-level parking lot. Currently, the site consists of pavement and parking lot landscaping. As such, the proposed multi-level parking structure site does not support any significant areas of native vegetation or other unique habitat features. Features of ecological value within 500 feet of the project area consist of the Spring Creek stream corridor and adjacent City of Fort Collins open space and park areas. Areas along the south side of Spring Creek have been developed as Creek Side Park by the City of Fort Collins. The area between the Summit Garage south property border and the north edge of Spring Creek is City of Fort Collins open space that is in a relatively degraded condition and supports primarily annual weed and non-native grass species with minimal woody species development (see attached Figure 1). Wildlife habitat value on the project area has been degraded by past development. Creation of Creek Side Park with associated human presences, as well as adjacent developments and roadways has also reduced the overall habitat value of remaining undeveloped land along Spring Creek. Urban-adapted birds such as mourning dove, house finch, and house sparrow use the park site and other nearby undeveloped land for foraging. Canada goose may also occasionally forage in the turf grass areas of Creek Side Park. Resident northern chorus frogs may reside in Spring Creek since it is a perennial stream. The few trees on or near the project area may be used for perching, nesting, and foraging by urban-adapted songbirds. No bird nests were located in the deciduous trees located near the project area along Spring Creek or in Creek Side Park by the December 9, 2013 field survey. (b) There are no wetlands on the property, but there are thin strips of intermittent, vegetated wetlands supported along both banks of Spring Creek. (c) The project area provides unobstructed views of a portion of the Spring Creek stream corridor and Creek Side Park along the south side of Spring Creek. The proposed four-level Summit Garage structure will be highly visible to recreational users of the Spring Creek Trail and Creek Side Park. W. May 12/12/13 Page 2 of 4 (d) As indicated under (a & i) the project area supports no native vegetation or significant trees. (e) Spring Creek is the only natural drainage within 500 feet of the project area. The top of bank line for this stream feature and 100-foot buffer line is depicted on site plan maps submitted for the project. (f) There is no suitable habitat for any threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species on or adjacent to the project area. Sensitive or ecologically important species use of the Spring Creek corridor adjacent to the project area is also not likely since its surface has been disturbed and supports no native habitats. (g) Past removal of native habitat has eliminated the potential for any special habitat features on the property. (h) The only potential wildlife movement corridor within 500 feet of the project area is the Spring Creek stream corridor. However its potential to serve as a wildlife movement corridor has been considerably impaired by the culvert crossings under the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and South College Avenue, as well as by the lack of suitable woody vegetation cover along Spring Creek. (j) There are no issues regarding the timing of garage structure development and ecological features or wildlife use of the project area or the nearby Spring Creek stream corridor and Creek Side Park. Trees along Spring Creek and within Creek Side Park were searched during the field survey for any evidence of past nesting by raptors and none was found. Future nesting use is also unlikely because of nearby roadways, developments, and extensive human presence. (k) Since the entire project area has been previously developed, project development would have no impact on natural habitats or important habitat features in the project area. The principal impacts resulting from parking structure development would be encroachment of the upper levels of the parking structure into the 100-foot Spring Creek buffer zone (Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code) and the visual impact of the parking structure on the Spring Creek corridor and Creek Side Park. Current design plans for the parking structure indicate the top three levels would reduce the required 100-foot buffer to about 60 feet over a 60-foot length of structure, 60 to 80 feet over a 30 foot length, and 70 to 80 feet over a 80-foot length. In order to meet Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 buffer zone performance standards with a reduction of about 20 to 40 feet in the stipulated buffer, substantial plantings of vegetation will need to implemented to screen views of the parking structure as well as enhance wildlife habitat along the north side of Spring Creek. Projects in the Vicinity of Spring Creek must comply with Section 3.4.1(I)(1) of the Land Use Code, which states the following: Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or natural habitat corridors, including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor, shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat. Techniques such as architectural design, site design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and building materials shall be utilized in such manner that scenic views across or through the site are protected, and manmade facilities are screened from off-site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the area. These requirements shall apply to all elements of a project, including any aboveground utility installations. A number of ideas have been informally discussed with City staff regarding green screening of the south face of the parking structure, including planting of evergreens and growing vines along a cable mesh. It would be impossible to totally screen a 4-story parking structure from view from the Spring Creek corridor, but the following mitigation recommendations are proposed to help soften and break up views of the structure and give a more natural feature appearance to recreational users of the Spring Creek Trail and Creek Side Park. Proposed mitigation measures would also substantially enhance wildlife habitat along the north side of the Spring Creek stream corridor. W. May 12/12/13 Page 3 of 4 • City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, in Article 3.2.4(D)(6) requires that natural areas and natural features shall be protected from light spillage from off site sources. Therefore, intensity of night lighting from the side of the parking structure facing the Spring Creek corridor should be shielded or directed to preclude the intrusion of artificial nighttime light into the landscaped buffer zone and adjacent Spring Creek riparian and stream corridor. • Earth tone colors or materials should be used for the facade on the south facing walls of the parking structure. • An irregular line of blue spruce or Englemann spruce trees should be planted along the entire south face of the parking structure. Over time these evergreens can grow quite large and would visually screen much of the south side of the parking structure from view. This seems to be a more feasible, effective, and longer-lasting approach to visual screening than growing vines on a cable mesh or other type of trellis on the south wall. In addition, evergreen spruce trees would create green screening through all seasons, while and vines would only screen the wall from spring through fall since vines are deciduous. A vine covered wall would also create somewhat of a visual oddity to viewers along Spring Creek and in Creek Side Park since the overall expanse and flat surface of the wall would still be relatively apparent to viewers. • Additional plantings of smaller stature landscape trees and shrubs within the spruce tree plantings between the garage and City open space would provide additional vegetation diversity, visual appeal, and screening of the garage structure. • More formal landscape screening on the Summit property should then transition into native riparian plantings in undeveloped City land along the north side of Spring Creek. The City owned area between the Summit Property boundary and Spring Creek is currently in a degraded condition and could be substantially enhanced with native herbaceous and woody plantings to expand upland and streamside riparian habitats along Spring Creek. The more upland portions of City land should be planted with an upland riparian vegetation mix, including shrubs and trees, to create a transition zone from more formal landscaping on the Summit property to native streamside riparian vegetation along the north side of Spring Creek. The goal of these plantings should be to create a self-sustaining, native vegetation community to stabilize soils and enhance wildlife habitat. Plantings of native shrubs and trees would also provide additional visual screening of the parking structure from Creek Side Park. Habitat enhancement plantings would likely require soil treatment to relieve compaction (ripping) and improve fertility (fertilizer amendments). Supplemental irrigation may also be needed for initial establishment of native shrubs and trees. Suggested species for planting include the following trees and shrubs. Upland Riparian Zone Trees Shrubs eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) lanceleaf cottonwood (Populus acuminata) skunkbrush sumac (Rhus trilobata) (both non-cotton bearing varieties) rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa) Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) Streamside Riparian Zone eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) American plum (Prunus americana) lanceleaf cottonwood (Populus x acuminata) chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) (both non-cotton bearing varieties) golden currant (Ribes aureum) peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides) leadplant (Amorpha canescens) false indigo bush (Amorpha fruticosa) sandbar willow (Salix exigua) • Native grasses recommended for seeding in the upland riparian zone include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), and thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus). Grasses recommended for W. May 12/12/13 Page 4 of 4 planting in the streamside zone include western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus). • Revegetation of any water quality/detention basins in the buffer zone should also use native grass and forb species to meet buffer zone performance standards stipulated in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. Buffer zone enhancement and planting plans on City owned property will need to be coordinated with City Planning, Parks, and Natural Resources staff. Any additional woody species plantings would also need to be in compliance with possible floodway restrictions. It may be preferable for the Applicant to provide a fee-in-lieu payment to the City so that City Parks, Natural Resources, and Floodplain staff can determine and implement the most appropriate buffer plantings and mitigation between Spring Creek and the Summit Garage development parcel. This concludes my ECS Report evaluation of the proposed Summit Parking Structure. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding my evaluation, please give me a call. Sincerely, INC. T. Michael Phelan Principal Senior Wildlife Biologist attachment: Figure 1 ECS Review – Summit Parking Garage Ecological Characterization Study Review Project Name: Summit Parking Garage Project Planner: Seth Lorson ECS Consultant: Cedar Creek Associates Review Date: February 26, 2014 Project Description: This is a request for a multi-level parking garage to be installed above the existing surface parking lot at 1807 South College Avenue. Environmental Planner Summary. The proposed Summit Parking Garage is located north of Spring Creek and adjacent to Creekside Park. The original Summit project had a surface parking lot adjacent to the park and provided an average 100’ buffer from the creek. The proposed parking garage encroaches onto the originally approved buffer is located to the east of a riparian woodland and wetland drainage area. Current design plans for the parking structure indicate the top three levels would reduce the required 100-foot buffer to about 60 feet over a 60-foot length of structure, 60 to 80 feet over a 30 foot length, and 70 to 80 feet over an 80-foot length. The project has proposed to meet the buffer standards in two ways: (1) within their property, they propose to install a multi-structured vegetation screen that includes 104 trees and shrubs and a native grass seed mix; and (2) within Creekside Park, the applicants will provide a fee-in- lieu payment to the City of Fort Collins, as within the next two years, the City will be restoring this portion of Spring Creek and will enhance this site to meet the buffer zone standards. A conceptual plan has been developed to determine the fee-in-lieu amount. No lighting spills over into the buffer zone. With these two proposed enhancements to the Spring Creek buffer, staff finds this project complies with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Requirements and Evaluation – Section 3.4.1(D) of the Land Use Code Yes No N/A Comments Is the project within 500’ of a Natural Habitat or Featurei? If yes, which features? ; Yes, the project is just north of Spring Creek (see page 1 of the ECS). Is the wildlife use and value of the area described? ; Yes, it is described. Because of past site degradations, e.g., the parking lot, and the human use associated with the adjacent park, the site supports urban-adapted species such as mourning dove, house finch, Canada geese, fox, raccoon, etc. (see page 1). Are there wetlands present? If yes, have the boundaries and functions been described? ; Wetlands are not present on the site, though there are thin strips of intermittent, vegetated wetlands along the banks of Spring Creek (see page 1 of the ECS). ECS Checklist Page 2 Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Requirements and Evaluation – Section 3.4.1(D) of the Land Use Code Yes No N/A Comments Are there any prominent views from or across the site? ; The site provides unobstructed views into the Spring Creek corridor and the foothills to the west. The structure will be highly visible to trail users and those on College Avenue (see page 1). Are the pattern, species, and location of significant native trees and vegetationii described? ;N/A, the site does not support any native vegetation or significant trees (see page 2). Are the pattern, species, and location of significant non-native trees and vegetation described? ; The ECS does not describe this, but from numerous site visits, the site does have non-native trees within the parking lot landscaping that was installed with the surface parking lot. None are significant nor do any contribute to the habitat value of the area. Is a stream or perennial body of water present? If yes, is top of bankiii located? ; Yes, the top of bank line for Spring Creek is described on the site plans (see page 2). Are Sensitive or Specially Valued Speciesiv present? If yes, are the areas of use identified? ; The property was evaluated for Sensitive or Specially Valued Species and were found to be unlikely because of past disturbances (see page 2). Are other special habitat featuresv located on the site? ; The ECS indicates that past removal of native habitat has eliminated the potential for any special habitat features on the property (see page 2). Does the site contain wildlife movement corridors? ; Yes, Spring Creek does serve as a wildlife corridor, though in this section its function is highly impaired due to College Avenue, the railroad and the lack of woody vegetation cover (see page 2). Are the general ecological functions of the site described? ; Yes (covered throughout the report). ECS Checklist Page 3 Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Requirements and Evaluation – Section 3.4.1(D) of the Land Use Code Yes No N/A Comments Are any measures needed to mitigate adverse impacts projected by the development? ; Yes, the most significant concern is the encroachment into the Spring Creek buffer zone. To address this, the applicants have proposed extensive plantings on their own property and then a fee-in-lieu payment to the City to contribute to the City’s restoration efforts on Spring Creek (planned to be completed in the spring of 2016). As the area just south of the applicant’s property is in a floodway and the City is undergoing a restoration effort for this area, it is more effective for the applicants to support the City’s broader restoration efforts than to implement their buffer zone improvements in isolation. Glossary of Terms i Natural features shall mean (a) natural springs, (b) areas of topography which, because of their steepness, erosion characteristics/geologic formations, high visibility from off-site locations and/or presence of rock outcroppings, and (c) view corridors which present vistas to mountains and foothills, water bodies, open spaces and other regions of principal environmental importance, provided that such natural features are either identified on the city's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, or otherwise meet the definition of natural area as contained in this Article. ii Native vegetation shall mean any plant identified in Fort Collins Native Plants: Plant Characteristics and Wildlife Value of Commercial Species, prepared by the City's Natural Resources Department, updated February 2003. iii Top of bank shall mean the topographical break in slope between the bank and the surrounding terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found, the outer limits of riparian vegetation shall demark the top of bank. iv Sensitive or Specially Valued Species are defined as the following species: Federally Threatened and Endangered Species; State of Colorado Threatened and Endangered Species; State of Colorado Species of Concern as identified in the document, Colorado’s Natural Heritage: Rare and Imperiled Animals, Plants and Natural Communities, April 1996, Volume 2, No. 1, Animals and Plants of Special Concern and/or any other species identified as in need of protection in the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan (see Division 5 of the Land Use Code). v Special habitat features shall mean specially valued and sensitive habitat features including key raptor habitat features, such as nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or in the Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP); key production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds; heron rookeries; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or NAPP; prairie dog colonies over fifty (50) acres in size as included on the Natural Areas Inventory Map; key areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified in the NAPP; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified in the NAPP; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothills ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and any wetland greater than one- fourth (¼) acre in size. Date: 2/17/2014 Section Description Unit UnitCost Qty Cost 1 Plantings EvergreenTrees(8'Height) EA $ 500.00 8 $ 4,000.00 ShadeTrees(3"Caliper) EA $ 450.00 7 $ 3,150.00 OrnamentalTrees(2"Caliper) EA $ 350.00 9 $ 3,150.00 Shrubs(5Gallon) EA $ 50.00 37 $ 1,850.00 OrnamentalGrass EA $ 15.00 57 $ 855.00 SoilAmendments CY $ 32.00 10 $ 320.00 Perennials EA $ 11.57 0 $ Ͳ NativeSeedandCrimpedStrawMulch SF $ 0.05 16000 $ 800.00 2 Irrigation LS $ 3,000.00 1 $ 3,000.00 SubTotal $ 17,125.00 25%Contingency $ 4,281.25 10YearsofIrrigationWater EA $ 250.00 10 $ 2,500.00 GrandTotal $ 23,906.25 SummitParkingGarageBufferFeeinLieuEstimate 1"40' 40 20 BUFFER QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME 9 2" CONCEPTUAL ORNAMENTAL TREE 5 8' CONCEPTUAL EVERGREEN TREE 3 8' CONCEPTUAL EVERGREEN TREE 7 3" CALIPER CONCEPTUAL SHADE TREE BUFFER QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME 17 CONCEPTUAL LARGE SHRUB -- 5 GALLON 57 CONCEPTUAL ORNAMENTAL GRASS -- 1 GALLON 6 CONCEPTUAL LARGE SHRUB -- 5 GALLON 14 CONCEPTUAL LARGE SHRUB -- 5 GALLON PLANT SCHEDULE BUFFER EXISTING TREE (TYP) SPRING CREEK EXISTING BIKE PATH EDGE OF PARKING GARAGE REALIGNED STORM PIPE EXISTING STORM PIPE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE EXISTING STORM PIPE EASEMENT February 16, 2014 Dear Seth: Thank you so much for your time the other day. It was great to meet you and see you again at the community meeting for the FoCo Cafe. As you recall, we are opening a restaurant / tavern in the garden level of the old Maytag building, 1801 S. College Ave. Our space faces west, and we chose this space specifically due to it's visibility from the Max / Mason Street corridor, as well as the beautiful view of the mountains. We are very concerned about several issues that will arise from the construction of the structure. First we would like to mention those specific to our business: • Our view of the mountains will be completely obstructed. • We will no longer be visible from the Max/Mason Street Corridor. • The shadow from the structure will make our patio less desirable. • Sound echoing off the structure from College Ave. will ruin the ambiance of the patio. Next, issues specific to the area: • Increased traffic on Stuart to and from the parking structure will limit access to our parking lot • Stuart Street is our only access point and customers need to turn left to access our parking lot • Stuart Street is already overloaded and not designed for the traffic it is currently seeing, let alone an increase from a 3 story parking structure • The current overuse of the Stuart / College Ave intersection is already dangerous, more traffic will lead to high speed collisions on College Parking in the community: • Much of the current Summit parking lot is empty, especially since Winter Break. We have emailed several photos documenting this at various times of the day/week. • Stuart Street and the surrounding areas are packed with student cars trying to avoid paying for a parking permit. A new parking structure will not change this behavior. Issues for all Fort Collins residents: • Capstone received $5 million from the City of Fort Collins in tax increment funding to defray the cost of needed improvements to their site • Capstone (magically) now has $6.5 million to complete the proposed parking structure • Capstone is already marketing on their website a new parking structure for Fall 2014 to attract more car owning students to the area • More cars at Summit is more cars in Fort Collins, the opposite of a Transit Oriented Development Possible solutions: • Have Capstone market their housing as transit oriented (this was recently changed on their website. Current residents had no knowledge of this) • Have the City issue free parking permits to residents of the surrounding areas, limiting parking to said permits • Have Capstone develop the connections to the bike path they previously promised but have yet to complete • Have Capstone provide ride share vehicles for necessary car trips • Give Max a chance to get up and running to determine if their Transit Oriented Development will work in Fort Collins • Have Capstone pursue their claimed agreement with CSU for off-site storage parking • Since the winter break we have noticed a significant decrease of cars at Summit (maybe the problem is solving itself) In conclusion: We have invested over one million dollars in building our business so that we could serve the Mason Street Corridor / Max mass transit and the Spring Creek bike trail as well as the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. We chose our space specifically for its location, views and accessibility. Capstone's newly proposed parking structure impacts all of these, making our local investment in Midtown less viable. We are members of the community and business people trying to stimulate an area of Midtown the City of Fort Collins has made a priority for redevelopment. We are also taxpayers that feel that Capstone has pulled a "bait and switch" on the residents of the City. We realize that the proposed parking structure does not fall outside the Land Use Code for the area. That being said, does the City want to reward Capstone for lying to them about their intentions? Sincerely, Jeffrey Leef David Rose Angela King The Laboratory ATTACHMENT 6 Staff Materials presented at the Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP130056 Remanded Hearing Documents Submitted by City Staff to Hearing Officer at Remanded Hearing: Exhibit A – Presentation by City Staff (8 pages total) Exhibit C – APO Notice of Hearing Letter/Map (2 pages total) Exhibit D – Coloradoan Affidavit of Publication (1 page total) Exhibit E – Remanded Hearing Sign‐in Sheet (1 page total) 1 Summit Parking Structure Major Amendment / Final Development Plan FDP#130056 Remanded Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 Exhibit A 2 Background • Admin Hearing – March 5, 2014 • Appeal Hearing – May 20, 2014 – Council Direction: (Resolution 2014-063) • Reduce impact on Spring Creek viewshed; Land Use Code Section 3.4.1(I)(2). • Reduce amount parking closer to the TOD parking standard; Land Use Code Section 3.5.1(J). 3 Summit Parking Structure Additional Information •345 parking spaces • 442 total •2 ½ stories •66.5% of bedrooms to parking spaces Original Proposal •440 parking spaces • 535 total •3 ½ Stories •80.8% of bedrooms to parking spaces 4 Elevations 5 Landscape Existing – from Spring Creek With parking structure and landscaping 6 Landscape Existing – from Spring Creek With parking structure and landscaping 7 Summit Parking Structure • Findings A. Modification request for drive aisle reduction from 20’ to 15’ B. Complies with Article 4, Division 4.21 C. Complies with Article 3, except for the modification of standard D. Complies with Article 2 8 Summit Parking Structure • Staff Recommendation –Approvalwith conditions addressing floodplain compliance Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING- REMAND August 18, 2014 Dear Property Owner or Resident: This letter is being sent to let you know an Administrative Hearing Officer will conduct a public hearing to consider a development proposal near your property. Specific information about this development proposal is to the right and on the back. We welcome and encourage your participation, as your input is an important part of the development review process. You received this notice because records from the Larimer County Assessor’s Office indicate you own property near the proposed development site. Because of the lag time in recordkeeping, or because of rental situations, some neighbors may be missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbors of the public hearing so they can attend. Check out our online guide of your ways to participate in the development review process by visiting fcgov.com/CitizenReview. You may also contact me or Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Development Review Liaison, at 970-224- 6076 or sburnett@fcgov.com. Sarah is available to assist residents who have questions about the review process and how to participate. We look forward to your participation at the Administrative Public Hearing. If you have questions at any time, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Seth Lorson, AICP City Planner 970-224-6189 slorson@fcgov.com The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 970- 220-6750 for assistance. Esta es una notificación sobre la reunión de su vecindario o sobre una audiencia pública sobre el desarrollo o proyecto en la propiedad cerca de donde usted es el dueño de propiedad. Si usted desea que esta notificación sea traducida al español sin costo alguno, favor enviar un correo electrónico en español a la siguiente dirección electrónica: titlesix@fcgov.com. HEARING TIME AND LOCATION Thursday, September 4, 2014 6 p.m. Conference Room A-D 281 N. College Ave. PROPOSAL NAME & LOCATION The Summit on College Parking Garage (Southwest corner of Stuart and Choice Center Drive) PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION  Major Amendment for a Parking Structure  2 1/2 stories with parking on the roof  345 parking spaces, net gain of 251 parking spaces MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED  Drive aisle width reduction from 20 feet to 15 feet ZONING INFORMATION  General Commercial (C-G) Exhibit D Exhibit E ATTACHMENT 7 Applicant Materials presented at the Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 TheSummitonCollegeParkingStructureFDP130056Remanded Hearing DocumentsSubmittedbyApplicanttoHearingOfficeratRemanded Hearing: ExhibitB–PresentationbyApplicant(15pagestotal) &YIJCJU# Procedural Timeline March 19th – Administrative Hearing Officer McAskin approves the Major Amendment to the Summit on College Project Development Plan April 2nd – Jeffrey Leef, Lester Kaplan, and Councilman Ross Cunniff file separate Notices of Appeal of the Decision April 22nd – Councilman Ross Cunniff and Lester Kaplan file separate Amended Appeals May 20th – City Council considered the appeals and remands the Decision to the Hearing Officer for further consideration of two issues June 3rd – Council passes Resolution 2014-50 wherein Council adopted findings of fact in support of its May 20th decision to remand July 22nd – Council passes Resolution 2014-63 wherein Council amends and re-adopts Resolution 2014-50 to make additional findings of fact and to limit the scope of this Remand Hearing. Issues To Be Considered On Remand In Resolution 2014-63, Council limited the scope of this Remand Hearing to the consideration of only two issues: 1. “The impact of the major amendment on Spring Creek viewsheds” as provided in Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code. 2. “Consideration of the possible reduction of the size of the parking structure building and the reduction of the number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements as established by Ordinance No. 121, 2013, and presently contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for multi-family development in the Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone . . . .” 3 Elevated Level (Original) Design as Viewed from S. College Avenue 2 Elevated Level (Alternate) Design as Viewed from S. College Avenue Comparison of 2 and 3 Elevated Level Designs – As Viewed from S. College Ave. 2 Elevated Level Alternative 3 Elevated Level Original Design COMPARATIVE ELEVATIONS – 3 ELEVATED LEVEL DESIGN vs. 2 ELEVATED LEVEL DESIGN 2 Elevated Level Alternate Design 3 Elevated Level Original Design Landscape Buffer Between Creekside Park and Parking Structure COMPARATIVE ELEVATIONS – 3 ELEVATED LEVEL DESIGN vs. 2 ELEVATED LEVEL DESIGN 2 Elevated Level Alternate Design 3 Elevated Level Original Design Existing Northward Views From Creekside Park Planned landscape screening as viewed from Creekside Park Planned landscape screening as viewed from Creekside Park Note: The roofline of the existing Summit building is visible above the 2 Elevated Level parking deck Both designs comply with the Land Use Code, Transit Oriented Development Overlay and Midtown Plan. Both designs comply with parking requirements as stated in the Interim TOD Standard. The Alternative Design addresses the two Issues to be considered on Remand: 1. Reduces potential impact to the Spring Creek viewshed, while enhancing existing landscaping and screening 2. Reduces the size and massing of the parking structure, while reducing the number of parking spaces so as to be closer to the minimum parking requirement as established on an interim basis for the TOD Both the original and alternative designs provide a practical and sustainable solution for parking at The Summit, which also benefits the surrounding community Enhances Creekside Park by further screening The Summit Development from views within Creekside Park SUMMARY ATTACHMENT 8 Materials presented to Hearing Officer at the Administrative Hearing September 4, 2014 The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP130056 Remanded Hearing Documents Submitted by the Public to Hearing Officer at Remanded Hearing: Exhibit F – Transcript of Selected Portion of May 20, 2014 City Council Regular Meeting (consideration of three appeals of the Hearing Officer’s March 19, 2014 decision to approve the Summit on College Parking Structure) (submitted to Hearing Officer by Les Kaplan) (26 pages – back to back) Exhibit G – Materials Submitted to Hearing Officer by Attorney Rick Zier During Public Comment: Attachment #1 – Verbatim Transcript of the Administrative Hearing Officer Hearing March 5, 2014 (27 pages – back to back) Attachment #2 – Transcript of selected portion of May 20, 2014 City Council regular meeting (consideration of three appeals of the Hearing Officer’s March 19, 2014 decision to approve the Summit on College Parking Structure) (26 pages – back to back) Attachment #3 – Transcript of selected portion of June 3, 2014 City Council regular meeting (items relating to three appeals of the Summit on College Major Amendment PDP pertaining to a Parking Structure (5 pages – back to back) Attachment #4 – Transcript of selected portion of July 22, 2014 City Council regular meeting (Resolution 2014‐060 Amending an Readopting Resolution 2014‐050) (3 pages – back to back) Attachment #5 – Amended Verified Complaint CRCP 106(a)(4); Jeffrey Leef, Angela King, David Rose and Lester M. Kaplan v. City of Fort Collins and Capstone Development Corp. (31 pages – back to back) &YIJCJU' &YIJCJU( "UUBDINFOU &YIJCJU( "UUBDINFOU &YIJCJU( "UUBDINFOU &YIJCJU( "UUBDINFOU &YIJCJU( "UUBDINFOU ATTACHMENT 9 Verbatim Transcript of the Administrative Hearing Officer Hearing September 4, 2014 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, September 4, 2014 Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Major Amendment to The Summit on College Project Development Plan #FDP130056 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Marcus A. McAskin STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Seth Lorson, City Planner Mark Kempton, Stormwater Master Planning Manager Lindsay Ex, Senior Environmental Planner Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Sandy Lindell, Senior Building and Development Review Tech 2 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MARCUS MCASKIN: For the record, my 2 name is Marcus McAskin with the law firm of Widner, Michow and Cox, I’ll be the Hearing Officer this evening. It is September 4 th 3 , 2014…this hearing has been noticed and scheduled for 4 six o’clock this evening. This is a…the Major Amendment to Summit on College PDP, or FDP, 5 number 130056. The applicant is the Capstone Development Corporation. I originally heard this matter on March 5 th , and I entered a written decision in this case on March 19 th 6 , to approve a parking structure consisting of 440 parking spaces. That March 19 th 7 decision was appealed to 8 City Council in accordance with City Code Section 2-49. Three appeals were consolidated for purposes of the May 20 th 9 hearing before City Council. City Code Section 2-55(F)(2) provides 10 the City Council shall uphold, overturn or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer provided 11 that City Council may also remand the matter for re-hearing in order for the Hearing Officer to 12 receive and consider additional information with regard to any issue raised on appeal. Any such 13 remand shall include direction from the City Council to the Hearing Officer as to the issues to be 14 considered at the re-hearing. Direction has been provided to me in the form of City Council Resolution 2014-063, dated July 22 nd 15 , 2014. Based on the direction set forth in that Resolution, 16 this hearing shall be limited to the following issues: number one, whether Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of 17 the Land Use Code was properly interpreted and applied, and number two, whether Section 18 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code was properly interpreted and applied. 19 Specifically, the Resolution that was adopted by City Council directed me to further 20 consider the impact of the proposed major amendment on the Spring Creek viewsheds and to 21 consider the possible reduction of the size of the parking structure and reduction in the number of 22 parking spaces in the structure, to a number closer to that established by Ordinance No. 121, 23 series 2013, presently codified at Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code for multi-family 24 development within the TOD overlay zone, with a view toward compliance with Sections 25 3.4.1(I)(2) and 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code. I reviewed the DVDs of the May 20 th 26 Council hearing in advance of this evening’s 27 hearing, and it is my understanding that the applicant has submitted a revised application 28 reducing the number of parking spaces in the garage. It is further my understanding that the 29 applicant is requesting an approval of the major amendment as originally submitted; however, 30 the applicant is also requesting that if additional conditions are to be imposed, that the alternate 31 design submitted by the applicant be adopted. The alternate design includes elements including 32 that the top level of the garage as originally submitted be removed, reduction of the average 33 height along the south elevation to approximately ten feet, four inches, introduction of additional 34 green screening, vertical trellis screening, along the south elevation of the garage facing 35 Creekside Park, parking spaces in the garage reduced from 440 to 335, or 345, excuse me, for a 36 net total of 442 on-site spaces. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code, the interim TOD 37 overlay zone parking regulations adopted by the City in 2013, would require a minimum of 364 38 on-site spaces. 3 1 The order of proceedings tonight will follow that set forth in 2.2.7(C) of the Land Use 2 Code. I have completed my overview of the proceeding tonight. The next step will be to turn it 3 over to the applicant for their presentation. Seth Lorson, the City Planner, will then have an 4 opportunity to present. We will then open it up for public testimony. If you do intend on 5 testifying tonight, I ask that you sign in on the sheet that’s been provided with your name and 6 your address, speak clearly so that the recorder can pick up the recording, and please do state 7 your name and address for the record. It’s my historical practice in all of these hearings to limit 8 public comment to three minutes; however, I don’t see an awful lot of people here tonight, so 9 I’m going to be a little bit liberal with that time limit. However, I would encourage you not 10 repeat any issues that have been raised; I’d like to avoid any repetitious testimony if at all 11 possible. My…it’s not my intent to limit public testimony in any way; I just don’t want to hear 12 the same thing over and over. So, again, please come up to the table, sign in and then state your 13 name and address for the record. And with that, I think we’ll…we’ll go ahead and get started. 14 The applicant and staff will both have an opportunity to respond to any comments that had been 15 raised during public testimony; however, I would ask that your testimony and the comments be 16 directed to me as the Hearing Officer and not to staff or not to the applicant. If there’s questions, 17 ask me, we can get those hopefully addressed during the rebuttal period. So, with that I’ll go 18 ahead and open the public hearing and I’ll turn it over to the applicant. 19 MS. CAROLYNNE WHITE: Thank you Mr. Hearing Officer, good evening. My name 20 is Carolynne White, I’m land use counsel for the applicant, which is Fort Collins Associates LP, 21 including developer Capstone Development Corp, who’s present here on behalf of Fort Collins 22 Associates LP. I’d like to introduce a few of the members of our team who will part of our 23 formal presentation tonight, in addition we also have several other members of our team who are 24 experts in various areas who are here this evening, and if they are called upon to answer 25 questions or to testify in response to something, we’ll introduce them at that time. The principal 26 members of our team who will be testifying and presenting tonight are Jeff Jones, who’s with me 27 at counsel table, Executive Vice-President of Capstone, Hoshi Engineer, who is an engineer with 28 Desman Associates, and Brian Williamson, who is our landscape architect with TST, 29 Incorporated here in Fort Collins. 30 As you already pointed out, the reason we are here is on a remand by City Council of the 31 administrative approval of a major amendment to the approved project development plan for The 32 Summit on College, to add a parking structure to serve the existing multi-family and mixed-use 33 building that’s already there. Can you switch to the next slide? 34 You already covered the procedural timeline that I was planning to cover to provide a 35 little of the background and history of how we got here, so I won’t cover that right now other 36 than to mention that the scope of this hearing is set forth, as you mentioned, in City Council 37 Resolution 2014-063, which limited this remand hearing to the two issues that you mentioned. 38 Next slide please. And those two issues are: the impact of the major amendment on Spring 39 Creek viewsheds as provided in 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code, and consideration of the 4 1 possible reduction of the size of the parking structure building and the reduction of the number of 2 parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements as 3 established by Ordinance 121, codified at 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) in the Land Use Code. The vast 4 majority, 99.9% of what we plan to present to you tonight is on those two issues; tangentially it 5 may relate to other issues that were previously addressed in the hearing, and we’ll mention if 6 that’s the case. But we will not be presenting the full scope of the entire Land Use Code and all 7 the criteria, because in our view, based on City Council’s remand, those issues have already been 8 addressed. So we’ll be focusing our testimony and presentation on both how the original 9 proposal meets these two particular issues raised by City Council and the sections of the Land 10 Use Code that City Council mentioned, and also how the additional information that we’ve 11 provided depicting an alternative design for the parking structure also meets these two issues, 12 and all the original criteria in the Land Use Code. 13 But to that point, I will just state here for the record, that the record does incorporate and 14 include all of the previous testimony, all of the previous exhibits, from the first administrative 15 hearing on the original structure and its compliance with the Land Use Code, as well as City 16 Council Resolution 2014-063, which expressly notes that, in its view, the proposed project as 17 they saw it, met all of the other criteria in the Land Use Code in conformance with your original 18 decision, and we’re just remanding for reconsideration based on these two issues. 19 For ease of reference, I want to clarify that I will be referring to the before and after, or 20 the original proposal…the original structure which had three elevated levels of parking, or the 21 alternative design, which has only two elevated levels of parking. That’s the terminology that 22 we have used to describe these things, and the original proposal, the original application, remains 23 exactly as it was, exactly as it was approved, appealed, and remanded back. There have been no 24 changes to it, nor have there been any changes to the actual application. The additional 25 information that was provided, exactly as set forth in the Land Use Code, which is the purpose of 26 a remand hearing for the Administrative Hearing Officer to consider additional information on 27 the issues raised by Council. 28 One of the issues raised by Council was a concern that they felt the parking structure may 29 be too large, or may contain too many parking spaces relative to the overall goals of trying to 30 minimize reliance on individual cars for transportation within the TOD district. So, in order to 31 attempt to provide additional information about that, we have provided the materials that were 32 submitted to City staff back at the beginning of August and that have been provided to you as 33 part of the packet, illustrating what a two elevated level, or an altered garage that was reduced in 34 size and scope, would look like if you were to approve the proposal with the additional condition 35 that it be reduced in size and scope. The other point I would make is that the alternative design 36 removes an entire floor of the structure and reduces the number of parking spaces from 535 to 37 442. And to be a little more precise about what I just said, Capstone submitted the alternative design for the parking structure to City staff on August 5 th 38 , City staff reviewed this additional 39 information and their staff report, which is in the record, does recommend approval of the 5 1 proposal as modified by the additional information to be reduced in size to a two elevated level 2 parking structure. So with that, I’d like to turn it over to Jeff Jones and ask him to cover just a 3 few background…a little background summary of why this parking is still needed in this location 4 and why we’re back before you on this remand with this proposal. 5 MR. JEFF JONES: Thank you Carolynne. Just as a recap, The Summit was developed in 6 2012, delivered and opened in August of 2013. It is comprised of roughly 220 apartment units 7 which have 665 beds. We developed The Summit with the encouragement and support of the 8 City and with the encouragement of CSU as a way to add approximate student housing, quality 9 student housing, that was approximate to CSU to accommodate the ongoing growth at CSU, and 10 to provide alternative living areas for CSU students and help maybe take the pressure off of 11 single-family neighborhoods which were being impacted in the community. Our parking 12 approach for The Summit included both on-site spaces, about 191 vehicle spaces and 390 bicycle 13 spaces, plus off-site parking that we had worked to arrange. The off-site parking arrangement 14 did not prove as productive or sustainable as we had hoped, so soon after we opened The Summit 15 in August of 2013, there was a shortage of parking that became a source of frustration for student 16 residents of The Summit, it became a problem for area merchants and residential neighbors 17 because of the spillover impact of the student parking into the community. We recognized that 18 we had a problem. 19 Our analysis led us to the understanding that about 75-80% of CSU students bring a car 20 with them when they come to school here. In our case, they don’t use those cars every day, they 21 don’t use them necessarily often, but they do need a place to store those cars. So as we began to 22 analyze how to address the parking shortage at The Summit, we undertook a pretty wide-ranging 23 evaluation of what those options might be with the goal that we find a solution to the parking 24 challenge that was workable for our student residents, that would allow the property to be 25 marketable over an extended period of time. It would also be workable for the community and 26 most importantly, that would be a sustainable, permanent solution, not just a stop gap solution. 27 We did undertake some stop gap measures in the first operating year. We did…we were able to 28 lease some additional off-site lots and that helped us get through the first year, although it was 29 not the most successful year…our residents were very dissatisfied with the parking situation and 30 that manifested itself in a very low renewal rate from year one to year two, one of the lowest 31 renewals we’ve ever had in any of our…any of our projects. But I think it was directly 32 attributable to the parking shortage. 33 What we basically decided after working with the City officials, CSU, local landowners 34 and brokers, and exploring a number of options for where and how we might meet the parking 35 challenge, we concluded that building an on-site parking structure was really the only workable, 36 sustainable solution. And we began in the fall of 2013 working closely with the City to try to put 37 together a proposal and an amendment to our land use approval that met the Fort Collins Land 38 Use Code, and it was a long and very intense and very meticulous effort to design and site a 39 parking structure on our property in a way that met the Land Use Code. We worked closely with 6 1 a lot of the people in this room, with the City, and came forward with our proposal. As 2 Carolynne said, that initial proposal had three elevated levels and continued to use the ground 3 level. We were pleased that the City staff supported that, we were pleased when the Hearing 4 Officer approved that original proposal, and it was only when there were appeals filed and the 5 Council raised a couple of objections, that we had to pull back on our plan to try to build that 6 garage in the summer between year one and year two. So, we’ve had to cobble together short- 7 term, stop gap solutions for parking for year two. Fortunately, and to their credit, Colorado State 8 University stepped up and allowed us to have 225 on-campus storage parking spaces for the year, 9 but made it very clear that was the last accommodation that they would be able to make for us. 10 We…cobbled together a few other short-term leases but remain very committed to the 11 completion of this garage as our permanent solution to the parking needs. And, furthermore, 12 have been listening intently and trying to work in good faith with the City and the community to 13 offer up potential modifications to our original plan that might be less objectionable to some. So, 14 we’re pleased to be back here to present both our original and our alternative proposals tonight. 15 MS. WHITE: Thank you. So, as previously noted, the original parking structure, as 16 originally proposed, the three elevated levels, was found to have met all of the criteria; it was 17 remanded back on these two criteria. And I want to emphasize and clarify that, in the remand, 18 Council did not state that they believed it did not meet those criteria; rather they remanded for 19 further consideration of the project in light of those two criteria that are referenced here. One of 20 the reasons that appeal bodies sometimes do that is where they want to see a more extensive 21 record developed on those particular issues because they couldn’t make a determination of 22 whether or not the criteria were met in the absence of additional findings, hence the reason why 23 additional information was provided as part of this hearing and why we will be focusing on 24 trying to put everything in the record that we think you, and ultimately if it gets appealed again, 25 City Council might need in order to make a good determination about whether or not these 26 additional criteria that are being referenced here, and the additional concerns that Council has 27 raised have been met. We want to make sure that, if you have any questions about the original 28 design…feel free to ask them and we have all the people here to answer them and all that 29 information is still present in the record. But we will be focusing the majority of our 30 presentation on the alternative design since it’s clear that the concerns Council expressed wanted 31 us to reconsider the size and scope of the parking garage, and that’s why this additional 32 information is being presented. 33 In order to discuss how the alternative design addresses these issues, I’d like to ask Hoshi 34 Engineer to come forward and give you a summary of the characteristics of the alternative 35 design. Hoshi…is this alright or do you want him to go over there? Is that okay? 36 MR. HOSHI ENGINEER: Thank you Hearing Officer. My name is Hoshi Engineer with 37 Desman Associates, 7900 East Union Avenue, Denver, Colorado. And the primary 38 purpose…that I want to kind of present in this slide over here is the difference between the 39 original scheme and the alternate scheme. And I want to primarily focus on the table that’s on 7 1 the right hand side of the slide, the parking structure slide that is. And Carolynne…the TOD 2 parking requirements. So if you can focus on that slide, on the right hand side, if you look at the 3 first column that primarily…that’s shown in red…it depicts what the current conditions are on 4 the site. And the first row represents the parking count as existing today without any 5 development in terms of the parking structure. So this is what we have currently on-site, 191 6 spaces in terms of the parking counts. 7 MR. MCASKIN: Can I ask you…because I’ve seen the number 185 referenced a lot in 8 different reports in terms of what the current on-site parking is…so? 9 MR. ENGINEER: I think…not I think…this is the right number. We have gone back and 10 recounted the number of spaces and this is the…updated count. 11 MR. MCASKIN: Okay. 12 MR. ENGINEER: Okay, going down that column, the second row really represents a 13 ratio, which is a ratio of total spaces to bedrooms as existing today, and it’s only 29%. And then 14 the last row in the first column, it really represents a ratio of resident parking spaces to 15 bedrooms, and the small nuance that you see between 29% and 24% is because of the visitor 16 parking, short-term parking, and staff parking. If you go on to the second column under the 17 parking structure, this considers the original proposed scheme of three elevated levels for parking 18 structure. And if you see that row, it represents an additional 344 spaces under the original 19 scheme, and if you take the sum of 191 and 344, that kind of represents the total car count of 535 20 spaces. And again, this is with the original proposed scheme of three elevated levels. Moving 21 down that column to the second row, that represents a ratio of total spaces to bedrooms of 80%, 22 and going down, the ratio of resident parking spaces to bedrooms is 70%. Now, having said that, 23 based on the concerns and issues that were kind of presented by the Council and by the others, 24 we came up with an alternate design. And primarily I want to illustrate the difference between 25 the two, between the alternative scheme and the original scheme, for your consideration. And 26 the alternate scheme is for two elevated levels, a much smaller garage. We have removed the top 27 level, and after careful engineering analysis and circulation pattern, this is the new car count 28 summary that we have come up with. And again, going back to the two elevated levels, it’s just 29 an illustration and for your consideration. The total car count with the smaller garage with the 30 roof level removed would be 251, for a total of 442 spaces. The second row down in the last 31 column, it represents a ratio of 66%, and that’s a ratio of total spaces to bedrooms. And 32 obviously the last row represents a ratio of resident parking spaces to bedrooms of 56%. The 33 highlight of this slide…just below the tabulation…the alternate scheme results in a reduction of 34 27% in car count. 35 Okay, this view is really taken from the South College Avenue, and again it kind of 36 depicts the three elevated levels, which was proposed in…original scheme. And you can see the 37 mass and scale of the structure and you can compare that with the next slide that we have 8 1 over…this is the mass and scheme for the two elevated alternative design as viewed from the 2 same viewpoint from the South College Avenue. And…the next slide has a better depiction of 3 the comparison of the original scheme versus the alternate scheme. You can see significantly the 4 smaller size of the garage, of the two elevated levels versus the three elevated levels, keeping in 5 mind that we have kept everything else the same in terms of architecture, aesthetics, and visuals. 6 This is the elevation from the Spring Creek Park on the south side, which we felt was an 7 important elevation based on the concerns that were raised by the City Council and by the 8 others…at the City Council hearing. The first elevation, the top elevation, represents the 9 alternate design, two elevated levels, versus the three elevated original design. And one thing 10 you can see…again, the texture and visuals are pretty much we have kept the same; the flavor of 11 the garage has not changed in terms of the exterior aesthetics, but we have added significant 12 green screening as…requested by the Council. You can see the density of the green screen, 13 significantly more than the original design. Let’s move on to the next one. 14 Well, I just want to say, can you go back to the original slide please…the one before it…I 15 think there are some important things that I want to bring up regarding the architectural 16 aesthetics and the visuals. Like I said…I want to re-emphasize this point over here, that we are 17 maintaining the natural colors that were proposed in the original scheme, as in the elevated 18 design. We are keeping the siding, the windows, the cornices and overhangs similar to The 19 Summit residential complex, similar materials as The Summit development, and the most 20 important thing is we have reduced the scale, the height and mass of the structure significantly, 21 to improve the view corridors from the Spring Creek Park. 22 MR. MCASKIN: And I saw in the materials that that reduction on the south elevation…I 23 think I mentioned it in my opening comments…was ten feet four inches. Is that correct? 24 MR. ENGINEER: That is correct…in fact…our floor to floor height, if I’m not mistaken, 25 Scott please? Is it ten foot four or eleven foot four? 26 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT TEAM: It’s ten foot four. 27 MR. ENGINEER: It’s a ten foot four reduction in height, floor to floor, and really, in 28 compliance, or per request of the Council hearing, really if you look at three sides, the north, the 29 east and the south, it’s primarily a two elevated structure okay, with the average roof height of 30 only twenty-six feet, compared with thirty-six foot four. 31 MS. WHITE: Thank you. So coming back to the table for a moment, I’d like to take the 32 information that Hoshi shared and talk about how that brings us to the criteria that Council 33 articulated relative to an attempt to reduce the number of parking spaces. The left side of this 34 table demonstrates the evolution of the parking standards as they have been in the Fort Collins 35 Code over the last several years. And, as staff is aware, when this project was originally built, it 36 was under the TOD overlay zone, which at the time required no minimum parking for residential 9 1 within the TOD. This is really a mixed-use building, there’s also 7,000 square feet of retail on 2 the first floor, but even so, the parking requirement was very, very minimal. There was no 3 minimum nor was there any maximum at that time. 4 In late fall of 2013 after the project had already opened, as Jeff Jones mentioned, they 5 became aware that there was going to be a need to add additional parking. And similarly, some 6 of the discussion in the community around this project, along with other similar examples within 7 the TOD overlay zone, highlighted for the City the fact that they may need to revisit the TOD 8 parking requirement not requiring any parking, and conducted a parking study. And in the 9 meantime, they instituted an interim TOD parking requirement. So the middle column on the 10 left hand side of the table represents what would have been required under the current standard, 11 right now, today, which is the interim TOD parking standard. Had this project, The Summit that 12 is, not the parking structure amendment but the original Summit project, been brought forward 13 for City approval after this interim parking standard had been approved, this number in the 14 middle is the number of parking spaces that would have been required. I think you said 364…I 15 think it’s 358 and I think the staff report now has 358. I think the old table had 364, I think we 16 both recalculated….358 is the right number. 17 CITY PLANNER SETH LORSON: Three fifty-eight is the number that I have. 18 MR. MCASKIN: Okay so let me…let me just make sure I understand that number. So, 19 under the interim parking standards that have been codified at 3.2.2, if this project were…would 20 have been submitted under those standards, the required number of parking spaces, the 21 minimum, would have been 358. 22 MS. WHITE: Correct. 23 MR. MCASKIN: We’ve heard testimony that…the current condition is 191. 24 MS. WHITE: Correct. 25 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, so there’s a…167 additional spaces would be required to bring 26 the project to the minimum? 27 MS. WHITE: Yes, yes. Now, the interim TOD did not apply even though the parking 28 garage amendment to the PDP was brought forward post adoption of the interim standard 29 because the interim standard would be applicable to the original application to build The 30 Summit, not to the major amendment to build the parking. So, this is not the applicable standard 31 by which to judge it, but if it were, whether the original proposal or the subsequent proposal, we 32 would have met it because we’re way above 358 in both cases. So…but the standard is not 33 technically applicable. The reason we present it is because Council’s direction was to try to 34 bring the number of parking spaces closer to the minimum required under 3.2.2(K)…(I)(2), 35 which is this, 358. So, I read Council’s direction in 2014-063 Resolution as being, try to reduce 10 1 the parking closer to this number, 358. And just as an aside, that number, 358, represents 2 approximately 55% ratio of total spaces to bedrooms. 3 Now, the City has, since the interim parking standards were adopted, continued to 4 undertake a very extensive parking study, very extensive reports, review of the scholarly 5 literature in this area, review of other cities with similar parking situations, other cities with very 6 progressive parking regulations, and a variety of recommendations have been made to Council 7 for their consideration, which actually I believe were originally scheduled for adoption right 8 around now, although I think they’ve been delayed somewhat, so we’re still…the rest of Fort 9 Collins is still under the interim parking standard today. But one of the recommendations in the 10 proposed package, if it is adopted, is a minimum parking standard that is higher than what the 11 interim parking standard is. And if that standard were in place today and applied to The Summit, 12 the number of parking spaces required would be somewhere between 499 and 574, depending on 13 how you calculate it because there are a couple different options in the proposal. But, it would 14 be somewhere in that range, 499 to 574. And that would represent somewhere between 75% and 15 86% ratio of beds to parking spaces. I mention that for a couple of reasons…one is that, if that 16 standard were in place today and The Summit came forward today, and if the original parking 17 structure were part of the proposal for a total of 535 spaces, it would be exactly right in the 18 middle of that range under the standards that are under consideration but not in force today. It 19 would still be more than the minimum required under the interim standards, and it would be in 20 compliance…the original garage would be in compliance with all three of those standards. 21 If the alternative design is approved and the parking structure is constructed with an 22 additional 251 spaces for a total of 442, that would be in compliance with the old standard, the 23 interim standard, and it would be, as Council directed, closer to the minimum required under the 24 interim standard. But it would actually be under parked relative to the proposed standard that’s 25 under consideration. In fact, it would be a legal non-conforming use. It would have been legal 26 when it was built, but it would not be legal at the time that new parking standard is approved. 27 So, I mention that only because it’s clear that the City itself is wrestling with this issue of how to 28 right-size parking in the TOD area, trying to adjust the land uses and the zoning mix in and 29 around the BRT just like the developers and the property owners in the same vicinity are 30 wrestling with that same issue. And, in similar fashion, everyone…the City and the developers 31 and the property owners, are trying to do so prior to the BRT having come into operation, so 32 without having the benefit of knowing how it’s going to work and, you know, what it’s going to 33 do. Nonetheless, even knowing that information and in light of all the experience of this project 34 and other projects that have come forward, the current recommendation on the table is the City 35 swinging back the other way towards requiring a higher ratio of parking, 75 to 86%, which 36 would be more in line with what the original proposal was. 37 The other criterion that City Council asked us to look at in this hearing had to do with the 38 impact on Spring Creek, the viewsheds, and the landscaping. So, in order to discuss that, I’d like 39 to bring forward Brian Williamson, the landscape architect who designed this landscaping plan, 11 1 and who designed the green screen that we’ve showed you, to talk a little bit about that 2 landscaping plan and how it buffers Spring Creek and addresses that issue of the visual quality 3 and the visual character of the natural features. 4 MR. BRIAN WILLIAMSON: Good evening, I’m Brian Williamson, I live at 1433 Beech 5 Court in Fort Collins, and as Carolynne mentioned, the Council has also requested that you, the 6 Hearing Officer, consider the impacts the parking structure has on the Spring Creek viewshed. 7 Go to the next slide. I’m going to summarize how we’ve addressed the viewsheds in the design 8 alternative, and Carolynne will address how these design elements satisfy Section 3.4.1(I)(2). 9 This is a rendering that we have prepared of the garage. It shows, to the north, which is 10 on the right hand side of the screen, the existing Summit building, and then center in the 11 rendering is the garage. You’ll see the landscaping that we’re showing on the north and east 12 sides of the garage and then…what I’d like to call your attention to is what’s happening on the 13 south side of the garage. If you’ll look, you can see the path that runs through Creekside Park 14 there, and there’s two red dots where we have done some simulated viewpoints from. And then, 15 on the north side of the creek, you can see the buffer planting that has been proposed through a 16 fee in-lieu opportunity with the City. Really the impetus behind that is that, right now that’s in a 17 floodplain and the City is currently working on kind of reshaping that area. So, rather than have 18 us go in and make any improvements to that area that would eventually be just torn out, we’re 19 going to say, these are the reasonable improvements that we’ve worked through with City staff, 20 and Capstone is going to pay for those improvements, and then they’ll be installed when the City 21 makes the larger-scale improvements to the area. 22 MR. MCASKIN: Right, and I’m assuming that…that the City and the applicant, you 23 guys, have agreed on a figure of what that fee in-lieu would be? 24 MR. WILLIAMSON: That’s correct. 25 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, and what’s that amount? 26 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have that amount… 27 MR. MCASKIN: And what’s the…what’s the projected timing of the City’s 28 improvements to the… 29 MR. WILLIAMSON: I don’t have that answer…through the process, it seems like it’s 30 gone from further in the future to closer in the future, but we haven’t really had any…any 31 definitive timeframe on the improvements…I don’t know, Seth, if you know more than we do? 32 MR. LORSON: We can speak to that. 33 MR. WILLIAMSON: The improvements that we’re showing here, including irrigation 34 and ten years of water, are in the order…of $25,000. You can see the property line between the 12 1 City’s property and our property…or Capstone’s property here, depicted. It’s kind of in the 2 center of the screen, but really if you were to follow the parking lot from Dairy Queen…the 3 southern boundary of that, that’s the southern boundary of our site as well…right where Mike’s 4 indicating there. On our side of the property, there is a pretty dense utility corridor that includes 5 storm, electrical and a few others, that really limited the amount of planting that we could do on 6 our side. At the southern end…oh, sorry, excuse me, the eastern edge; you can see that we did 7 plant some trees down there. But, really we’re too close to those utilities to plant trees on the 8 western most part of the garage. But we have done…over there…is we planted large shrubs that 9 will grow to mature heights of twelve to fifteen feet. So, really…they’ll really kind of anchor the 10 landscape…anchor the garage into the landscape. Really…I think that we are ready to go to the 11 next slide. 12 This is a slide that we’ve looked at before, and I just want to call attention to the green 13 screen that Hoshi had pointed out. We’ve basically doubled the green screen that’s on the face 14 of the garage. Part of that is that the garage has shrunk in overall height, but we have added 15 multiple panels that really will…will disguise more of that…as you’re viewing it…from Spring 16 Creek. Those green screens are going to be composed of vines. There’s a couple different types 17 of vines…they’re living vegetation…they will be on there year-round; they don’t die back. But, 18 some of the species will lose leaves; others will retain them through the winter. They won’t 19 remain green through the winter, but they turn a nice red, bronzy color for that time period. And 20 then, we’ve selected a range of vines that will flower throughout the season; some will flower 21 early spring, mid-spring to late summer, and then another that will go in late summer as well. 22 So…kind of keep that interest happening. The ones that flower early will green up early; the 23 ones that flower late will stay green later, so that kind of bridges that season. Also, we want to 24 emphasize that the structural lighting will be improved from the current surface parking lot. The 25 protection of the night sky will have no spillover into Spring Creek. Now we can go to the next 26 slide. 27 So these are a couple views showing the existing vegetation from Creekside Park. These 28 really…we’ve done two renderings, but really these kind of show the rest of the park and what 29 you see in both the right…the upper right and then the lower two on the center and the right, 30 are…that’s the path and those are looking towards our building. So you can see that there’s a 31 fair amount of vegetation already existing on the…that’s on the south side of the creek between 32 the path and the creek. So those…that’s the view today and you can see, then, some of these are 33 the ones that we actually used for the renderings. This is the first rendering that we’ve 34 done…this is from the southeast corner of the building…or, sorry, this is from Spring Creek 35 looking at the southeast corner of the building. These are…they’re not the specific plants since 36 we didn’t do a specific plan for the fee in-lieu; however, these are the plants…these plants are 37 shown in the locations of the approved fee in-lieu exhibit. The shrubs and the trees you can see 38 really run the full gamut from Spring Creek all the way back to our garage. And you can see 39 how…how really that the garage is really no more visible than the other buildings that are…that 13 1 are over there, and really we feel like creating any more dense of a screen than that would really 2 provide a buffer that wouldn’t really be appropriate for this…for this area. You know, it’s a park 3 in an urban area. If we were to do a really strong vegetative buffer, it’s never going to be a 4 hundred percent, but really we feel like this is the most appropriate and, you know, working 5 through it with City staff, they’ve agreed. Can we go to the next slide? 6 So this one is a little bit further west, standing on the path looking directly head on at our 7 building. And you can see that, in the original picture that’s inset in the bottom corner, you 8 know, there’s some existing vegetation. That vegetation will also continue to mature, but we 9 haven’t shown that; we’ve shown the existing vegetation in the current state. So really this view 10 would crowd in with the existing vegetation and then the proposed vegetation would further 11 buffer the building. 12 MS. WHITE: And, if I might add one more comment while we’re on this slide…it’s 13 noted on the slide, but for those the audience who might not be able to see it, the sort of grey 14 figure that you see above the top of the parking garage…that’s the existing Summit building 15 that’s there today, and it’s visible over the top of the parking garage, or will be visible over the 16 top of the parking garage, just as you can see that sort of angled upward feature in the lower left- 17 hand corner of how it looks today. So the parking structure does not block any more of the sky 18 from the park than what might be blocked today by the existing development that’s already on 19 the site; it’s lower than the existing development when viewed at that angle. Does that conclude 20 your testimony? 21 MR. WILLIAMSON: It does. 22 MS. WHITE: Okay. I’d like to tie Brian’s testimony to the criteria, but before I do, could 23 we just go back to the table for one second…the parking table…sorry. I want to correct 24 something I said about the proposed standards that are under consideration. It’s not that it’s a 25 range depending on how you calculate it; it’s a range of what is allowed. In other words, the 26 proposed standard has something that’s not present today, or in the interim, or in the previous, 27 which is a maximum. So, if The Summit were built today and if the new standard were in place, 28 the standard that’s presently under consideration that has not yet been adopted, the range of 29 allowed parking would be a minimum of 499 spaces total, and a maximum of 574 spaces, 30 somewhere in that range. So, I just want to correct that. 31 Okay, just real quickly, to relate to Brian’s testimony about the green screen and the 32 landscaping…what we’re getting at there is the…is Council’s direction to address this issue of 33 the Spring Creek viewshed. And I want to be precise about the language of the criterion that 34 we’re trying to address because it’s important. Section 3.4.1(I)(2) provides…projects shall be 35 designed to minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within 36 the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within 37 the site. Spring Creek, which is the natural feature with which Council was concerned, is not 14 1 within the site; it is on an adjacent property. Technically, this criterion is not truly applicable to 2 Spring Creek. Nonetheless, as you can see, this project and the project team have taken great 3 pains to address the views to and from Spring Creek and the visual character from Spring Creek 4 as if it were a natural feature within the site to which this criterion should be applied, in order to 5 be certain they are properly and thoroughly addressing Council’s concerns. 6 So, in light of that, some of the steps, to recap, that Capstone has taken in order to attempt 7 to mitigate any potential degradation of the views to and from Spring Creek, or the visual 8 character of Spring Creek, include: the extensive landscaping plan which has already been 9 approved by staff, including both on-site plantings and off-site plantings through the fee in-lieu 10 that the City is preferring to plant itself as part of its overall plan, all of the features that were 11 originally included in the original design, such as using natural materials, natural colors, 12 articulation on the building, building form, architectural features and so on, and then, finally, 13 doubling the amount of green screen vegetation on the south side facing Spring Creek, and 14 ultimately reducing the overall size and scale of the garage in order to better maximize the views 15 towards the north of the open sky from Spring Creek. So, while that criterion, we believe, 16 doesn’t technically apply since Spring Creek is not on site, it has been more than adequately 17 addressed by the additional mitigation measures proposed as part of this project. 18 So, at the end of the day, the only question for the City and for you as the Hearing Officer 19 is whether or not the proposed amendment to the PDP meets the requirements in the Code. We 20 heard a lot of testimony at the first set of hearings about whether or not everyone was in 21 agreement that this is the right choice of which type of parking solution should be applied to 22 solve the parking problem, but the question of whether or not this is the right solution is really 23 not the right question to ask because this is a property that’s owned by this property owner, this 24 is how they are proposing to solve the parking problem. And the only question for the City is, 25 does it or does it not meet the criteria in the Code. And the record and City Council has 26 already…the record has already established and City Council has already affirmed, that all of the 27 other relevant Code criteria have been met, even with the original structure, and we’re just 28 addressing these two additional criteria relative to the viewshed and the visual character of 29 Spring Creek and a potential for reduction in the total number of parking spaces to get closer 30 down to 358, which is the interim TOD parking requirement in 3.2.2(K). And we believe that 31 with the additional modifications provided, there’s no question that it meets both of those 32 criteria. We actually believe that the original design still met those criteria, but the applicant is 33 prepared to accept conditions which would require it to reduce the total number of parking 34 spaces, which doesn’t completely solve the problem for them, in order to try to propose a 35 compromise that addresses the concerns articulated by Council, and to some extent, those 36 articulated by members of the public and adjacent property owners. So, with that, we would ask 37 your approval of either the original structure as you see fit, or with the additional conditions to 38 approve the alternative design, and would be glad to have any member of our team answer any 39 additional questions that you have. Thank you. 15 1 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. I don’t have any additional questions at the moment, but I 2 might later. So, at this point I’ll turn it over to City staff. 3 MR. LORSON: Thank you Hearing Officer, my name is Seth Lorson, City Planner. This 4 is the remanded hearing for The Summit parking garage. I’m just going to go quickly over the background, as I have this prepared. We had an administrative hearing on March 5 th 5 , it was appealed to Council, there was a hearing on May 20 th 6 . Council’s direction, as we’ve heard from 7 the applicant, was to reduce the impact on the Spring Creek viewshed. In that it says…and this 8 is per the Resolution of findings for that appeal hearing…it says the possible reduction of the 9 size of the parking structure building in order to reduce that impact on the Spring Creek 10 viewshed. They also said that it does not meet the Land Use Code in that they should have a 11 parking amount closer to the TOD parking standard…the minimum parking requirements…as 12 we heard also from the applicant. Additionally, Council said that, except for those provisions, 13 they…that the approval that interpreted that the application met all the other sections of the Land 14 Use Code, was actually upheld, and that’s in section six of the Resolution. 15 So, what we as staff did, is we only reviewed the additional information that was 16 provided to us that brought the parking structure down to two and a half stories and 345 parking 17 spaces within that structure. We only reviewed that because City Council has already 18 determined that the original proposal did not comply with the Land Use Code. So, what we see 19 here up on the screen is that the original proposal had 440 parking spaces in the parking structure 20 for a total of 535 for the entire project, a three and a half story structure…we call it three and a 21 half stories because there’s three levels, and then there’s parking and activity happening on that 22 top level, on the roof, with a parapet, and so we just called that a half a story. That was a total of 23 80.8% of bedrooms to parking spaces ratio. On reduction, it’s 345 parking spaces within the 24 parking structure; that’s not a net number, that is the total within the structure, and 442 parking 25 spaces total for the entire project, bringing the building down to two and a half stories and a total 26 of 66.5% as a ratio of bedrooms to parking spaces. 27 So here is the elevations as requested by Council, that the impact be reduced from…from 28 the south end here, closer from Spring Creek and Spring Creek Park. These are the renderings 29 that we’ve already seen from the applicant that include the parking structure and the landscaping. 30 I have invited Lindsay Ex, our Environmental Planner, up to talk…speak to the fee in-lieu 31 process that was talked about earlier with Brian. 32 SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER LINDSAY EX: Good evening, Linday Ex, 33 Senior Environmental Planner with the City. I’m going to touch on one part of your question 34 and then I’ll ask Mark Kempton with our Utilities Department to speak to the second. The two 35 questions that I heard during the process were, was the amount that’s proposed and within your 36 packet agreed to by the City? That was $23,906 and that was agreed to by the City. That’s still a 37 preliminary estimate, so those numbers could change, but that amount was agreed to by the City. 16 1 As far as the timeline for when the City is going to do the restoration work on Spring Creek, 2 that’s what I’d like to turn over to Mark. 3 STORMWATER MASTER PLANNING MANAGER MARK KEMPTON: Good 4 evening, my name is Mark Kempton; I’m the Stormwater Master Planning Manager for the City 5 of Fort Collins Utilities. So, right now, our goal with the project is to start in on the permitting 6 and design winter of this year, so winter of 2014. Anticipate doing construction in the creek, in 7 conjunction with CDOT; we’re also going to do some repairs around the Highway 287 bridge, so 8 we’ve combined with their project. Construction will be fall, winter of ’15-2016 and then we 9 anticipate planting along the creek in the spring of 2016. That’s our projected schedule right 10 now…I would caution that a lot of that is contingent on collecting permitting through FEMA 11 and…permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, which are kind of beyond our control. 12 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. 13 MR. LORSON: So, subsequent to our review of the additional information provided by 14 the applicant, staff finds that they meet all the standards in the Land Use Code with the exception 15 of the modification for request…which we feel they meet the modification standards in the Land 16 Use Code, of course as shown in the Resolution. The Hearing Officer, yourself, has already 17 determined that they met these standards, and City Council has upheld those, except for the two 18 standards we’ve been talking about. So, staff recommends approval with the conditions as 19 existed before for addressing floodplain compliance. 20 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great. So, at this time I think I will go ahead and open it up for 21 public hearing, tonight, and again, I’d invite you to come to the table, sign in on the sheet with 22 your name and address and then state your name and address for the record. 23 MR. RICK ZIER: My name is Rick Zier…Z-I-E-R…and I’m an attorney in Fort Collins. 24 My office is located at 322 East Oak Street in Fort Collins. I represent Jeffrey Leef and his co- 25 owners of the Laboratory restaurant, which is a tenant in the building located at 1801 South 26 College, immediately east of the site. And I now represent Lester Kaplan as well, who is the 27 owner of that building. 28 This is proceeding kind of in a vacuum because what has not been mentioned is that there 29 is a lawsuit pending concerning the decision of the City Council. A number of other things have 30 been omitted from the history; for your benefit, I’d like to mention a couple of them. After the May 20 th 31 meeting, or hearing, there was an attempt by the applicant to introduce new evidence 32 and to try to get the City Council to do something different from what they had resolved to do on May 20 th 33 . There were written materials including new evidence submitted to the City Council; the City Council considered that request on June 3 rd 34 , which was the date set for the issuance of its resolution of findings of fact in support of its May 20 th 35 decision. It determined not to do what 36 the applicant proposed. We objected at that time, and it determined not to do what the applicant proposed, and it issued an initial Resolution on June 3 rd 37 , which is not part of the staff’s 17 1 background here. A lawsuit was then filed at the end of June, toward the last part of June. In response to the lawsuit, the City Council convened another hearing on July 27 th 2 , engaged in a 3 series of supposed continuances and adjournments to justify, evidently, a position that that was an outgrowth of the same hearing on June 3 rd 4 , and issued the amended Resolution, which is now 5 the resolution that is mentioned by the staff in its comments. So, there…there have been a 6 number of things that are going on. The lawsuit is still pending. The applicant was listed by the 7 staff as being a certain entity…was identified by the attorney the first time she appeared before 8 you as representing a different entity than the entity that was represented tonight as being the 9 owner. So, I’m amending the core complaint to reflect the true owner of the property, which was 10 not ever listed as the applicant by the City before you or before the City Council hearings that 11 occurred. As a result of that, the answers are not due yet from the City or from…excuse 12 me…from the applicant in that lawsuit. I don’t know what they’re going to say about this 13 hearing, or about the record or anything, so I would like to introduce into the record of this 14 hearing, just so that you have it, a series of documents including the verbatim transcript of this 15 first…the first hearing that you had in March, all three of the City Council hearings, and our 16 amended complaint that contains exhibits, a number of which are, again, background for you. I 17 don’t expect you to make a ruling one way or another now, I just want to make sure that the 18 record of this hearing contains those things, because it’s possible that…I don’t know what the 19 record of this hearing is going to be regarding if it should be appealed further, so I just want to 20 make sure that it includes the same kinds of things as are included in the other record before the 21 court. So, I’ll give those to you in just a moment. 22 MR. MCASKIN: That’s fine…and I don’t have any problem accepting those, except that 23 my…my job tonight is really to identify the two criteria in the Land Use Code that have been 24 specifically remanded to me for consideration by Council. So, you can give them to me, but in 25 terms of making a ruling on whether or not the original application, the revised application, 26 satisfies those two criteria…I mean they’ll be part of the record, and that’s fine, I don’t have any 27 issue accepting them, but I probably won’t be referencing them in any level of detail in terms of 28 making a decision. 29 MR. ZIER: That’s your call, and I don’t want to make arguments as if we were in court 30 about relevance and irrelevance and things, I just want to make sure that those things are part of 31 the record of this hearing, so I appreciate that, thank you. 32 The other thing that I would say is, the…and one of the reasons that I’m concerned about 33 that, is that one of the main claims in the lawsuit is that the entire decision by the Hearing Officer 34 and by the City Council was flawed for a number of reasons, and it’s possible that if that…well, 35 if that were sustained, it would be a certainty that this hearing would be rendered meaningless. 36 So, it’s strange to have things proceeding on two different tracks. We asked the City Attorneys 37 to encourage the City Council not to allow this remand; their response was, we should file a 38 motion for a stay of proceedings in the lawsuit that requires us to undergo and incur greater 39 expense, post a bond, and other things that we don’t think it’s our responsibility to have to do 18 1 here. I’ve never seen a city allow something to go forward partially when there’s a claim already 2 pending in court to, among other things, totally overturn the entire decision, including the parts 3 that are complained about focused on tonight. So, I just want to make that clear for the record. 4 The other thing that I would say is…the other five-hundred pound gorilla in the room that 5 hasn’t really been talked about is, the reduction in the number of parking spaces is encouraged in 6 the TOD zone because of the advantages of public transit. The MAX public transit system went 7 into effect sometime in the mid or latter part of May, just when all the students at Colorado State 8 University were leaving town. It was a free service all summer long, and it’s only within the last 9 week or two that it’s now something that riders have to pay for. The students have just come 10 back to CSU within the last two weeks. The applicant is essentially saying they can cut in half, 11 without any data of the effect of that transit system, what they originally said they needed. They 12 now say they didn’t need what they originally claimed, which was way over-reaching in our 13 opinion, as if it were not a TOD zone development. And we don’t have any information on 14 whether or not the transit system is actually going to make a difference for them. If a year from 15 now it doesn’t, then let them come back and ask for something in excess of what the interim 16 resolution calls for. The City Council told us all to look at some number that was closer to the 17 number of the interim resolution; well that could be one space less. However, if you look closely 18 at the tenor of the discussion of the City Council, you’ll see that they really wanted to get it down 19 to that number, or very, very close to it. 20 So I would encourage you to deny this request because I think the only thing that really 21 will be unimpeachable about what the City Council wanted, was to get it down to that number 22 fully, not cut the baby in half. There’s no evidence that the MAX system isn’t going to make a 23 huge difference. In other words, they could cut it down. And that’s what the TOD zone 24 encourages. That’s why there wasn’t a minimum to begin with, and that’s why the minimum is 25 so low, and that’s clearly what the City Council had in mind. So, thank you… 26 MR. MCASKIN: Great, thank you. If anybody else would like to come up and sign in, 27 now’s the time. 28 MR. JEFFREY LEEF: My name is Jeffrey Leef, I’m one of the owners of the Laboratory 29 restaurant at 1801 South College Avenue. And, one of the…one of the things in this proposal 30 that’s not addressed at all in their speech or in their photo presentation, is the views from Spring 31 Creek as they pertain looking northwest; they just show directly north. From Spring Creek, you 32 have mountain views looking northwest. 33 MR. MCASKIN: Unless you get close to the MAX line, right, in which case you’ve got a 34 twenty or thirty foot concrete wall? 35 MR. LEEF: Yes, if you’re standing next to the wall, you won’t see over it; but, Spring 36 Creek is quite long as you go east-west, and there’s quite a bit of mountain views looking 37 northwest. Green screening the side of their building is no replacement for these mountain 19 1 views; you still will be obstructed by their building. The mountains will not be seen at all by this 2 thirty plus foot structure, and they do not address that. It directly impacts the views from Spring 3 Creek in that manner. It also addresses…you know, they don’t address the different sky views 4 and sunsets in that direction. 5 MR. MCASKIN: Right, but if you were…and I did visit the site on a couple of occasions 6 following the initial hearing and in advance of the hearing tonight…and I would…if you’re 7 further to the east in Spring Creek, in the park or on the footbridge that connects the park to, you 8 know pedestrian pathway to the 1801 building for example, and you look due west, there’s 9 mountain views there, right? You’re saying, if you look to the northwest, there might be 10 views… 11 MR. LEEF: Yes, in fact they would be significantly reduced. I’m in that park every day. 12 I look at those views every day. Those views would be completely taken away; they’re not 13 addressed by putting some twelve to fifteen foot trees growing next to the parking garage. I 14 mean, it’s a thirty plus foot building as designed, and some screening and some trees are not 15 going to take away the fact that it will take away the majority…as you ride your bike on Spring 16 Creek Trail, you’re looking west if you’re heading west. A lot of that view would be very much 17 narrowed, and that is not addressed at all by the applicants, and certainly was a major concern to 18 the City Council. And I also agree that, you know, that the reduction in spaces…the feel of the 19 City Council during their remand was to get closer to that minimum number. They’re over that 20 number by approximately 30%; I mean it’s quite a significant percentage higher than the overall 21 total spaces that the TOD was designed around. And so the scale of the project is still greater 22 than, I feel, what the City Council was…was trying to get them to come back with. 23 And, as of six weeks ago, when I called The Summit management, they said that that 24 building was over 92% leased, and that was six to eight weeks ago. So, they’re not having an 25 occupancy problem. I look at their parking lot every single day and it’s never full. I mean, I was 26 just there before this meeting; there was probably 25 to 35% available parking in that lot. So, I 27 don’t believe there’s a parking problem. I believe there was one last year, and I believe it was 28 self-created by Capstone for a number of reasons. A lot of the residents I spoke with had no idea 29 they weren’t supposed to bring their car, they were never told that. This year, with the new 30 residents that are coming in, they seem better informed and there seems to be no parking issue 31 whatsoever. And so, I’d like to put that on the record as well. 32 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. 33 MR. LEEF: Thank you very much. 34 MS. NATALIE PARSON: My name is Natalie Parson; I live at 1707 Remington Street. 35 I have a small and nervous voice so I’m going to read from this paper here and, sorry about lack 36 of eye contact…I’ll try to project. 20 1 MR. MCASKIN: Great, and if you can sign in too for me. 2 MS. PARSON: I did. 3 MR. MCASKIN: Oh, you did, great, thank you. 4 MS. PARSON: There is still a parking problem, just to be noted by the homeowners on 5 Remington and surrounding streets. This is our second August of dealing with students moving 6 in to The Summit and the parking problems that come with that, not just to my street, but 7 surrounding streets that are affected by the overflow parking. While the decision-making 8 process on this parking structure continues, I’d like to please ask the City Council again for 9 serious consideration of a residential parking permit program for the blocks affected by Summit 10 housing overflow. While some general improvements have been made, including fire lane 11 painting, congestion problems have not subsided. Not only do we battle students for parking 12 available side street in front of our homes, but also the employees of the businesses that are near 13 The Summit restrict their employees from parking on-site and tell them to come park in our 14 neighborhood, taking up spots around our homes, which is fine, but…by the time we get home 15 from work at five and between eight AM in the morning, it’s…challenging to park around your 16 house. 17 Recently when I was leaving my home, a Summit resident addressed me about a parking 18 ticket on his vehicle. He asked where he could park without getting an expletive ticket. I said 19 it’s a public street, so anywhere as long as it’s in compliance with City parking laws, you can 20 park anywhere, and suggested that he review the City parking laws so he doesn’t get another 21 ticket. He proceeded to ask me how I would feel if I paid monthly rent, had no parking. I 22 laughed and replied, and said I understand, I pay a mortgage and property taxes at this address 23 here and can’t park in front of my house after a ten hour work day. The Summit provides you 24 alternative lots and shuttle service; the City of Fort Collins does not provide that to me or have 25 they offered to widen my one-lane driveway. Point is, whether there’s a parking garage or not, 26 Remington Street and surrounding areas such as Stuart and south of The Summit on the other 27 side of Spring Creek where residents…home owners exist there…are going to suffer during, 28 especially during the construction of this structure, and continue to afterwards unless the parking 29 fees are rolled into the rental rates. Those kids don’t want to have to pay it, that’s flat out…they 30 don’t want the extra expense so they come park on our side. Which, I know it’s a public street, 31 but I’d still like to have the freedom of my home. It would be really a great courtesy to us as 32 homeowners on the surrounding streets to have a return to normalcy in our neighborhood, and to 33 approve neighborhood permits for the affected homeowners; not just my street, but also those 34 around it. 35 The City’s staff and the parking program has told me several times that there’s no 36 problem on our street and there isn’t funding to monitor our street outside of five PM and before 37 eight AM, which is when the parking issue really…they’re all coming back from class at the 21 1 same time we’re coming back from work, so when we get back from work then there’s no place 2 to park. But, I can tell the City Council now that if they are having a problem with funding in 3 looking into our program, they can access the call log to the City of Fort Collins Police non- 4 emergency line…it should suffice as my neighbors and I are constantly calling in parking 5 violations…and a ticketing record would also do as every day I see new ones. I would 6 personally volunteer to document activity to alleviate your budget issues between the hours I get 7 off work and before I leave my home in the morning by providing you pictures or call logs or 8 whatever you should need, because all of my neighbors are in favor of this also and I’m out there 9 dealing with the blocked driveways, loud noise, trash, my yard and other violations anyway, so I 10 might as well write them down. I’m representing over thirty names and addresses on my street 11 and several other streets around our block. I’ve provided those names and address of the 12 homeowners and/or landlords on those streets to Jamie Moyer twice now, so you can contact all 13 of us if you’d like to discuss what we can do about a neighborhood parking program. Thanks for 14 your consideration. 15 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you very much for your testimony. And I just want to be clear 16 that, you know, my jurisdiction is limited to this remand hearing, and I don’t have any 17 independent authority whatsoever to help you implement a parking program, but I would 18 encourage you to continue working with City staff if there is a concern… 19 MS. PARSON: Sure…I came tonight even though I’m just one resident on the street 20 because nobody is getting any answers or any response. Other areas closer to the campus seem 21 to be the main concentration. But, in the meanwhile, all this is going on and nothing is helping 22 our situation out and we’re into year two of this so…somebody needs to be made aware that 23 even though the decision process has to take its course and go its own way….in the meanwhile, 24 we’re the people that are feeling the effects of this. 25 MR. MCASKIN: Right, well thank you for coming tonight and thanks for the comments. 26 MS. PARSON: Thank you. 27 MR. LESTER KAPLAN: My name is Les Kaplan, I live at 140 Palmer Drive. I also own 28 the property that adjoins this proposed parking structure to the east. I’ve really struggled with 29 how to make this…make my comments tonight…but I’d just like to begin with some general 30 comments. I was probably the most outstanding supporter…outspoken supporter…of this 31 project when it was originally proposed. And, as a member of the South Fort Collins Business 32 Owners Association, as an adjoining property owner, and as a developer in Fort Collins, and as a 33 former Planning Director in Fort Collins, I stepped forward and embraced this project and 34 described it to the City Council and to the Urban Renewal Authority as a catalyst project and 35 probably something that I thought would really be a stimulus for midtown redevelopment. 36 The…my change of heart on this project came about because the representation by the 37 applicant that he in fact had taken care of all his parking requirements was not true, and 22 1 regardless of what the circumstances were of CSU reneging or whatever, the applicant decided to 2 go forward with this project not having the off-site storage parking that he recognized from the 3 very outset was critical to the viability and success of this project. And the City staff failed in 4 making that a criteria for approval. So this project had a very unfortunate birth. The problems 5 that we have today with parking could have very easily been avoided with a five second insight 6 by a staff member saying, we are making your off-site parking a condition of approval. If this 7 were an easement, an off-site easement, it would have been required. But, as off-site parking, 8 which the developer recognized was critical, which the City recognized was critical, was never 9 put in place. So…that’s what I think is the tragedy of this project. And I know that Mr. Jones 10 regrets it, the community regrets it, the City administration regrets it…speaking to the City 11 Manager, there’s going to be an investigation in terms of how this situation actually arose, that a 12 project could be approved with representations that never came to pass and which have caused 13 problems for the neighborhood and an embarrassment to the City and economic problems for the 14 developer. So, I just want to say that I am not here tonight as someone who…who is an 15 opponent of this project; I was very strongly in favor of this project and it’s extremely regrettable 16 that what happened has happened. 17 So, that said, I’d like to make the rest of my comments based upon the items that you are 18 presented with by the City Council. 19 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, and before you get into that, can I just see a show of hands out 20 there from other folks that are intending to testify tonight? Okay… 21 MR. KAPLAN: I just need about eight minutes. This is a copy of the verbatim transcript 22 and I have some items marked. 23 MR. MCASKIN: Is this a copy of what I already have from…? 24 MR. KAPLAN: Yeah, but you don’t have one with my markings on it. 25 MR. MCASKIN: Okay. 26 MR. KAPLAN: Okay, so I think that to really understand what the intent was from the 27 City Council when they made this motion, to really understand the language of the Resolution, 28 you have to go kind of from the dining room back into the kitchen, and you have to see really 29 how this came about, what the thought process was of the City Council… 30 MR. MCASKIN: Mr…I don’t mean to interrupt you again, but I’m going to ask if your 31 testimony is going to be relevant to the two… 32 MR. KAPLAN: Yes, of course. 33 MR. MCASKIN: Land Use Code sections…okay so which one are we going to get into 34 first? 23 1 MR. KAPLAN: Parking…okay so I’d like you to…and I have markings before we get to 2 this, but I’d just like you to turn to page forty-five of the verbatim transcript, and if you don’t 3 want to, I’ll just read it to you. There is an evolution of thought, a development of thought, on 4 this project. The City Council, when they were discussing it, they tie together the issues… MR. MCASKIN: I’m sorry, this is the May 20 th 5 hearing? 6 MR. KAPLAN: Yes. 7 MR. MCASKIN: Is that what we’re looking at? The Council hearing? 8 MR. KAPLAN: The appeal. MR. MCASKIN: Okay…May 20 th 9 ? MR. KAPLAN: Yes. Okay, it’s dated on what I gave you. You see it’s May 20 th 10 ? Okay, 11 so in going from what the very generalized language was of the Resolution and going into what 12 the Council’s intent was, we have to look at some comments that were made by 13 Councilmembers. Most of the discussion was led by Councilmember Campana, and what he 14 really struggled with was trying to come up with a resolution that addressed the parking problem, 15 the massing problem, and the view from Spring Creek. And so he said, after numerous 16 comments, before he got to this one, he concluded that, quote, I would be fine with…I could 17 support a reduction in spaces to the 352 or whatever our minimum is there…about 364 spaces 18 and the transition on that south wall. So, that’s his mindset, this is the person who made the 19 motion. This is the person who is leading the development of thinking by other Councilmembers 20 on how all these issues regarding massing and parking and views could be addressed. So he 21 said, I can support the minimum TOD parking. Now he wasn’t sure what it was, and you still 22 hear different things from the staff on what it is…numbers are bounced about all over the place. 23 He said 352 and a staff member said 358, then he thought it might be 364, so I’m just going to 24 use the number as the minimum of what it is, I’m going to use 358 because that’s in the staff 25 memo. Okay, so that thought was introduced and he’s saying, this is where I’m going with this. 26 I’m going with supporting the minimum of…358. To that, the Mayor responds, and very 27 favorably she says, rather than having the closest part of Spring Creek being thirty-seven 28 feet…thirty-seven and a half feet high, it would be lower for a distance of one or two stories. So 29 the relationship between parking and mass is then established…the relationship between the 30 amount of parking spaces and how it affects the impact on Spring Creek, and her mindset is, well 31 now we’re going to get a smaller building. It’s going to go down one or possibly two stories. To 32 this, Mr. Jones…to this Ms. White responds with some concerns as to whether or not that’s 33 really going to meet the demand of what this project has. And then Mr. Jones speaks, and he 34 speaks at length and very knowledgably about what his parking experience has been over 35 twenty-three years and how much parking is really needed. He sees this vote, or this motion, 36 going in a direction of 352 or 358 parking spaces, going to what the minimum of what the TOD 24 1 parking minimum would be. So…both Ms. White and Mr. Jones try to get the discussion off of 2 going…of bringing the parking down to that level. 3 To that, the motion maker, Councilmember Campana, responds on page forty-seven, the 4 number of parking spaces is, you know, obviously coming up here with what the market 5 conditions are in competing with the market. I don’t think this project was ever intended to 6 compete directly on every aspect with the balance of the market, particularly with regard to 7 parking, when it was built with 185 parking spaces to begin with. To compromise our design 8 standards, our Land Use Code, so that we can have this project compete on every level with 9 other projects in the city doesn’t make sense to me. I think the project was always intended to 10 have less parking than what is taking place outside the TOD. The investment was made based 11 upon that. I think the behavioral changes that are going to be required, I think that marketing 12 that’s going…marketing is going to be required, and perhaps you won’t achieve the same rent 13 levels if you can’t get the same. So, the motion maker then comes forward and reiterates the fact 14 that this parking should not exceed, and he would support it being in the range of what the 15 minimum parking is for the TOD. 16 Before the vote is taken, Mr. Horak, hearing this parking amount of being the minimum 17 says, on page forty-eight, then that takes…that deals with more of some of the viewshed issues 18 as well as the massing issues and basically makes it closer to a two-story building, which again, 19 in that area as I remember, is not unusual. So, what I’m trying to do here is I’m trying to take 20 this Resolution, which is generalized words, which says, bring it closer to, and try to give it some 21 specificity…try to give it some life in terms of what the discussion was that led up to it. And if 22 you do that, you can see that the mindset that the Councilmembers had when this motion was 23 made by the motion maker, who said he would like to see the parking be 358. Other 24 Councilmembers chimed in in support thinking that that would solve the massing problems; you 25 bring it down to a two-story building. The vote was taken and the vote was passed. 26 Now the vote did say, very clearly, when the discussion came up with the City Attorney 27 as to whether or not you, as the Hearing Officer would have latitude, they wanted to give you 28 latitude. They wanted to give you latitude because they didn’t want to have to design the 29 building at a Council meeting. So the latitude that they gave you, I interpret as being latitude in 30 terms of what design approach they would…they would take in order to meet the intent of that 31 Resolution. And the intent of that Resolution, based on the discussion that led up to it, was 358 32 parking spaces in a two-story building. So, that’s my comment. 33 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. 34 MR. JOHN STEFFE: John Steffe, I live at 1820 Remington Street in Fort Collins, and 35 with respect to your need to not go into issues that have already been stated, I will just reiterate 36 everything that’s been said already about the problems on Remington Street. And, also add to 37 that the reiteration of the need for the City to address the parking issues in our neighborhood and 25 1 to institute a parking program, possibly parking permitting, on residential permits for residents of 2 Remington Street or streets on that neighborhood. To address the issues of this hearing, I would 3 like to make a comment that I do not believe that the reduction in parking spaces from 80% to 4 66% will result in adequate parking to alleviate the problems in the neighborhood, particularly 5 on Remington Street, which are very real whether or not the City has been able to monitor that or 6 not. I live on that street and I will reiterate again that they are definitely a problem and exist in 7 conjunction with the return of the students and initially coincided with the residents moving into 8 The Summit facility originally…their first year of occupation. I would also pose the question of 9 what…what information or studies have the City or the applicant done that would suggest that 10 the new proposal to 66% coverage would be adequate to provide enough parking such that it 11 would alleviate the issue…alleviate the parking issues in the adjoining neighborhood? And 12 based on the comments before, I don’t believe that’s possible since apparently the comments that 13 were made from the other resident on Remington…the City has not been monitoring that and has 14 no solid numbers on what that…what that parking problem in the local neighborhood is. So I 15 don’t know that the applicant or the City could actually say that the reduced parking capacity 16 from 80 to 66% would alleviate the parking problem. So, those are my comments. Thanks. 17 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. 18 MR. ERIC SUTHERLAND: Mr. McAskin, my name is Eric Sutherland and I’ll sign in 19 when I conclude my comments. I’d like to assure the Hearing Officer that there is indeed a 20 pretty solid nexus between the comments I’ll be offering up and the purpose for this remand, 21 although it might take me just a minute or two to get there. The main reason that I have interest 22 in this project is because I’d really like to see some value returned to this community for the 23 enormous subsidy that was provided to this developer, which has come at the expense of our 24 schools and social services, government services, even those provided by the City of Fort 25 Collins, by the diversion of property tax increment…lump sum of $5 million payment. And I 26 think that one of the overarching considerations here has to be a return of that value to the 27 community in a manner that is consistent, commensurate with the level of subsidy that was 28 created here. Mr. Zier previously mentioned the fact that he felt as though perhaps a lot of the 29 conversation to that point had existed in a vacuum; I feel the very same way about this issue. We 30 should be expecting something that is a little bit beyond average, a little bit freer of problems, 31 considering the enormous subsidy that this…this project had. And that’s my motivation here. 32 My actual content of my conversation here reflects comments that I made at the original 33 hearing in March. This should never have been a Type I hearing. I’m really opposed to the City 34 engaging a contracted Hearing Officer to do Type I hearings. That was never the intent of our 35 Land Use Code, it was always to have somebody who’s intimately familiar with the planning, 36 mechanics, infrastructure…our city as it gets built out…to administer this process and I don’t 37 think it’s really quite serving the people well of Fort Collins to have people contracted in to that 38 category. Because, unless you live here, you’re just really not going to keep pace with all the 39 things that are going on, MAX and everything else. 26 1 And…the specific Land Use Code conflicts that are associated with a Type I 2 hearing…situations, go strictly to the results of your previous opinion in which you said this 3 could be an accessory use under our Land Use Code if indeed the City executed a contract that 4 maintained sole use of the facility for residents of The Summit. Without that contract, without 5 that assurance, without that guarantee, this really would have needed to be a Type II hearing. I 6 think we…we do not want to burden our City government with executing and enforcing such 7 contracts, and furthermore, we just have to look at the expansive view of this whole thing. Is 8 that really the highest and best use? Does that give us the best value that our community should 9 be expecting for the $5 million lump sum that we put into this thing to begin with? No it 10 doesn’t; that’s because transit-oriented development needs some flexible parking element to 11 really make it work. Building a parking garage that is dedicated entirely for the sole use of 12 residents of a single apartment complex doesn’t create the sort of flexibility that encourages 13 other parking options. It really doesn’t even do justice to the parking needs of the apartment 14 community itself because people need to come in there and park for various reasons without a 15 permit. And so, when we restrict and tie this thing down to just a single use of this facility, 16 we’re nowhere near highest and best use. And I’m not here to prescribe what highest and best 17 use would be, but it wouldn’t be application specific entirely for this infrastructure. 18 And so therefore, my nexus here, my comment, is that Mr. McAskin, you should not be 19 sitting here this evening in a Type I hearing. This should have been remanded back to the P and 20 Z in recognition of the fact that it should have always been a Type II hearing just for that one 21 particular reason. I could cite other reasons as well…case law associated with, you know, 22 whether or not elements of process in land use decisions can be grandfathered in as opposed to 23 elements of design or elements that are existing in the built environment, the way the courts have 24 handled that situation. All of which would recommend this should have been a Type II hearing 25 to begin with. So there’s my nexus that I think the remand was probably ill-advised to come 26 back to a Type I hearing. And, you know, I’d be very anxious to see at this point in time, a little 27 break from the constraints that maybe have come together in the contentiousness of this issue, to 28 be looking at what is highest and best use? How do we best return this value that this 29 community has invested? We don’t go around giving $5 million to everybody. Well, the former 30 Chief Financial Officer of the City managed to make off with about that amount of money, but 31 that’s a different story. I’ll get that. Where’s the value come back to the citizens? …care about 32 the concerns of the neighbors. I share the concerns. I’m…I say that unless we’re flexible in our 33 approach to how this structure would be used, unless we’re creating opportunities for car sharing, 34 opportunities for people to do flexible parking opportunities. I mean the parking problems that 35 they’re going to be experiencing in that neighborhood are not completely due to the fact of The 36 Summit. I mean there’s growth in the entire city; the entire city is experiencing parking 37 problems. It doesn’t discount the pain that they are experiencing at all. But until we start 38 looking at all those things…we are just in kindergarten in this town in terms of dealing with 39 parking issues and looking at the range the whole entire spectrum of solutions that are being 40 offered up as information technology makes the ability for, you know, two hundred people to 27 1 share thirty cars efficiently, and that sort of thing. That has to be part of the whole deal, and 2 really quite frankly, you know, constraining this to an approved accessory use so that it’s a total 3 work around to get away from the necessity of a Type II hearing; this is doing us a disservice and 4 I’d really like to see a little bit more imagination and creativity come out of this part of the 5 process. Thank you very much. 6 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. And I see the badge says candidate for Council so good 7 luck with it. 8 MR. SUTHERLAND: It’s actually a County position. 9 MR. MCASKIN: Oh is it? I can’t read it. 10 MR. SUTHERLAND: County Commissioner. 11 MR. MCASKIN: Well, good luck with that. 12 MR. SUTHERLAND: Thank you very much. 13 MR. MCASKIN: Are there any other members of the public that are here tonight that 14 would like to address me and have your comments as part of the record? Going once…okay, 15 seeing none, I’m going to close the public comment portion of the hearing and before we get into 16 the opportunity for applicant or staff rebuttal or being able to respond to questions, I do just have 17 a couple of quick questions myself. And, Lindsay, what is your last name again. 18 MS. EX: It’s two letters…EX. 19 MR. MCASKIN: I had ECHS so…okay, and I guess the one question I have is, we heard 20 some position from the applicant that 3.4.1(I) may not be applicable because Spring Creek is not 21 technically within the site. But I’m looking at 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, Natural Habitats and 22 Features, Section A, Applicability, says this section applies if any portion of the development 23 site is within five hundred feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature on 24 the City’s Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Is Spring Creek on that map? 25 MS. EX: It is. 26 MR. MCASKIN: And sub B of that section states that the purpose of this section is to 27 ensure that when property is developed consistent with the zoning designation, the way in which 28 the proposed physical elements of the development plan are designed and arranged on the site 29 will protect the natural habitats and features both on the site and in the vicinity of the site. And 30 so…Spring Creek, I mean I was out there this afternoon. It’s very close to the site, I mean, in the 31 opinion of the department, is 3.4.1(I) applicable to the development proposal? 32 MS. EX: Well, I think…so 3.4.1(I) has two sections, and so I think it’s important to go to 33 specifically the subsection of two with the visual character of natural features, which is on page 28 1 seventy-four, just at the top. I think what the important part of this for me when I was reviewing 2 this was that, within the site, to me, I think that the buffer zone that applies to Spring Creek 3 applies to this site. And so certainly the visual character of the Spring Creek viewshed should be 4 protected as well. 5 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great. And then, Seth a question for you. We heard testimony 6 from Mr. Sutherland that he believes that this should be a Type II proceeding and not a Type I. 7 What’s your position on that? 8 MR. LORSON: This is a Type I hearing because it is proposed as an accessory use, being 9 that it’s accessory specifically to The Summit on College housing development. We believe as 10 staff, is that if it were to be a shared parking structure amongst the developments all around it, it 11 would cease to be an accessory use to that one use. So, that’s why it is a Type I. It’d be a Type 12 II if it were a stand-alone project serving the other developments in the area. 13 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great. Those are just the couple questions that I had at this point, 14 so I guess at this point I can turn it back over to the applicant to address any of the issues that 15 were raised during public comment if you feel that’s appropriate at this time. 16 MS. WHITE: We would like to take that opportunity. Would it be appropriate for us to 17 take a short break to organize our thoughts? It might result in taking a shorter time to address the 18 rebuttal. 19 MR. MCASKIN: That is fine with me; let’s take a five minute break. We’ll be back here 20 at about ten to. 21 (**Secretary’s note: A brief break was taken at this point in the meeting.) 22 MR. MCASKIN: Alright, it’s just a bit after 8:50; we’re going to go ahead and get back 23 on the record here. Again, this is Marcus McAskin, Hearing Officer, coming back from a short 24 break. I’m going to now turn it over to the applicant to address any of the comments that were 25 raised during the public comment portion of the hearing. 26 MS. WHITE: Thank you Mr. McAskin, again for the recording, it’s Carolynne White, 27 land use counsel for the applicant. We have just a handful of points that we want to make sure 28 are clear in the record. The first one, and I am sorry to take issue with staff on this…on this 29 issue, but I think it’s really important to be precise about what the remand Resolution actually 30 said. And it’s not technically correct to say that City Council found that the project did not 31 comply with the Code. What City Council said was, that the Hearing Officer failed to properly 32 interpret and apply Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code with regard to the impact of the 33 major amendment upon Spring Creek viewsheds, and Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code 34 with regard to the number of off-street parking spaces. And the remand said, the decision is 35 hereby remanded to the Hearing Officer for further consideration of the impact of the major 29 1 amendment on Spring Creek viewsheds and for consideration of the possible reduction of the 2 size of the parking structure building and the reduction of the number of parking spaces in the 3 structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements, et cetera, et cetera. So, had 4 City Council desired to dictate a maximum at that time, as was implied by some of the 5 testimony, they certainly could have done that. What they said was, consider, in light of these 6 two Code sections, a possible reduction to bring it closer to the minimum, which is the 358 7 number that we’re talking about. But, Council did not say that it doesn’t meet the requirements 8 of the Land Use Code and they did not direct a particular number, nor did they direct one story of 9 two story or any particular reduction; they directed that it be possibly reduced in size, and that is 10 exactly what has been proposed here…reduction in size and reduction of the number of parking 11 spaces to bring it closer to the minimum requirement. 12 Understanding that there are a lot of competing interests that are being…seeking to be 13 balanced here…the interest of City Council as expressed through the Resolution, the interests of 14 the neighbors and expressed through their testimony tonight and in prior hearings, the interest of 15 the individual property owner who is bringing forth this proposal in order to solve their parking 16 problem…all of those interests are competing and we’re trying to balance them. But, ultimately 17 the governing factor here is the objective requirements in the Land Use Code. And the Land Use 18 Code, as it stood at the time this was approved, did not have a minimum and did not have a 19 maximum for parking. This could have been built and approved with zero parking spaces. It 20 was not, and the developer recognized at the time that that would not work and they proposed 21 and built it with the number they built, which is the 191 that they see today. But, it would have 22 been improper for staff to require at that time a minimum number of spaces when the Code 23 clearly says there is no minimum in the TOD. And, similarly, under the interim Resolution, 24 there is a minimum but there is no maximum. And so, it is in compliance with the Code as long 25 as it meets the minimum number of 358. Now there are other considerations where particular 26 parking demands may require, and that’s where we come to that 3.5.1(J) and that’s how we get to 27 3.2.2(K), which is how we’re here today. But, I just…I want to point out that we have two sets 28 of constraints within which we’re operating, one of which is the competing balancing interests 29 and the desires of the community and the desires of staff and the City Council, but we also have 30 the black and white constraint of what’s in the Land Use Code, and ultimately that’s the…what 31 governed the decision before and should govern your decision today. 32 One minor comments about the record…no objection to entering into the record the 33 transcripts. It’s my belief that they’re already part of the record, but no objection to that. No 34 objection to entering in to the record the information about the prior City Council hearings; I 35 believe those are also properly part of the record. We must register an objection to introducing 36 into the record information related to the lawsuit, which is not part of this proceeding and is not 37 relevant to this proceeding in our view. We’re not going to spend any time on it; I just wanted to 38 note that objection for the record. 30 1 And then the final comment that I’d like to make, for those folks who testified about the 2 parking concerns on Remington Street and the last gentleman who said that building a parking 3 structure which provides 66% parking ratio of parking spaces to beds is not going to alleviate the 4 parking problem the same way one would have which would have provided 80% parking 5 structure…spaces to beds. We agree with you and we…Capstone very much would like to build 6 a parking structure as originally proposed which provided that additional ratio. Clearly the fact 7 that we have been appealed and come back on remand with direction to address that issue and 8 attempt to reduce the number of parking spaces indicates that the City is not inclined to approve 9 a parking structure at an 80% ratio. And so, this 66% is offered in spirit of compromise to try to 10 build a parking structure that will at least mitigate the parking problem even though it won’t 11 completely solve it. But, as Mr. Jones testified earlier, Capstone continues to, and will continue 12 to, explore other options to try to close the gap and meet the parking needs off-site and in other 13 ways, and that’s not going to stop regardless of whether this structure is approved or not. 14 Because even if it’s approved at the original level, it probably won’t 100% completely alleviate 15 the parking problem. So, with that, I would ask you to approve the proposal, the original 16 proposal, and if you’re inclined to impose additional conditions in order to address the concerns 17 raised by Council, then we would ask you to approve the alternative design with the reductions 18 as shown in the additional information provided. Thank you. 19 MR. MCASKIN: Thank you. And Seth, is there any additional information or…that staff 20 would like to present at this time in response to either the applicant’s presentation just now or the 21 public comments that were raised earlier? 22 MR. LORSON: Staff has no further comments. I simply want to reiterate that our 23 recommendation of approval is based on the additional information and the revised version that 24 we’ve seen, and that’s all we have. 25 MR. MCASKIN: Okay, great. Well at this point I will go ahead and close the public 26 hearing, and again, under the Land Use Code, I have ten business days from the close of this 27 remanded hearing tonight to enter a written decision. If you have signed up on the sign-in sheet 28 you will receive a copy of that written decision when I have provided it to the City. And again, I 29 would like to thank all of you for attending tonight and participating in the process. And, maybe 30 I’ll see you again. 31 32 1 City Council Hearing – December 2, 2014 Consideration of two Appeals of the remand Decision to Approve the Summit on College Parking Structure 2 Site Location The Summit on College Proposed Parking Structure 3 Project Description Hearing Date 3/5/14 9/4/14 # Parking Spaces in Structure 440 345 # Parking Spaces Total 535 442 Building Height 3 ½ Stories 2 ½ Stories 4 Background • May 20, 2014 Appeal Hearing: Remanded – Number of parking spaces (Sec. 3.5.1(J)) – Viewshed from Spring Creek (Sec. 3.4.1(I)(2)) • September 4, 2014 Remand Hearing: Approved – Appealed • December 2, 2014 Remand Appeal Hearing 5 Notices of Appeal Two Appellants filed notices of appeal on grounds: • Failure to conduct a fair hearing; and • Failure to properly interpret and apply the Code; 6 Allegations on Appeal “Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(I)(2) ‘Projects shall be designed to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site’? If so, what evidence supports this finding?” Hearing Officer’s Finding of Fact: Paragraph 10: “The Alternative Design will enhance existing views to and from the Spring Creek Corridor by providing increased green screening, landscaping, trees and other plantings” Verbatim Transcript: Discussion on page 11 – 13. 7 Allegations on Appeal “The hearing officer received no land-oriented justification for the number of parking spaces to exceed the new TOD parking requirement, which the hearing officer approved although the intent and purpose of the TOD is to have limited parking and vehicle use.” Hearing Officer’s Finding of Fact: Paragraph 12: “The Hearing Officer concludes that the total of 442 parking spaces included in the Alternative Design is closer to the minimum parking requirement set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC.” Verbatim Transcript: Discussion on page 11 – 13. 8 Allegations on Appeal “The hearing officer exceeded his authority and jurisdiction by not adhering to the intent of the City Council in its remand…the Alternative Design is closer to the minimum number of spaces called for in the interim ordinance, the decision does not conclude it is enough of a reduction to be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses, as it must be.” Hearing Officer’s Finding of Fact: Paragraph 12: The Hearing Officer concludes that City Council intended that the Hearing Officer interpret and apply Section 3.5.1(J)(7)…[and] the Alternative Design is closer to the minimum parking requirement.” 9 Allegations on Appeal “While the evidence may have shown that the Alternative Design was better than the original design in protecting the viewsheds, it did not show that the Alternative Design best achieves it.” Hearing Officer’s Finding of Fact: Paragraph 10: “The Hearing Officer finds that the Alternative Design best achieves the purpose of Section 3.4.1 of the LUC, in that the Alternative Design will best protect the Spring Creek viewsheds on the site and in the vicinity of the site.” 10 Allegations on Appeal “The applicant submitted a grossly inaccurate, obviously staged photograph in an attempt to minimize the effect of the proposed structure on the view of the mountains from appellants' leased property.” Hearing Officer’s Decision and Finding of Fact: The alleged photo was not referenced in the Decision and Finding of Fact and was not presented at the remand hearing. Record: Material presented by the Applicant is found in Attachment 7: Materials Presented to the Hearing Officer at the Administrative Hearing. 11 Allegations on Appeal “The hearing officer received and considered evidence from the applicant that the "project" was compatible under applicable zoning even though the basis for the statement was simply a few architectural features.” Hearing Officer’s Finding of Fact: In paragraph 12 of the Finding of Fact the Hearing Officer addresses the number of parking spaces but not the size of the building in terms of compatibility. Verbatim Transcript: Discussion on page 7 - 8. 12 Allegations on Appeal “Assessing compatibility of the physical characteristics of a proposed building within the context of its surrounding area must include a comparison with other buildings in the area.” Hearing Officer’s Finding of Fact: In paragraph 12 of the Finding of Fact the Hearing Officer addresses the number of parking spaces but not the size of the building in terms of compatibility. Verbatim Transcript: Discussion on page 7 - 8. 13 Allegations on Appeal The Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply the following sections of the Land Use Code: Hearing Officer’s Finding of Fact: Staff has not identified any new evidence from the Remand Hearing related to any of the Land Use Code Sections noted above. • 4.21(b) • 5.1 • 3.10 • 5.1.2 • 2.2.10(B)(1) • 3.2.2 • 2.8.2 14 Questions for Council • Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing? • Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code?  Major Amendments are processed in the same manner as the original approval (Administrative Public Hearing)  Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone HELPFUL RESOURCES  Hearing Notice, Plans, and Staff Report: fcgov.com/ReviewAgendas (for administrative hearings)  Information About the Review Process: fcgov.com/CitizenReview Exhibit C Are there any issues regarding development related timing that should be addressed? ; No, a nesting survey was conducted an no evidence of past nesting or active nesting was found, so timing should not affect migratory or resident species (see page 2). A301 BIKE STORAGE 105 EAST STAIR 102 WEST STAIR 103 LEVEL 1 PARKING 101 ELECTRICAL ROOM 104 5 A501 1 A502 2 A502 A402 11 P.C.C. COLUMN, TYPICAL P.C.C. WALL PANEL P.C.C. WALL PANEL METAL GRILLE, TYPICAL ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM 106 88.33 85.67 87.33 84.67 80.95 82.05 82.37 82.00 82.85 83.08 (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) 83.08 83.50 84.18 83.16 83.79 84.35 84.85 85.50 85.15 85.15 84.34 84.90 83.70 85.15 85.67 85.67 85.67 A431 5 A431 6 TYP. TYP. A202 3 80.89 80.81 82.75 2" WASH 2" WASH 2" WASH 2" WASH 2" WASH 82.50 A211 A211 2 1 A212 3 A211 4 A211 3 A212 2 A212 1 WATER ROOM 107 CHAIN LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE GATE W/ MANUAL CODED LOCK CHAIN LINK FENCE POST AT 5'-0" O.C. EXTEND POST FROM GRADE TO BOTTOM OF LEVEL 2 CHAIN LINK FENCE POST AT 5'-0" O.C. F.D. WALKWAY SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS SCALE: DATE: PROJECT NO: DES. DRWN. CHK'D. DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: Copyright © 2014 Desman, Inc. All rights reserved. No Part of these documents may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from Desman, Inc 1BSLJOH(BSBHF ISSUE PROGRESS SET 02.14.2014 As indicated CM/MBT Author JH " -&7&-'-003 1-"/ February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³GHDG´DUHDVRIWKHJURXQGOHYHO SDUNLQJVXUIDFHDVPD\EHSRVVLEOHZLWKRXWLQWHUIHULQJZLWKWKHIXQFWLRQRIWKHGHFN 7KHEDODQFHZRXOGEHDGGHGRQDFUXVKHGJUDYHOVXUIDFHMXVWVRXWKRIWKHSDUNLQJ VXUIDFHEXWVWLOOFRYHUHGXQGHUQHDWKWKHSDUNLQJIORRUDERYH$GGLWLRQDOO\ZH SURSRVHWRSXUFKDVHELNHVWDQGVWREHDVVLJQHGWRWHQDQWVRQDQDVUHTXHVWHG 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.0 4.3 5.0 5.0 4.4 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.7 4.6 5.0 4.8 3.8 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.1 3.5 3.8 4.8 6.5 6.7 4.8 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.3 5.3 6.5 6.5 4.3 3.7 3.4 3.0 2.3 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.5 3.2 3.9 4.5 5.9 8.2 8.0 5.9 5.1 4.7 4.5 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 6.4 8.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.9 5.0 6.6 10.1 9.8 6.6 5.4 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.6 7.1 10.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.0 5.0 6.6 9.8 9.5 6.7 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.7 7.2 10.1 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.9 8.0 8.0 5.9 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 6.5 8.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.3 3.0 3.6 4.0 4.1 5.2 6.8 7.0 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.9 5.8 6.9 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.7 3.7 4.8 5.7 5.7 5.1 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.0 4.7 5.4 5.9 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.8 4.8 4.4 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.4 5.1 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.3 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.4 3.9 4.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.3 4.4 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.4 3.9 4.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.8 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.4 5.1 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.4 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.8 4.8 5.7 5.6 5.1 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.7 5.3 5.9 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.0 4.2 5.4 6.8 6.9 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 4.9 5.8 6.9 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.2 4.7 6.0 8.1 8.0 5.9 5.4 5.3 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.5 6.5 8.2 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.2 5.2 6.9 10.0 9.4 6.7 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.9 7.4 10.2 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.5 4.2 5.3 7.0 10.6 9.9 6.7 5.7 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.8 5.0 5.3 6.0 7.4 10.7 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.0 6.6 8.9 8.4 6.3 5.6 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.7 7.0 9.1 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 3.1 3.8 4.2 4.4 5.7 7.3 7.5 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.2 6.2 7.4 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.6 3.9 4.0 5.3 6.3 6.1 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.2 4.8 5.8 6.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.3 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.7 4.8 5.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.6 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.5 4.1 5.1 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.5 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.0 5.0 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.1 5.3 4.9 4.7 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.6 5.5 0.7 1.1 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.6 3.9 3.9 5.2 6.1 5.8 5.3 4.9 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.2 4.9 5.7 6.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.2 4.3 5.7 7.1 7.2 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.1 6.4 7.2 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.3 4.9 6.4 8.5 8.0 6.0 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.8 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.6 7.0 8.7 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.8 3.4 4.2 5.2 7.0 10.3 9.3 6.5 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.2 5.9 7.6 10.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.3 4.1 5.1 7.0 10.2 9.2 6.4 5.3 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.6 5.1 5.8 7.5 10.4 0.6 0.9 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.6 6.2 8.1 7.6 5.6 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.1 6.6 8.2 0.7 1.0 2.8 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 5.2 6.3 6.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.3 5.6 6.4 1.0 1.6 4.0 4.3 3.7 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.1 4.3 4.9 4.7 4.1 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.7 4.6 5.0 1.4 2.1 5.1 5.1 3.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.7 1.4 2.4 5.7 5.1 3.4 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.8 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2518 7600 East Orchard Road, Suite 250-S tel: 303.796.6000 fax: 303.796.6099 www.mkkeng.com Mechanical, Electrical & Energy Consultants 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.9 3.8 3.5 4.2 3.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 6.5 7.4 7.2 6.2 4.9 5.5 6.3 6.8 6.3 5.5 4.9 5.8 6.4 6.7 6.2 5.3 5.1 5.6 5.9 6.2 5.8 5.3 5.0 5.7 6.1 6.4 5.9 5.3 4.9 5.3 4.3 5.0 6.2 6.3 6.7 7.7 7.4 6.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 7.6 6.4 6.4 6.1 6.0 6.7 7.4 6.3 6.4 6.2 5.6 6.3 6.9 5.8 6.3 6.1 5.7 6.3 7.1 5.9 6.3 6.0 5.3 4.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 6.5 7.4 7.2 6.2 4.9 5.6 6.3 6.8 6.3 5.5 4.9 5.8 6.4 6.7 6.2 5.3 5.1 5.6 5.9 6.2 5.8 5.3 5.0 5.7 6.1 6.4 5.9 5.3 4.9 5.3 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.8 5.2 5.4 5.6 4.6 3.6 4.0 4.9 4.9 5.1 3.9 3.5 4.5 4.9 4.9 5.2 3.8 3.7 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.8 3.8 3.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.9 3.8 3.5 4.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.4 4.3 5.1 4.9 4.1 3.2 3.6 4.3 4.8 4.3 3.6 3.2 3.8 4.4 4.7 4.2 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.9 4.2 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.8 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.4 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.9 2.8 3.2 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.9 5.3 5.1 4.6 3.7 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.2 3.7 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.0 3.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.8 2.6 2.1 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.7 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.2 2.6 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.7 2.9 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.1 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.0 3.0 3.4 2.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 2.7 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.9 5.3 5.1 4.6 3.7 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.2 3.7 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.0 3.7 4.2 3.1 3.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.7 2.9 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.1 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.0 3.0 3.4 2.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 2.7 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.9 5.3 5.1 4.6 3.7 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.2 3.7 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.0 3.7 4.2 3.1 3.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.7 2.9 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.1 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.0 3.0 3.4 2.5 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 2.7 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.9 5.3 5.1 4.6 3.7 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.2 3.7 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.0 3.7 4.2 3.1 3.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.6 3.0 3.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 3.7 2.9 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.1 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.1 3.0 3.5 2.6 3.3 3.4 3.3 4.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.4 4.9 4.7 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.1 3.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.7 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6 3.5 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.9 5.3 5.1 4.6 3.7 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.2 3.7 4.6 5.2 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.8 4.6 3.6 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 3.9 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.5 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.1 4.0 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.3 5.0 4.8 4.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 4.7 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.4 4.4 3.1 3.1 4.4 3.6 3.7 5.0 4.9 4.8 3.8 2.9 3.2 4.0 4.1 4.2 3.1 2.8 3.6 4.2 4.3 4.0 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.6 5.3 5.2 5.1 6.1 6.2 5.5 4.2 3.2 3.5 4.2 4.7 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.2 3.4 3.4 3.3 2.7 2.2 5.4 6.8 6.9 6.6 7.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.6 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.2 6.3 7.0 7.3 7.7 8.1 7.5 5.8 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.2 3.7 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.6 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.3 6.3 5.9 6.8 8.1 8.0 6.8 6.0 4.6 4.1 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.1 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.2 6.6 7.2 8.0 7.4 6.0 4.0 3.6 4.2 4.6 4.1 3.5 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.4 3.9 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.6 6.5 6.1 6.9 7.4 5.5 3.6 3.2 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.1 2.8 3.5 3.9 4.0 4.2 3.0 2.9 3.4 2.5 3.7 6.9 6.6 5.7 3.9 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.4 3.1 3.5 4.1 4.4 3.9 3.3 3.1 3.2 2.6 Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2518 7600 East Orchard Road, Suite 250-S tel: 303.796.6000 fax: 303.796.6099 www.mkkeng.com Mechanical, Electrical & Energy Consultants 3.6 4.2 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.3 3.4 3.4 3.7 5.5 6.1 5.3 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.5 4.2 3.3 2.9 3.7 4.3 4.4 4.2 3.1 3.0 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.2 3.0 4.2 4.9 4.9 4.0 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.5 4.1 3.9 4.5 6.7 7.4 6.0 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.6 5.0 3.8 3.4 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.1 3.7 3.7 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.7 3.9 3.6 5.1 5.7 5.9 4.9 3.5 3.9 3.9 2.4 3.5 4.7 5.8 7.1 9.0 9.0 8.1 6.6 5.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.6 6.2 6.6 6.0 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.3 5.8 5.6 6.3 7.6 7.6 6.6 5.5 5.4 4.6 3.4 3.7 4.7 6.5 7.9 9.2 9.2 8.8 6.8 5.5 5.8 6.3 5.5 6.0 5.6 5.8 6.4 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.3 5.5 6.1 5.3 5.7 6.0 6.9 7.8 7.8 7.2 5.9 5.7 4.4 3.6 3.3 4.8 5.9 7.0 8.8 9.1 7.6 5.8 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.7 5.5 6.0 6.3 5.9 5.2 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 4.8 6.1 7.4 7.5 6.6 4.7 5.0 4.6 3.1 2.5 4.1 4.5 5.4 7.4 7.5 5.6 4.4 4.2 3.8 3.7 4.3 3.8 3.5 4.4 4.8 4.8 5.1 3.9 4.2 4.7 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.6 3.8 4.6 6.2 6.2 5.4 3.8 3.8 3.8 2.4 3.1 4.5 5.5 6.6 8.6 8.7 6.6 5.4 4.5 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.1 5.0 5.6 5.8 5.5 4.6 4.6 5.6 7.2 7.3 6.4 4.5 4.6 4.2 2.9 3.5 4.6 6.6 8.2 9.3 9.3 8.2 6.5 4.8 5.1 5.1 4.8 5.5 5.3 5.6 6.1 6.6 5.8 5.6 5.4 2.4 2.0 1.2 2.0 5.2 5.5 6.6 7.6 7.9 7.2 5.6 5.4 4.3 3.4 3.4 4.6 6.5 8.2 9.3 9.3 8.2 6.4 4.8 5.0 4.9 4.8 5.5 5.4 5.5 6.0 6.5 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.0 2.3 1.8 4.0 5.1 5.5 6.5 7.6 7.7 7.0 5.6 5.3 4.3 3.3 2.7 4.2 4.9 5.8 8.0 8.0 5.8 4.8 4.3 3.9 3.8 4.4 4.1 3.6 4.6 5.1 5.2 5.2 3.9 3.8 4.4 2.6 2.0 3.4 4.5 3.7 4.6 6.5 6.5 5.5 3.8 4.0 3.9 2.5 2.2 3.5 3.8 4.7 6.5 6.4 4.7 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.2 2.8 3.7 4.2 4.2 4.4 3.1 3.0 3.6 2.6 1.7 2.8 3.8 3.0 3.8 5.4 5.4 4.6 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.1 2.4 3.1 4.5 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.9 4.4 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.7 4.3 4.7 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.3 2.7 1.9 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.7 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.1 3.7 2.9 2.4 2.4 3.5 4.7 5.7 7.0 7.0 5.7 4.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.6 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.7 2.9 1.8 3.0 3.9 3.8 4.6 5.6 5.8 5.2 3.9 4.0 3.3 2.3 2.5 3.7 4.7 5.6 7.4 7.3 5.6 4.7 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.7 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 1.7 3.1 4.0 3.8 4.6 5.7 6.0 5.2 3.9 4.0 3.5 2.3 2.4 3.2 4.6 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.0 4.5 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.3 2.6 1.9 2.7 3.5 4.0 4.7 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.1 3.7 2.9 2.4 2.3 3.4 3.9 4.7 6.4 6.4 4.7 3.9 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.7 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.1 3.0 3.5 2.7 1.7 2.8 3.6 2.9 3.7 5.3 5.4 4.6 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.1 3.4 3.7 4.6 6.3 6.2 4.6 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.1 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.0 2.9 3.5 2.5 1.6 2.7 3.7 2.9 3.7 5.3 5.2 4.5 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.1 2.4 3.1 4.5 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.9 4.4 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.2 4.6 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.3 2.6 1.9 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.6 5.2 5.3 4.9 4.1 3.6 2.9 2.4 2.4 3.5 4.7 5.7 7.0 7.0 5.7 4.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.7 2.9 1.7 3.0 3.9 3.8 4.6 5.6 5.8 5.2 3.9 4.0 3.3 2.3 2.5 3.7 4.7 5.6 7.4 7.3 5.6 4.7 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.0 3.7 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 1.7 3.1 4.0 3.8 4.6 5.7 6.0 5.2 3.9 4.0 3.5 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.6 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.0 4.5 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.3 2.6 1.9 2.7 3.5 4.0 4.7 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.1 3.7 2.9 2.4 2.3 3.4 3.9 4.7 6.4 6.4 4.7 3.9 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.7 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.1 3.0 3.5 2.7 1.7 2.8 3.6 2.9 3.7 5.3 5.4 4.6 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.1 2.1 3.4 3.7 4.6 6.3 6.2 4.6 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.1 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.0 2.9 3.5 2.5 1.6 2.7 3.7 2.9 3.7 5.3 5.2 4.5 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.1 2.4 3.1 4.5 5.9 6.3 6.3 5.9 4.4 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.8 3.8 3.7 4.2 4.6 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.2 2.6 1.9 2.7 3.4 4.0 4.6 5.2 5.3 4.9 4.1 3.6 2.9 2.4 2.4 3.5 4.7 5.7 7.0 7.0 5.7 4.7 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.7 2.9 1.7 3.0 3.9 3.8 4.6 5.7 5.9 5.2 3.9 4.0 3.3 2.3 2.5 3.7 4.7 5.6 7.4 7.3 5.6 4.7 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.1 3.7 4.4 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 1.7 3.1 4.0 3.8 4.7 5.9 6.1 5.3 3.9 4.0 3.4 2.2 2.4 3.2 4.6 6.0 6.4 6.4 6.0 4.6 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.3 2.6 1.8 2.7 3.4 4.0 4.8 5.4 5.4 5.2 4.2 3.6 2.9 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.9 4.7 6.4 6.4 4.7 3.9 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.7 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.1 3.0 3.5 2.7 1.6 2.7 3.7 3.0 3.9 5.5 5.5 4.6 3.1 3.3 3.1 2.1 2.1 3.4 3.8 4.6 6.4 6.4 4.7 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.1 2.8 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.4 3.1 3.1 3.6 2.7 1.6 2.8 3.8 3.1 4.0 5.6 5.6 4.5 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.0 2.4 3.1 4.5 5.9 6.5 7.0 6.9 5.2 4.1 4.5 4.1 3.4 3.8 3.9 3.7 4.5 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.2 3.3 2.1 3.3 4.2 4.7 5.5 6.2 5.9 5.3 4.2 3.6 2.9 2.3 2.4 3.5 4.6 5.5 7.1 7.6 6.8 5.5 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.2 4.1 3.7 4.3 4.9 5.4 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.6 3.6 2.2 3.7 4.6 4.7 5.6 6.5 6.7 5.7 4.1 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.5 3.7 4.3 5.1 7.3 7.4 6.5 5.7 5.1 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.2 3.7 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.4 1.3 0.6 3.4 4.5 4.9 5.6 6.4 6.6 5.7 4.0 4.1 3.4 2.2 2.5 3.1 4.0 4.9 5.9 6.3 6.1 4.1 3.9 4.7 4.8 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 4.3 5.0 4.8 3.6 3.5 3.5 4.5 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.2 3.7 2.9 2.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 6.0 6.7 6.1 4.0 3.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.4 4.4 4.9 4.9 5.1 3.6 3.6 4.2 3.6 3.6 3.7 4.3 3.6 4.6 6.1 6.0 4.9 3.4 3.7 3.4 2.2 4.2 5.3 5.1 5.9 7.8 8.0 7.3 5.9 5.6 5.9 6.4 6.5 5.1 4.4 5.7 6.3 6.3 5.8 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.5 5.2 5.0 5.5 6.4 7.0 7.5 6.2 4.4 4.8 4.2 2.5 5.4 6.9 7.8 8.3 9.6 9.2 8.4 6.5 6.0 6.4 7.6 6.7 6.7 6.4 6.3 6.8 7.4 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.9 6.0 5.5 5.5 6.0 6.9 8.1 7.8 7.2 6.3 5.7 4.5 3.4 6.3 7.5 8.5 8.8 10.2 9.7 8.4 6.0 5.5 6.4 7.2 6.5 6.3 6.0 6.2 6.6 7.0 6.1 5.3 5.1 5.6 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.4 6.6 8.0 7.3 6.9 6.2 5.6 4.5 3.3 6.6 6.9 7.9 9.1 9.2 8.6 6.9 4.4 4.0 4.9 5.3 5.8 4.7 4.2 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.0 3.5 3.5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 3.4 3.7 5.2 5.7 6.3 4.8 4.3 5.1 4.0 2.3 7.0 7.2 8.3 8.0 6.0 3.7 3.5 4.2 4.7 4.6 3.8 3.3 4.1 4.6 4.6 4.1 3.2 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 2.9 3.4 4.4 4.9 5.0 3.6 3.3 6.6 6.1 7.1 6.8 5.4 4.1 3.3 3.4 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.9 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.3 3.9 3.7 3.5 4.0 6.1 5.3 4.6 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2518 7600 East Orchard Road, Suite 250-S tel: 303.796.6000 fax: 303.796.6099 www.mkkeng.com Mechanical, Electrical & Energy Consultants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.20 0.29 0.28 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.47 0.95 1.11 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.25 0.93 1.80 2.25 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.26 1.22 2.51 3.04 2.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.24 1.11 2.66 3.85 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.26 1.20 2.76 3.95 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.26 1.14 2.68 3.66 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.27 1.22 2.34 2.86 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.83 1.63 1.99 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.45 0.84 0.91 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.35 0.49 0.45 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.21 0.53 1.02 1.16 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.28 0.96 1.83 2.28 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.28 1.24 2.53 3.05 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.26 1.12 2.67 3.86 3.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.27 1.21 2.77 3.96 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.26 1.14 2.68 3.66 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.28 1.22 2.34 2.86 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.84 1.64 1.99 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.46 0.84 0.91 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.35 0.49 0.46 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.22 0.53 1.02 1.16 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.28 0.96 1.83 2.28 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.28 1.24 2.53 3.05 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.26 1.12 2.67 3.86 3.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.27 1.21 2.77 3.96 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.26 1.14 2.68 3.66 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.28 1.22 2.34 2.86 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.26 0.84 1.64 1.99 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.46 0.84 0.91 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.35 0.49 0.45 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.21 0.53 1.02 1.16 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.27 0.96 1.83 2.28 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.27 1.23 2.53 3.05 2.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.25 1.11 2.67 3.85 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.26 1.20 2.76 3.95 3.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.25 1.13 2.67 3.65 2.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.26 1.20 2.32 2.84 2.09 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.23 0.80 1.60 1.96 1.33 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.38 0.76 0.84 0.56 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.18 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.32 0.72 1.19 1.53 1.88 2.35 2.27 2.28 1.77 1.46 1.10 0.65 0.30 0.28 0.60 1.03 1.41 1.72 2.23 2.31 2.36 1.95 1.57 1.24 0.78 0.37 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.35 0.77 1.20 1.52 1.88 2.04 2.06 2.03 1.82 1.45 1.13 0.70 0.35 0.32 0.64 1.08 1.40 1.78 2.01 2.06 2.05 1.91 1.57 1.25 0.83 0.40 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.32 0.63 0.96 1.25 1.42 1.40 1.47 1.41 1.41 1.19 0.91 0.58 0.34 0.32 0.54 0.87 1.15 1.40 1.41 1.46 1.40 1.42 1.29 1.00 0.67 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.21 0.38 0.61 0.80 0.80 0.76 0.82 0.76 0.82 0.78 0.57 0.37 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.54 0.76 0.82 0.76 0.81 0.77 0.78 0.81 0.64 0.40 0.22 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.27 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.27 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.26 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.28 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Luminaire Schedule Symbol Manufacture r Catalog Number Description Lamp Number Lamps Filename Lumens Per Lamp Light Loss Factor Wattage Lithonia Lighting DSXW1 LED 10C 700 40K T3S MVOLT DSXW1 LED WITH 1 LIGHT ENGINE, 10 LED's, 700mA DRIVER, 4000K LED, TYPE 3 SHORT OPTIC LED 1 DSXW1_LED_ 10C_700_40K _T3S_MVOLT. ies 2215.448 1 27 Lithonia Lighting WT8 2 32 WALL BRACKET AND SURFACE MOUNT LED, 4FT LONG, WITH TWO LAMPS, AND ACRYLIC DIFFUSER TWO 32-WATT T8 LINEAR FLUORESCENT 2 WT8_2_32.ies 2850 1 46.7 Lithonia Lighting DSX1 LED 30C 1000 50K T4M MVOLT DSX1 LED WITH (1) 30 LED LIGHT ENGINES, TYPE T4M OPTIC, 5000K, @ 700mA LED 1 DSX1_LED_3 0C_1000_50K _T4M_MVOLT. ies 10194.49 1 210 Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2518 7600 East Orchard Road, Suite 250-S tel: 303.796.6000 fax: 303.796.6099 www.mkkeng.com Mechanical, Electrical & Energy Consultants "UUBDINFOU 2'-0" projection Projected cornice treatment 6" 9' - 6" 2'-0" overhang Stone veneer to match adjacent development over light gauge metal framing system recessed 9" . PHOTO [1] COLOR CHART Summit on College Parking Garage Fort Collins, CO West and North Elevations 02/07/14 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION PHOTO [1] PHOTO [3] PHOTO [2] M M M M M M EXISTING TREE - TO BE REMOVED NOT A CHOICE CENTER MITIGATION TREE (TYP) EXISTING TREE - TO BE REMOVED MITIGATION TREE WITH CHOICE CENTER FDP (TYP) INDICATES A TREE THAT WAS UPSIED FOR MITIGATION WITH THE ORIGINAL CHOICE CENTER FDP THAT IS TO BE REMOVED WITH THIS PROECT. 6 TOTAL MITIGATION TREES ARE IMPACTED BY THE PARKING GARAGE. INDICATES AN EXISTING TREE THAT IS IMPACTED BY THE PARKING GARAGE BUT WAS NOT A MITIGATION TREE IN THE CHOICE CENTER FDP. R INDICATES A TREE THAT HAS BEEN UPSIED IN PLACE OF A MITIGATION TREE THAT WAS REMOVED DURING THIS PROECT. R R R R R R CONSTRUCTION TREE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCING NTS HALF OF DRIP LINE MIN. 6' T-POST WITH 4 STAKES PER TREE DRIVEN (MIN. 18") FIRMLY INTO SUBGRADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION VERTICAL NOTES: 1. FENCING TO CONSIST OF 5' HEIGHT ORANGE PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION FENCING TIED TO POST WITH METAL WIRE. FENCING SHALL REMAIN UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLELTELY FINISHED. 2. SEE PLANT PROTECTION NOTES THIS SHEET. 1 TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS: (A) WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. (B) ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. (C) PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (1/2) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. (D) DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. (E) NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. (F) LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (G)(3) ABOVE. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET A PART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. (G) THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART. I I I I I I I I I I I I TO THE NEW ISLAND AREA BENCH (TYP) (3) RC (4) BG (11) BG (3) JG (5) AP (3) JC (5) RC (14) PR (23) PD (7) AP (3) JG (23) PV (5) RC (3) JC (23) PR (3) JG (5) RC (23) PD (7) AP (22) PV (3) JC (3) JG (7) AP (22) PR (2) JC (5) HS (3) RC (2) JC (3) RC (5) HS (4) AP (12) CR (10) BG (16) HS (6) CR (8) CL (3) PE (2) VA (3) MA (2) CT (6) EE (3) MA (1) CT (3) MA (3) MA (2) CT (3) EE (3) EE (2) VA (2) CT (4) CA (4) CW (4) LH (4) CA (4) LH (4) CW (4) CA (4) CW (4) LH (2) PI (3) PP (3) CM (4) PE (5) AP (4) JG (3) RM (3) RT (5) RM (3) RT (3) RM (3) RT (5) RM (3) RT (3) CM (3) JR (3) JR (3) CM (3) RM REFER TO SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE 36 EXISTING 18 NEW 72 EXIS (5) PP (3) RT (3) JR PLANT TABLE South Dr Uniersity Ae Isotope Dr Old Main Dr Oal Drie West Dr Burton Ct W Lake St Bleins Ct ames Ct St Braiden W Pitkin St East Dr Edison Dr "A" St Center Ae Prospect Balsam Ln uniper Ln Prospect Ct Birky Pl Sheely Dr W a l e n b u r gDr Hobbit St Tamasag Dr Waters Edge Winterberry Way d Rd Trail Wind Weathertop Ln Spring Ct Arthur Dr Meadowlark Princeton Rd Dr Daidson Winchester Dr Powderhorn Dr tagecoach Dr Ae W Stuart St Cir A S Ellis Dr Chetwood Dr moral Strachen e Ct Aberdeen Ct Endiburgh St Stoer St Stanford Rd Leisure Dr ne Dr Mathews St rard St Allen Thunderbird Dr Amherst St Maruette St Hartford Cir ueens Ct Vanderbi lt Ct Camb r idge Ct Baylor ST Princeton Rd Brown Ae Tulane Dr Columbia Rd Cornell Ae Stanford Rd Duke Ln S Chippewa St Kiowa Ct Apache Ct Shawnee Ct Ouray Ct Irauois Dr Hiawatha Ct Harard St Yale St Mathews St Yale Way Rutgers Ae Vasser Ae Loyola Ae Purdue Rd Dar t mou th Ln Villanoa Ct Cir Remington St Spring Park Dr Busch Ct Cheyenne Dr Osage St Mohawk St Seuoia St Naao Dr Seminole Dr Chey e n e n Dr h er o ke e Dr C Pawnee Dr C om manche Dr Choctaw Way Mathews St Smith Pl Deines Ct Person Ct Peterson Pl Peterson St Alpert Ct Parker St Whedbee St Morningside Ct Alpert Ct Bristol Ct Stuart St B. Ct B. C i r W Brookhaen Cir E Springmeadows Ct Peterson St E Lake St Buckeye St Circle Dr Newsom St Lake St Buckeye St Morgan St Green St Robertson St Lory St Lake Pl Garfield St E l l is St Edwards St Williams St Locust St E Eliabeth St Garfield St Edwards St Mathews St Remington St Whedbee St Kenroy Ct Locust Ct Pennock Pl E Pitkin St Doctor E P E St Indian Summer Parkw Dr Columbi S Bluebe Heathe Rosewood Ln Ae Delmar St SHIELDS STREET PROECT SITE PROSPECT ROAD SHRUB PLANTING NTS 3" MULCH "CHOICE MULCH", OR APPROVED EQUAL BACKFILL MIX: 70% ON SITE SOIL, 30% SCREENED COMPOST WATER TO SETTLE, DO NOT TAMP NOTES: 1. PRUNE DEAD OR DAMAGED WOOD AT TIME OF PLANTING. REGULARLY SCHEDULED PRUNING BY CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO BEGIN THE FOLLOWING SEASON BEFORE END OF WARRANTY/MAINTENANCE PERIOD. 2. REMOVE ALL TWINE, ROPE, AND/OR RUBBER FROM AROUND TOP OF BALL, PEEL BACK BURLAP, AND REMOVE WIRE BASKET FROM ROOT BALL. 3. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. LEAVE TREES UNSTAKED IF CONDITIONS PERMIT. IF STAKING IS REQUIRED, ONLY DECIDUOUS TREES WHICH ARE WEAK, HAVE LOOSE ROOT BALLS, OR ARE BEING PLANTED IN PARTICULARLY WINDY SITES REQUIRE STAKING. STAKE FOR 1 YR. ONLY. 2 STRAND TWISTED GAL. GUY WIRE WITH GROMMETED STRAPS 6' T-POST 2 STAKES PER TREE DRIVEN (MIN. 18") FIRMLY INTO SUBGRADE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING TREE WRAP, FROM BOTTOM TO TOP OF FIRST BRANCH, SECURE W/ ELECTRICAL TAPE, NO STAPLES, APPLY LATE FALL, REMOVE EARLY SPRING BACKFILL MIX: 70% ON SITE SOIL, 30% SCREENED COMPOST WATER TO SETTLE, DO NOT TAMP FORM SAUCER 3 X BALL DIA. VERTICAL CONIFEROUS TREE NTS DECIDUOUS TREE NTS 2 1 PERENNIAL PLANTING NTS Planting Details CALL BEFORE YOU DIG CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 or 8-1-1 CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. K:11100000 PARKING GARAGE05 DRAWINGSSHEETS LASUMMIT GARAGE LA.DWG , 2132014 6:46 PM ANUARY 2013 Vicinity Map FORT COLLINS SUMMIT PARKING GARAGE - LANDSCAPE PLAN FORT COLLINS, CO ASSOCIATES, L.P. Applicant and OwnerDeeloper Fort Collins Associates LP 431 Office Park Drie Birmingham, AL 35223 PH: (205) 414-6400 FAX: (205) 414-6405 Sureyor NV5 - Nolte Vertical Fie 8000 S. Chester Street, Suite 200 Centennial, CO 80112 PH: (303) 220-6400 FAX: (303) 220-9001 SCALE 1"1500' Landscape Architect TST Inc. Consulting Engineers 760 Whalers Way, Bld C, Suite 200 Fort Collins CO, 80525 PH: (970)-226-0557 FAX: (970) 226-0204 CHOICE CENTER 2ND FILING City Of Fort Collins, County Of Larimer, State Of Colorado PROECT ADDRESS: 1653 S. College Aenue through 1807 S. College Aenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ciil Engineer VA, Incorporated 1319 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 PH: (970) 225-9099 FAX: (303) 444-1957 PROECT NAME: SUMMIT PARKING GARAGE TST PROECT NUMBER: 1210.0001.00 DATE: ANUARY 2013 Index3 to Drawings SHEET: 1 OF SHEET NUMBER AND NAME 1 - COVER 2 - LANDSCAPE PLAN 3 - TREE MITIGATION PLAN Traffic Engineer ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 PH: (970) 988-7551 FAX: (970) 225-8942 Proect Contacts 1. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAN SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1 GRADE 2. ALL TREES TO MEET CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE STANDARDS FOR SIE. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPING FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING FROM DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION, INCLUDING MOWING, WEEDING, WINTER WATERING AND PRUNING. 4. CONTRACTOR TO MINIMIE ALL DISTURBANCE TO NON-IMPACTED AREAS. ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT RECEIVING TURF SHALL BE RESEEDED WITH THE NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX SPECIFIED ON THIS SHEET. 5. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS WITH APPROVAL OF OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OVERALL UANTITY AND UALITY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH APPROVED PLANS. 6. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES. IRRIGATION PLANS TO BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS, OR AN ACCEPTABLE FINANCIAL SECURITY DEPOSITED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 7. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATED, POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH A DRIP SYSTEM. ALL PERENNIAL BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH XERI-POP SPRAY HEADS. NATIVE PRAIRIE MIX AND TRM AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED UNTIL FULLY ESTABLISHED (SOD IS FORMED) (MIN 1-3 YEARS). 8. STREET TREE LOCATIONS SHALL BE ADUSTED TO ALLOW FOR A MINIMUM OF A 40' CLEARANCE TO STREET LIGHTS (15' MINIMUM IF THE TREE IS ORNAMENTAL) 9. TREE LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 6' TO WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINES AND 10' FROM WATER OR SEWER MAIN LINES. 10. STREET TREE LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 4' BETWEEN GAS LINES. 11. LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING OR LANDSCAPE PLANTING. 12. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 13. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SETUP OF BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNAGE, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE DEVICES IF ANY EXCAVATIONS ARE LEFT EXPOSED AFTER ON-SITE WORK HOURS. 14. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ACUIRE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 15. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS, THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF SIX (6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPED AREA. 16. A FREE TREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 17. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER FOR STREET TREES IN A PHASE SHALL RESULT IN A HOLD CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR FUTURE PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 18. EXISTING TREES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. SEE THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN FOR SPECIFIC PROTECTION REUIREMENTS. ALL TREE TRIMMING AND REMOVAL IS TO BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED FORT COLLINS ARBORIST PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE. 19. PROTECT ALL ROOTS THAT ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING SIDEWALK DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 20. DO NOT REMOVE MORE THAN 3" OF SOIL WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ONE IN ORDER TO LAY NEW SOD. 21. BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED ON STABILIED CRUSHER FINES, BORDERED WITH STEEL EDGING. PLANT NOTES LANDSCAPING ASSURANCES 1. ALL LANDSCAPING PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125 OF THE VALUATION OF THE LANDSCAPE MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION FOR THE CURRENT PHASE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SEED MIXES EXISTING ONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) GARAGE OVERHANG SPRING CREEK TRAIL BIKE AND PED CONNECTION TO PROSPECT BIKE AND PED CONNECTION TO COLLEGE BIKE AND PED CONNECTION TO PRIVATE COURTYARDS AND BUILDING ACCESS PROPERTY LINE LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT LINE (GARAGE PROECT) BIKE PARKING ACCESS POINT PARKING GARAGE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINT PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE FUTURE BIKE PARKING EXISTING ONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY PER FEMA MAP PANEL 08069C0979H, DATED MAY 2,2012 100 YEAR FLOODWAY BOUNDARY PER FEMA MAP PANEL 08069C0979H, DATED MAY 2,2012 Isotope Dr Old Main Dr Oval Drive West Dr Burton Ct W Lake St Blevins Ct James Ct St Braiden W Pitkin St East Dr Edison Dr "A" St Center Ave Prospect Balsam Ln Juniper Ln Prospect Ct Birky Pl Sheely Dr W a l e n b u r gDr Hobbit St Tamasag Dr Waters Edge Winterberry Way d Rd Trail Wind Weathertop Ln Spring Ct Arthur Dr Meadowlark Princeton Rd Dr Davidson Winchester Dr Powderhorn Dr agecoach Dr Ave W Stuart St Cir A S Ellis Dr Chetwood Dr oral Strachen Ct Aberdeen Ct Endiburgh St Stover St Stanford Rd Leisure Dr e Dr Mathews St vard St Allen Thunderbird Dr Amherst St Marquette St Hartford Cir Queens Ct Vanderbi lt Ct Camb r idge Ct Baylor ST Princeton Rd Brown Ave Tulane Dr Columbia Rd Cornell Ave Stanford Rd Duke Ln Sq Chippewa St Kiowa Ct Apache Ct Shawnee Ct Ouray Ct Iraquois Dr Hiawatha Ct Harvard St Yale St Mathews St Yale Way Rutgers Ave Vasser Ave Loyola Ave Purdue Rd Dar t mou th Ln Villanova Ct Cir Remington St Spring Park Dr Busch Ct Cheyenne Dr Osage St Mohawk St Sequoia St Navajo Dr Seminole Dr Chey e n e n Dr h er o ke e Dr C Pawnee Dr C om manche Dr Choctaw Way Mathews St Smith Pl Deines Ct Person Ct Peterson Pl Peterson St Alpert Ct Parker St Whedbee St Morningside Ct Alpert Ct Bristol Ct Stuart St B. Ct B. C i r W Brookhaven Cir E Springmeadows Ct Peterson St E Lake St Buckeye St Circle Dr Newsom St Lake St Buckeye St Morgan St Green St Robertson St Lory St Lake Pl Garfield St E l l is St Edwards St Williams St Locust St E Elizabeth St Garfield St Edwards St Mathews St Remington St Whedbee St Kenroy Ct Locust Ct Pennock Pl E Pitkin St Doctor's E Pi E Stu Indian Summer Parkwo Dr Columbine S Bluebell Heatherw Rosewood Ln Ave Delmar St SHIELDS STREET PROECT SITE PROSPECT ROAD CALL BEFORE YOU DIG CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 or 8-1-1 CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. K:\1110\0000 PARKING GARAGE\05 DRAWINGS\SHEETS LA\SUMMIT GARAGE SP.DWG , 1/31/2014 3:45 PM ANUARY 2013 Vicinity Map FORT COLLINS ASSOCIATES, L.P. SUMMIT PARKING GARAGE - SITE PLAN FORT COLLINS, CO Applicant and OwnerDeeloper Fort Collins Associates LP 431 Office Park Drie Birmingham, AL 35223 PH: (205) 414-6400 FAX: (205) 414-6405 Sureyor NV5 - Nolte Vertical Fie 8000 S. Chester Street, Suite 200 Centennial, CO 80112 PH: (303) 220-6400 FAX: (303) 220-9001 SCALE 1"1500' Landscape Architect TST Inc. Consulting Engineers 760 Whalers Way, Bld C, Suite 200 Fort Collins CO, 80525 PH: (970)-226-0557 FAX: (970) 226-0204 CHOICE CENTER 2ND FILING City Of Fort Collins, County Of Larimer, State Of Colorado PRIMARY BENCHMARK:C-322, MARKED "C-322 RESET 1959" LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST WINGWALL OF THE BRIDGE FOR COLLEGE AVENUE OVER SPRING CREEK ELEVATION:4986.22 FEET, CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM (NGVD 1929 - UNADUSTED). SECONDARY BENCHMARK: 28-92, WATER VALVE PIT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST PROSPECT ROAD AND CENTRE AVENUE ELEVATION: 5007.48 FEET, CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM (NGVD 1929 - UNADUSTED) PROECT ADDRESS: 1653 S. College Aenue through 1807 S. College Aenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ciil Engineer VA, Incorporated 1319 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 PH: (970) 225-9099 FAX: (303) 444-1957 PROECT NAME: SUMMIT PARKING GARAGE SD PROECT NUMBER: 1210.0001.00 DATE: ANUARY 2013 SHEET: 1 OF 3 Index to Drawings SHEET NUMBER AND NAME 1 - COVER 2 - OVERVIEW 3 - SITE PLAN Traffic Engineer ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 PH: (970) 988-7551 FAX: (970) 225-8942 Approed this day of , by the Current Planning Director of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Current Planning Director 20___ Signatures and Approals CHOICE CENTER 2ND FILING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 1 OF CHOICE CENTER, RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 20110065030; ALSO DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 OF CHOICE CENTER; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX COURSES ALONG THE PERIMETER OF SAID LOT 1: 1. NORTH 89°40'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 55.15 FEET; 2. SOUTH 45°27'16" EAST A DISTANCE OF 67.77 FEET; 3. SOUTH 81°48'40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 104.13 FEET; 4. NORTH 01°11'13" EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.13 FEET; 5. SOUTH 89°38'48" EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.26 FEET; 6. SOUTH 00°07'07" EAST A DISTANCE OF 802.38 FEET; 7. SOUTH 89°53'58" WEST A DISTANCE OF 18.92 FEET; 8. SOUTH 00°23'51" WEST A DISTANCE OF 294.31 FEET; 9. NORTH 89°36'51" WEST A DISTANCE OF 307.51 FEET; 10. NORTH 06°12'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 532.67 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 11. 503.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4573.35 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°18'34", AS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 03°03'21" EAST A DISTANCE OF 503.37 FEET; 12. NORTH 00°05'56" WEST A DISTANCE OF 89.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THE ABOVE TRACT CONTAINS 293,657 SQUARE FEET OR 6.741 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Property Description Proect Benchmark Proect Contacts OWNER: Capstone Development Corporation , being all the lawful recorded owners of the Spring Court Subdiision on this Proect Deelopment Plan, except any existing public streets, roads, or highways, do hereby certify that Iwe accept the conditions and restrictions set forth on said plan and in the conditions of approal by the City of Fort Collins, dated , and that Iwe consent to the recordation of any information pertaining thereto. BY: DATE: . STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___. by as of . Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: . . Notary Public ;ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚ^ƉĂĐĞƐKŶůǇͿ Ϯϰй ϳϬй ϱϲй ΎΎ ϱйŽĨƚŽƚĂůďĞĚƐ͘dŚĞ^ƵŵŵŝƚŽŶŽůůĞŐĞĂĐĐŽŵŽĚĂƚĞƐƵƉƚŽϲϲϱƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ƉůƵƐƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐ Ύ WĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƚƚŝŵĞŽĨWWĂƉƉƌŽǀĂů;ϮϬϬϴͿǁĞƌĞŶŽƚƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚ;ŶŽŵŝŶŽƌŵĂǆͿ͘ dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ;ŝŶƚĞƌŝŵͿdKƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚŽŶůǇĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞƐŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ǁŝƚŚŶŽůŝŵŝƚƚŽƚŚĞŵĂǆŝŵƵŵŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐƉĂĐĞƐƚŚĂƚŵĂǇďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͘dŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚdKƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƐƉĂĐĞƐƚŽĞǆĐĞĞĚϭϭϱйŽĨƚŚĞ ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĞǆĐĞƐƐƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶĂƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ͘ ,ŝƐƚŽƌǇŽĨdKWĂƌŬŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ WĂƌŬŝŶŐ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌŽƉŽƐĂůKƉƚŝŽŶƐ 2'-0" projection 2'-0" projection Projected cornice treatment 2'-0" overhang Stone veneer to match adjacent development over light gauge metal framing system recessed 9" . PHOTO [1] 24' - 11" 31' - 9" COLOR CHART Summit on College Parking Garage Fort Collins, CO West and North Elevations 05/27/14 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION PHOTO [1] PHOTO [3] PHOTO [2] SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION (4) CW + (4) CA + (4) LH TYPICAL FOR ALL 22' GREEN SCREENS (8) CW + (8) CA + (8) LH M M M M M M M EXISTING TREE - TO BE REMOVED NOT A CHOICE CENTER MITIGATION TREE (TYP) EXISTING TREE - TO BE REMOVED MITIGATION TREE WITH CHOICE CENTER FDP (TYP) INDICATES A TREE THAT WAS UPSIZED FOR MITIGATION WITH THE ORIGINAL CHOICE CENTER FDP THAT IS TO BE REMOVED WITH THIS PROJECT. 6 TOTAL MITIGATION TREES ARE IMPACTED BY THE PARKING GARAGE. INDICATES AN EXISTING TREE THAT IS IMPACTED BY THE PARKING GARAGE BUT WAS NOT A MITIGATION TREE IN THE CHOICE CENTER FDP. R INDICATES A TREE THAT HAS BEEN UPSIZED IN PLACE OF A MITIGATION TREE THAT WAS REMOVED DURING THIS PROJECT. R R R R R R CONSTRUCTION TREE PROTECTION BARRIER FENCING NTS HALF OF DRIP LINE MIN. 6' T-POST WITH 4 STAKES PER TREE DRIVEN (MIN. 18") FIRMLY INTO SUBGRADE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION VERTICAL NOTES: 1. FENCING TO CONSIST OF 5' HEIGHT ORANGE PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION FENCING TIED TO POST WITH METAL WIRE. FENCING SHALL REMAIN UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLELTELY FINISHED. 2. SEE PLANT PROTECTION NOTES THIS SHEET. 1 TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS: (A) WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED EXISTING TREE, THERE SHALL BE NO CUT OR FILL OVER A FOUR-INCH DEPTH UNLESS A QUALIFIED ARBORIST OR FORESTER HAS EVALUATED AND APPROVED THE DISTURBANCE. (B) ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PRUNED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FORESTRY STANDARDS. (C) PRIOR TO AND DURING CONSTRUCTION, BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED EXISTING TREES WITH SUCH BARRIERS TO BE OF ORANGE FENCING A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4) FEET IN HEIGHT, SECURED WITH METAL T-POSTS, NO CLOSER THAN SIX (6) FEET FROM THE TRUNK OR ONE-HALF (1/2) OF THE DRIP LINE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THERE SHALL BE NO STORAGE OR MOVEMENT OF EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL, DEBRIS OR FILL WITHIN THE FENCED TREE PROTECTION ZONE. (D) DURING THE CONSTRUCTION STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREVENT THE CLEANING OF EQUIPMENT OR MATERIAL OR THE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIAL SUCH AS PAINTS, OILS, SOLVENTS, ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MOTOR OIL OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL HARMFUL TO THE LIFE OF A TREE WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY PROTECTED TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. (E) NO DAMAGING ATTACHMENT, WIRES, SIGNS OR PERMITS MAY BE FASTENED TO ANY PROTECTED TREE. (F) LARGE PROPERTY AREAS CONTAINING PROTECTED TREES AND SEPARATED FROM CONSTRUCTION OR LAND CLEARING AREAS, ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENTS MAY BE "RIBBONED OFF," RATHER THAN ERECTING PROTECTIVE FENCING AROUND EACH TREE AS REQUIRED IN THE DETAIL BELOW. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING METAL T-POST STAKES A MAXIMUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET A PART AND TYING RIBBON OR ROPE FROM STAKE-TO-STAKE ALONG THE OUTSIDE PERIMETERS OF SUCH AREAS BEING CLEARED. (G) THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES, IRRIGATION LINES OR ANY UNDERGROUND FIXTURE REQUIRING EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN SIX (6) INCHES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY BORING UNDER THE ROOT SYSTEM OF PROTECTED EXISTING TREES AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) INCHES. THE AUGER DISTANCE IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACE OF THE TREE (OUTER BARK) AND IS SCALED FROM TREE DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHART. I I I I I I I I I I I I SHEET - L102 (9) BG (3) JG (4) AP (3) JC (5) RC (14) PR (23) PD (7) AP (3) JG (23) PV (5) RC (3) JC (23) PR (3) JG (5) RC (23) PD (7) AP (22) PV (3) JC (3) JG (6) AP (19) PR (2) JC (5) HS (3) RC (2) JC (3) RC (5) HS (16) HS (2) VA (3) MA (2) CT (6) EE (3) MA (1) CT (3) MA (3) MA (2) CT (3) EE (3) EE (2) VA (2) CT (2) PI (3) PP (3) CM (4) PE (5) AP (4) JG (3) RM (3) RT (5) RM (3) RT (3) RM (3) RT (5) RM (3) RT (3) CM (3) JR (3) JR (3) CM (3) RM SPRING CREEK BUFFER - WIDTH VARIES FOR ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE, REFER TO SECTION 3.4.1 OF THE LAND USE CODE (5) PP (3) RT (3) JR (11) CR (10) BG (5) AP RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS WITH NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX - SEE COVER FOR MIX RESTORE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SHADE TOLERANT SEED MIX - SEE COVER FOR MIX BENCH (TYP) BENCH TO BE MODEL CB341696 FROM COLORADO CI BENCHES TO BE SURFACE MOUNTED TYPICAL FOR ALL 12' GREEN SCREENS (4) CW + (4) CA + (4) LH TYPICAL FOR ALL 22' GREEN SCREENS (8) CW + (8) CA + (8) LH PLANT TABLE SHEET - L101 South Dr University Ave Isotope Dr Old Main Dr Oval Drive West Dr Burton Ct W Lake St Blevins Ct James Ct St Braiden W Pitkin St East Dr Edison Dr "A" St Center Ave Prospect Balsam Ln Juniper Ln Prospect Ct Birky Pl Sheely Dr W a l e n b u r gDr Hobbit St Tamasag Dr Waters Edge Winterberry Way d Rd Trail Wind Weathertop Ln Spring Ct Arthur Dr Meadowlark Princeton Rd Dr Davidson Winchester Dr Powderhorn Dr tagecoach Dr Ave W Stuart St Cir A S Ellis Dr Chetwood Dr moral Strachen e Ct Aberdeen Ct Endiburgh St Stover St Stanford Rd Leisure Dr ne Dr Mathews St rvard St Allen Thunderbird Dr Amherst St Marquette St Hartford Cir Queens Ct Vanderbi lt Ct Camb r idge Ct Baylor ST Princeton Rd Brown Ave Tulane Dr Columbia Rd Cornell Ave Stanford Rd Duke Ln Sq Chippewa St Kiowa Ct Apache Ct Shawnee Ct Ouray Ct Iraquois Dr Hiawatha Ct Harvard St Yale St Mathews St Yale Way Rutgers Ave Vasser Ave Loyola Ave Purdue Rd Dar t mou th Ln Villanova Ct Cir Remington St Spring Park Dr Busch Ct Cheyenne Dr Osage St Mohawk St Sequoia St Navajo Dr Seminole Dr Chey e n e n Dr h er o ke e Dr C Pawnee Dr C om manche Dr Choctaw Way Mathews St Smith Pl Deines Ct Person Ct Peterson Pl Peterson St Alpert Ct Parker St Whedbee St Morningside Ct Alpert Ct Bristol Ct Stuart St B. Ct B. C i r W Brookhaven Cir E Springmeadows Ct Peterson St E Lake St Buckeye St Circle Dr Newsom St Lake St Buckeye St Morgan St Green St Robertson St Lory St Lake Pl Garfield St E l l is St Edwards St Williams St Locust St E Elizabeth St Garfield St Edwards St Mathews St Remington St Whedbee St Kenroy Ct Locust Ct Pennock Pl E Pitkin St Doctor E P E St Indian Summer Parkw Dr Columbi S Bluebe Heathe Rosewood Ln Ave Delmar St SHIELDS STREET PROJECT SITE PROSPECT ROAD SHRUB PLANTING NTS 3" MULCH "CHOICE MULCH", OR APPROVED EQUAL BACKFILL MIX: 70% ON SITE SOIL, 30% SCREENED COMPOST WATER TO SETTLE, DO NOT TAMP NOTES: 1. PRUNE DEAD OR DAMAGED WOOD AT TIME OF PLANTING. REGULARLY SCHEDULED PRUNING BY CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO BEGIN THE FOLLOWING SEASON BEFORE END OF WARRANTY/MAINTENANCE PERIOD. 2. REMOVE ALL TWINE, ROPE, AND/OR RUBBER FROM AROUND TOP OF BALL, PEEL BACK BURLAP, AND REMOVE WIRE BASKET FROM ROOT BALL. 3. PLANT SO THAT TOP OF ROOT BALL IS 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. LEAVE TREES UNSTAKED IF CONDITIONS PERMIT. IF STAKING IS REQUIRED, ONLY DECIDUOUS TREES WHICH ARE WEAK, HAVE LOOSE ROOT BALLS, OR ARE BEING PLANTED IN PARTICULARLY WINDY SITES REQUIRE STAKING. STAKE FOR 1 YR. ONLY. 2 STRAND TWISTED GAL. GUY WIRE WITH GROMMETED STRAPS 6' T-POST 2 STAKES PER TREE DRIVEN (MIN. 18") FIRMLY INTO SUBGRADE PRIOR TO BACKFILLING TREE WRAP, FROM BOTTOM TO TOP OF FIRST BRANCH, SECURE W/ ELECTRICAL TAPE, NO STAPLES, APPLY LATE FALL, REMOVE EARLY SPRING BACKFILL MIX: 70% ON SITE SOIL, 30% SCREENED COMPOST WATER TO SETTLE, DO NOT TAMP FORM SAUCER 3 X BALL DIA. VERTICAL CONIFEROUS TREE NTS DECIDUOUS TREE NTS 2 1 PERENNIAL PLANTING NTS Planting Details CALL BEFORE YOU DIG CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 or 8-1-1 CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. K:\1110\0000 PARKING GARAGE\05 DRAWINGS\SHEETS LA\SUMMIT GARAGE LA.DWG , 7/30/2014 6:26 PM AUG 2014 Vicinity Map FORT COLLINS SUMMIT PARKING GARAGE - LANDSCAPE PLAN FORT COLLINS, CO ASSOCIATES, L.P. Applicant and Owner/Developer Fort Collins Associates LP 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 PH: (205) 414-6400 FAX: (205) 414-6405 Surveyor NV5 - Nolte Vertical Five 8000 S. Chester Street, Suite 200 Centennial, CO 80112 PH: (303) 220-6400 FAX: (303) 220-9001 SCALE 1"=1500' Landscape Architect TST Inc. Consulting Engineers 760 Whalers Way, Bld C, Suite 200 Fort Collins CO, 80525 PH: (970)-226-0557 FAX: (970) 226-0204 CHOICE CENTER SECOND FILING City Of Fort Collins, County Of Larimer, State Of Colorado PROJECT ADDRESS: 1653 S. College Avenue through 1807 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Civil Engineer JVA, Incorporated 1319 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 PH: (970) 225-9099 FAX: (303) 444-1957 PROJECT NAME: SUMMIT PARKING GARAGE TST PROJECT NUMBER: 1210.0001.00 DATE: AUG 2014 Index3 to Drawings SHEET: 1 OF SHEET NUMBER AND NAME 1 - COVER 2 - LANDSCAPE PLAN 3 - TREE MITIGATION PLAN Traffic Engineer ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 PH: (970) 988-7551 FAX: (970) 225-8942 Project Contacts 1. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AAN SPECIFICATIONS FOR #1 GRADE 2. ALL TREES TO MEET CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE STANDARDS FOR SIZE. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPING DURING CONSTRUCTION AND FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION A ONE YEAR WARRANTY FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PROVIDED. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL GRASSES AND FLOOD CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL SIGNED OFF BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EROSION AND FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR. 4. CONTRACTOR TO MINIMIZE ALL DISTURBANCE TO NON-IMPACTED AREAS. ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT RECEIVING TURF SHALL BE RESEEDED WITH THE NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX SPECIFIED ON THIS SHEET. 5. MINOR CHANGES IN SPECIES AND PLANT LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS WITH APPROVAL OF OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. OVERALL QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH APPROVED PLANS. 6. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WATER UTILITIES. IRRIGATION PLANS TO BE REVIEWED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS, OR AN ACCEPTABLE FINANCIAL SECURITY DEPOSITED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 7. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATED, POP-UP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ALL SHRUB BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH A DRIP SYSTEM. ALL PERENNIAL BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH XERI-POP SPRAY HEADS. NATIVE PRAIRIE MIX AND TRM AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED UNTIL FULLY ESTABLISHED (SOD IS FORMED) (MIN 1-3 YEARS). 8. STREET TREE LOCATIONS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO ALLOW FOR A MINIMUM OF A 40' CLEARANCE TO STREET LIGHTS (15' MINIMUM IF THE TREE IS ORNAMENTAL) 9. TREE LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 6' TO WATER OR SEWER SERVICE LINES AND 10' FROM WATER OR SEWER MAIN LINES. 10. STREET TREE LOCATIONS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 4' BETWEEN GAS LINES. 11. LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING OR LANDSCAPE PLANTING. 12. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE, TOPSOIL THAT IS REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE CONSERVED FOR LATER USE ON AREAS REQUIRING REVEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING. 13. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SETUP OF BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNAGE, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE DEVICES IF ANY EXCAVATIONS ARE LEFT EXPOSED AFTER ON-SITE WORK HOURS. 14. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ACQUIRE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 15. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS, THE SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS, SHALL BE THOROUGHLY LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES AND SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL OF ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO A DEPTH OF SIX (6) INCHES BY TILLING, DISCING OR OTHER SUITABLE METHOD, AT A RATE OF AT LEAST THREE (3) CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AMENDMENT PER ONE THOUSAND (1,000) SQUARE FEET OF LANDSCAPED AREA. 16. A FREE TREE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY BEFORE ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN ARE PLANTED, PRUNED OR REMOVED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES ZONES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND CURB, MEDIANS AND OTHER CITY PROPERTY. THIS PERMIT SHALL APPROVE THE LOCATION AND SPECIES TO BE PLANTED. FAILURE TO OBTAIN THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN REPLACING OR RELOCATING TREES AND A HOLD ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 17. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE CITY FORESTER TO INSPECT ALL STREET TREE PLANTINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. ALL TREES NEED TO HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. APPROVAL OF STREET TREE PLANTING IS REQUIRED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF EACH PHASE. FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL BY THE CITY FORESTER FOR STREET TREES IN A PHASE SHALL RESULT IN A HOLD CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR FUTURE PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 18. EXISTING TREES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. SEE THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN FOR SPECIFIC PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. ALL TREE TRIMMING AND REMOVAL IS TO BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED FORT COLLINS ARBORIST PER THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE. 19. PROTECT ALL ROOTS THAT ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING SIDEWALK DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. 20. DO NOT REMOVE MORE THAN 3" OF SOIL WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE IN ORDER TO LAY NEW SOD. 21. BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED ON STABILIZED CRUSHER FINES, BORDERED WITH STEEL EDGING. PLANT NOTES LANDSCAPING ASSURANCES 1. ALL LANDSCAPING PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION MUST BE SECURED WITH AN IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT, PERFORMANCE BOND OR ESCROW ACCOUNT FOR 125% OF THE VALUATION OF THE LANDSCAPE MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION FOR THE CURRENT PHASE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SEED MIXES SHEET - L100 SPRING CREEK TRAIL BIKE AND PED CONNECTION TO PROSPECT BIKE AND PED CONNECTION TO COLLEGE BIKE AND PED CONNECTION TO PRIVATE COURTYARDS AND BUILDING ACCESS PROPERTY LINE LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT LINE (GARAGE PROJECT) BIKE PARKING ACCESS POINT PARKING GARAGE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS POINT PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE FUTURE BIKE PARKING EXISTING ZONING: COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) 100 YEAR AS BUILT LOMR FLOODPLAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENT WIDTH VARIES 77.14' 75.79' 100 YEAR AS BUILT LOMR FLOODWAY Isotope Dr Old Main Dr Oval Drive West Dr Burton Ct W Lake St Blevins Ct James Ct St Braiden W Pitkin St East Dr Edison Dr "A" St Center Ave Prospect Balsam Ln Juniper Ln Prospect Ct Birky Pl Sheely Dr W a l e n b u r gDr Hobbit St Tamasag Dr Waters Edge Winterberry Way d Rd Trail Wind Weathertop Ln Spring Ct Arthur Dr Meadowlark Princeton Rd Dr Davidson Winchester Dr Powderhorn Dr agecoach Dr Ave W Stuart St Cir A S Ellis Dr Chetwood Dr oral Strachen Ct Aberdeen Ct Endiburgh St Stover St Stanford Rd Leisure Dr e Dr Mathews St vard St Allen Thunderbird Dr Amherst St Marquette St Hartford Cir Queens Ct Vanderbi lt Ct Camb r idge Ct Baylor ST Princeton Rd Brown Ave Tulane Dr Columbia Rd Cornell Ave Stanford Rd Duke Ln Sq Chippewa St Kiowa Ct Apache Ct Shawnee Ct Ouray Ct Iraquois Dr Hiawatha Ct Harvard St Yale St Mathews St Yale Way Rutgers Ave Vasser Ave Loyola Ave Purdue Rd Dar t mou th Ln Villanova Ct Cir Remington St Spring Park Dr Busch Ct Cheyenne Dr Osage St Mohawk St Sequoia St Navajo Dr Seminole Dr Chey e n e n Dr h er o ke e Dr C Pawnee Dr C om manche Dr Choctaw Way Mathews St Smith Pl Deines Ct Person Ct Peterson Pl Peterson St Alpert Ct Parker St Whedbee St Morningside Ct Alpert Ct Bristol Ct Stuart St B. Ct B. C i r W Brookhaven Cir E Springmeadows Ct Peterson St E Lake St Buckeye St Circle Dr Newsom St Lake St Buckeye St Morgan St Green St Robertson St Lory St Lake Pl Garfield St E l l is St Edwards St Williams St Locust St E Elizabeth St Garfield St Edwards St Mathews St Remington St Whedbee St Kenroy Ct Locust Ct Pennock Pl E Pitkin St Doctor's E Pi E Stu Indian Summer Parkwo Dr Columbine S Bluebell Heatherw Rosewood Ln Ave Delmar St SHIELDS STREET PROJECT SITE PROSPECT ROAD CALL BEFORE YOU DIG CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1-800-922-1987 or 8-1-1 CALL 2-BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR THE MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES. K:\1110\0000 PARKING GARAGE\05 DRAWINGS\SHEETS LA\SUMMIT GARAGE SP.DWG , 7/30/2014 6:34 PM AUG 2014 Vicinity Map FORT COLLINS ASSOCIATES, L.P. SUMMIT PARKING GARAGE - SITE PLAN FORT COLLINS, CO Applicant and Owner/Developer Fort Collins Associates LP 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 PH: (205) 414-6400 FAX: (205) 414-6405 Surveyor NV5 - Nolte Vertical Five 8000 S. Chester Street, Suite 200 Centennial, CO 80112 PH: (303) 220-6400 FAX: (303) 220-9001 SCALE 1"=1500' Landscape Architect TST Inc. Consulting Engineers 760 Whalers Way, Bld C, Suite 200 Fort Collins CO, 80525 PH: (970)-226-0557 FAX: (970) 226-0204 CHOICE CENTER SECOND FILING City Of Fort Collins, County Of Larimer, State Of Colorado PRIMARY BENCHMARK:C-322, MARKED "C-322 RESET 1959" LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST WINGWALL OF THE BRIDGE FOR COLLEGE AVENUE OVER SPRING CREEK; ELEVATION:4986.22 FEET, CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM (NGVD 1929 - UNADJUSTED). SECONDARY BENCHMARK: 28-92, WATER VALVE PIT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST PROSPECT ROAD AND CENTRE AVENUE; ELEVATION: 5007.48 FEET, CITY OF FORT COLLINS DATUM (NGVD 1929 - UNADJUSTED) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1653 S. College Avenue through 1807 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Civil Engineer JVA, Incorporated 1319 Spruce Street Boulder, CO 80302 PH: (970) 225-9099 FAX: (303) 444-1957 PROJECT NAME: SUMMIT PARKING GARAGE JSD PROJECT NUMBER: 1210.0001.00 DATE: AUG 2014 SHEET: 1 OF 3 Index to Drawings SHEET NUMBER AND NAME 1 - COVER 2 - OVERVIEW 3 - SITE PLAN Traffic Engineer ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 PH: (970) 988-7551 FAX: (970) 225-8942 Approved this day of , by the Current Planning Director of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Current Planning Director 20___ Signatures and Approvals CHOICE CENTER SECOND FILING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 1 OF CHOICE CENTER, RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 20110065030; ALSO DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 OF CHOICE CENTER; THENCE THE FOLLOWING SIX COURSES ALONG THE PERIMETER OF SAID LOT 1: 1. NORTH 89°40'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 55.15 FEET; 2. SOUTH 45°27'16" EAST A DISTANCE OF 67.77 FEET; 3. SOUTH 81°48'40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 104.13 FEET; 4. NORTH 01°11'13" EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.13 FEET; 5. SOUTH 89°38'48" EAST A DISTANCE OF 35.26 FEET; 6. SOUTH 00°07'07" EAST A DISTANCE OF 802.38 FEET; 7. SOUTH 89°53'58" WEST A DISTANCE OF 18.92 FEET; 8. SOUTH 00°23'51" WEST A DISTANCE OF 294.31 FEET; 9. NORTH 89°36'51" WEST A DISTANCE OF 307.51 FEET; 10. NORTH 06°12'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 532.67 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; 11. 503.62 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4573.35 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°18'34", AS SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING NORTH 03°03'21" EAST A DISTANCE OF 503.37 FEET; 12. NORTH 00°05'56" WEST A DISTANCE OF 89.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THE ABOVE TRACT CONTAINS 293,657 SQUARE FEET OR 6.741 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Property Description Project Benchmark Project Contacts OWNER: Fort Collins Associates, L.P. , being all the lawful recorded owners of the Spring Court Subdivision on this Project Development Plan, except any existing public streets, roads, or highways, do hereby certify that I/we accept the conditions and restrictions set forth on said plan and in the conditions of approval by the City of Fort Collins, dated , and that I/we consent to the recordation of any information pertaining thereto. BY: DATE: . STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___. by as of . Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: . . Notary Public "UUBDINFOU