HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PARKING GARAGE - MJA/FDP ..... 5/20/2014 - FDP130056 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILGrounds for Appeal*
Failure to conduct a fair
hearing in that:
The decision maker
The decision
considered evidence
Failure to properly
maker exceeded
relevant to its findings
interpret and apply
its authority or
which was
relevant provisions
jurisdiction in the
substantially false or
of the Land Use
Appellants
Code or Charter;
grossly misleading.
Code
Other.
Lester M.
Kaplan
• Process should
be Type 2 not
Type 1 because a
. Considered "distorted
• "Separation
between
pedestrians and
• N/A
and inaccurate"
images of impacts,
condition was
and
vehicles" not
imposed that
• "incomplete and
required.
limits use to
misleading"
Drive aisle
Summit tenants
modification
modification
only.
information.
"compromises the
•"Intrusion into
standard".
jurisdiction of
• Assumes long term
parking.
Urban Renewal
Authority".
Misinterpretation of
Accessory Use
definition, and
• Bike parking
alternative
compliance.
Jeffrey Leef
• "Not appropriately
protecting views
• Considered
"inaccurate. obviously
Not compatible with
"context'.
N/A
staged" images,
of neighbors".
• Misinterpretation of
*Assumes
• Misleading
Accessory Use
students drive
information about
definition.
smaller cars.
"why" the Summit
• Process should be
• "Requiring the
needs more parking,
Type 2. not Type 1.
• Does not add to
applicant to
• Misleading
record a
information about
attractiveness.
covenant' that
compatibility, and
• Separation between
limits use to
. Misleading
pedestrians and
Summit tenants
information about "the
vehicles not
only
serious problem with
required.
•Assumes long
traffic."
• Building height
term parking.
misinterpreted.
Council-
N/A
• N/A
N/A
Does the project
member
CUnnlff
properly apply
standards
related to
protection and
enhancement of
natural habitat
and ecological
character.
*Underlined text indicates Grounds for Appeal same as another appellant.
ATTACHMENT 1
Matrix of Allegations
Agenda Item 24
The staff report reviews applicability and evaluation of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code on pages 11 and
12. The staff report discusses how the project will minimize degradation of the visual character through a multi -
structured vegetation screen (see page 12) through plantings of native vegetation "that includes 104 trees and
shrubs and a native grass seed mix." The landscape plan and elevations show how a vertical trellis planted
with vines will provide vertical screening. The fee -in -lieu exhibit (Attachment 12 to the staff report) illustrates
how the landscaping on the City's property adjacent to the site complements the existing habitat and screens
the parking structure.
The evidence to support the statement in the staff report is presented in the Ecological Characterization Study
(ECS) (Attachment 10 to the staff report) and the ECS Checklist (Attachment 11 to the staff report). The ECS
addresses visual character on pages 2 and 3.
The visual character of the natural habitat was not discussed at the Administrative Hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Allegation Matrix (PDF)
2. City Clerk's Notice of Hearing and Site Visit (PDF)
3. Amended Notice of Appeal-Councilmember Cunniff (PDF)
4. Amended Notice of Appeal -Lester Kaplan (PDF)
5. Notice of Appeal -Jeffrey Leef (PDF)
6. Administrative Hearing Officer Decision (PDF)
7. Staff Report (with attachments) to Hearing Officer (PDF)
8. Applicant materials presented at Hearing (PDF)
9. Materials presented to Hearing Officer at Hearing (PDF)
10. Verbatim transcript (PDF)
11. Staff powerpoint presentation to Council (PDF)
Item # 24 Page 10
Agenda Item 24
• "Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(g) 'The project shall be designed to
enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the site...'? If so, what evidence supports this
finding?"
Provided as Attachment 2. Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer's Decision
(Attachment 6), natural habitats or features are referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC
(Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction of
Standard
3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features - Applies if
An Ecological Characterization Study was
portion of the development site is within 500' of an
performed as part of the Major Amendment. A
area or feature identified as a natural habitat or
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is proposed to buffer
feature on the City's Natural Habitats and Features
the development from Spring Creek. The standard
Inventory Map. Purpose is to ensure design and
buffer requirement for Spring Creek in the LUC per
arrangement of site protects the natural habitats
Section 3.4. l (E)(1) is 100' and an average 100'
and features both on the site and in the vicinity of
buffer is proposed. The Major Amendment
the site.
proposes to meet the standards by applying the
performance standards at Section 3.4.1(E) and
incorporates various elements into the design,
including no fencing, incorporating native plantings
and screening, payment of a fee -in lieu based on
conceptual landscape plan.
The staff report reviews applicability and evaluation of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code on pages 11 and
12. The Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) and ECS Checklist can be found as attachment 10 and 11 of
the staff report (attachment 7). The staff report discusses how the project will protect and enhance the site's
ecological value and protect the site from lighting spillover.
The Spring Creek buffer is discussed on pages 13 and 14 of the verbatim transcript. The planned stream
restoration is discussed on pages 22 and 23 of the hearing's verbatim transcript.
• (Councilmember Cunniff) Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(1)(1) "Projects... shall
be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat"? If so, what evidence was
used to support this finding?
The staff report reviews applicability and evaluation of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code on pages 11 and
12. The staff report discusses how the project will complement the visual context of the natural habitat through
a multi -structured vegetation screen (see page 12) through plantings of native vegetation "that includes 104
trees and shrubs and a native grass seed mix." The landscape plan and elevations show how a vertical trellis
planted with vines will provide vertical screening. The fee -in -lieu exhibit (Attachment 12 to the staff report)
illustrates how the landscaping on the City's property adjacent to the site complements the existing habitat and
screens the parking structure.
The evidence to support the statement in the staff report is presented in the Ecological Characterization Study
(ECS) (Attachment 10 to the staff report) and the ECS Checklist (Attachment 11 to the staff report). The ECS
evaluates the project for compliance with LUC Section 3,4.1(1)(1) on pages 2 and 3 and offers
recommendations for how to achieve compliance with this standard.
The visual context of the natural habitat was not discussed at the Administrative Hearing.
• (Councilmember Cunniff) "Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(I)(2) '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'? If so, what evidence supports this finding?"
Item # 24 Page 9
Agenda Item 24
when turning into or exiting the deck.
3.2.2(D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements -
Pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the
Vehicular uses shall be designed to be safe,
parking deck has been established along pre -
efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use
existing access routes at the northwest and
by all modes of transportation that will use the
northeast corners of facility. Neither access route
system. This includes. to the maximum extent
will require pedestrians or bicycles to cross in front
feasible, separation of pedestrians and vehicles
of vehicles turning into or exiting the parking deck.
through provision of a sidewalk or walkway
• (Jeffrey Leef) also alleges "the code requires that to the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians
shall be separated from vehicles."
• (Lester M. Kaplan) Bicycle parking "not intended for enclosed spaces & safety concern."
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer's Decision
(Attachment 6), bicycle parking is referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC
(Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction of
Standard
3.2.2(C)(3) Site Amenities - Development plans
The Applicant proposes additional bike racks on
shall include site amenities that enhance safety and
the ground floor of the proposed parking structure
convenience and promote walking or bicycling as
and has proposed adding additional bike racks
an alternative means of transportation. Site
around the existing buildings. The parking garage
amenities may include bike racks, drinking
project also includes a connecting walkway to
fountains, canopies and benches as described in
access the adjacent city park (to the south) and two
the Fort Collins Bicycle Program Plan and
pedestrian bench seating areas.
Pedestrian Plan as adopted by the city.
The staff report addresses the bicycle parking request for alternative compliance on page 11, and the
applicant's request is attachment 8 of the staff report (attachment 7).
Staff addressed the bicycle parking request for alternative compliance at the hearing on page 23, line 19
through line 34 of the Verbatim Transcript.
The Applicant addressed the bicycle parking request for alternative compliance on page 44, line 3 through 23
of the Verbatim Transcript.
• (Jeffrey Leef) "The maximum height of the proposed structure together with the size of parked
vehicles on its roof would potentially, if not likely, exceed 40 feet."
The Hearing Officer's findings of fact regarding building height and view can be found on page 3 of the
Decision.
The staff report notes that, "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."
The fact that vehicles will be parked on the top of the parking structure was not discussed in the record.
Other questions for Council consideration.
• (Councilmember Cunniff) "Does the proposed design comply with LUC 3.4.1(E)(1)(e) `The project
shall be designed so that the character of the proposed development... shall minimize the
degradation of the ecological character or wildlife use of the affected natural habitats or features'?
If so, what evidence was used to support this finding?"
Item # 24 Page 8
Agenda Item 24
• (Jeffrey Leef) "The Hearing Officer received and considered evidence from the applicant which
tended misleading to downplay the serious problem with traffic."
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer's Decision
(Attachment 6), compatibility in terms of building size and massing are referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC
(Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction of
Standard
3.2.2(C)(8) Transportation Impact Study Required
As part of the Major Amendment application, a
transportation impact study was required, including
revised total traffic project impact numbers.
(12116113 ELB Engineering, LLC Traffic Impact
Study Addendum (Parking Structure Addition) and
1/28/14 Supplemental Memorandum). The capacity
analysis indicates the intersection of College and
Stuart will operate at acceptable levels through
2028. No additional residential units are being
proposed, so the amount of traffic that is currently
exists is projected to remain constant. The
transportation impact indicates that, due to its
location and proximity to the MAX bus rapid transit
system, the proposed parking garage may be used
for predominantly storage parking.
3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service - Project must
A Traffic Engineering Study was submitted and
provide adequate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
accepted by the City's Traffic Operations
facilities necessary to maintain the City's adopted
Department. City Staff has concluded that the
Levels of Service standards.
project adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian
and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the
City's adopted standards pertaining to Levels of
Service. The Hearing Officer agrees that this
standard has been satisfied.
Attachment 13 of the staff report (Attachment 7) is the Transportation Impact Study Memorandum that was
accepted by the City's Traffic Engineering Staff.
Discussion of traffic conditions at the intersection of College Avenue and Stuart Street by Ward Stanford, City
Traffic Engineer can be found at page 53, line 10 through line 12 of the Verbatim Transcript.
Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code?
• (Lester M. Kaplan) "There is nothing in the Code nor is there any rationale to allow the public
safety requirements for separation between pedestrians and vehicles to be ignored in this parking
structure."
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer's Decision
(Attachment 6), separation between pedestrians and vehicles is referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC
(Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction of
Standard
3.2.2(C)(5) Walkways - Directness and Continuity
Pedestrian access to and from the proposed
and emphasis of pedestrian access and safety in
parking garage has been established utilizing
crossing of drive aisles or internal roadways.
existing sidewalk routes at the northwest and
northeast corners of the parking deck that will not
require pedestrians to cross in front of vehicles
Item # 24 Page 7
Agenda Item 24
However, the Hearing Officer and the Applicant had a brief discussion regarding the reason for the number of
parking spaces proposed on page 13 of the verbatim transcript of the hearing.
• (Jeffrey Leef) "The existing project is incompatible with the surrounding area in terms of enormous
massing, and the proposed parking structure will only materially exacerbate the project
incompatibility."
• "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." However, this
allegation was filed on the grounds "failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the code'
and is also contained in that section of this report.
• "The evidence showed that the proposed structure would significantly and obnoxiously add to the
unattractiveness of the already incompatibly massive development."
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer's Decision
(Attachment 6), compatibility in terms of building size and massing and elements of design are referenced as
follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC
(Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction of
Standard
3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale -
The proposed parking structure is compatible with
'Buildings shall either be similar in size and height,
surrounding development in terms of building size,
or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into
height, bulk, mass, and scale in that it is 3 % stories
massing that is proportional to the mass and scale
tall (37'-9" with one stair tower extending to 494).
of other structures. "
The building to the east (known as the Maytag
Building at 1801 S. College Street) 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.
3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility - Ensure
The Parking Structure is architecturally consistent
that characteristics of the proposed buildings and
with The Summit. It is intended to blend with The
uses are compatible when considered within the
Summit, both in color and materials. Architectural
context of the surrounding area. In areas where the
elements match the adjacent development and
existing architectural character is not definitively
stone clad pilasters and window elements have
established, or is not consistent with the purposes
been incorporated at ground level to establish
of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new
human scale and to encourage pedestrian activity.
development shall set an enhanced standard of
The ground level has a stone veneer with matching
quality for future projects or redevelopment in the
accent columns stretching the entire height of the
area.
building. Cementitious panel elements with
windows are protruding on corners and in several
locations along the fagade 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.
The staff report addresses compatibility in Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code on page 12 and 13.
Discussion at the hearing regarding compatibility can be found at page 9, line 26 through page 10, line 30, and
page 47, line 33 through page 48, line 8 of the Verbatim Transcript.
Item # 24 Page 6
Agenda Item 24
The images of the view from the property at 1801 S College, as presented by the applicant. can be found in
Attachment 9
• (Jeffrey Leef) also alleges "the applicant submitted a grossly inaccurate, obviously staged
photograph."
• (Lester M. Kaplan) The Hearing Officer considered evidence in the form of "a February 3, 2014
report from Desman Associates, presented incomplete and misleading information regarding the
performance level resulting from a reduction of the drive aisles from the City -required 20' to the
proposed 15' modification."
• "It is implausible that reducing the drive aisle from 20' to 15' promotes the general purpose of the
standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the standard." However, this
allegation was filed on the grounds "failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the code"
and is also contained in that section of this report.
The Hearing Officer's determination that the project proposal complies with the required findings for the
requested Modification of Standard are as follows:
"Request for Modification of Standard
19. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials submitted to the Hearing
Officer in this case, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Modification of Standard (for Section 3.2.2(L) of the
LUC) meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code. Specifically, the Hearing Officer finds
as follows:
a. The requested Modification of Standard (the "Modification') is not detrimental to the public good.
b. The Modification satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of the Code - the Plan as submitted will promote the general
purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which
complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. Section 3.2.2(L) establishes certain minimum
standards for long- and short-term parking of standard and compact vehicles. The applicant hired parking
consultants Desman Associates to analyze the proposed modification. The Desman Associates report
analyzed the requested modification and concluded that the drive aisle width could be reduced to 15' with no
detrimental effect on users of the proposed parking structure."
The Hearing Officer also found in his decision:
"A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in the drive aisle width (from 20' to 15) is
not detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the 20' width because the
Applicant has submitted sufficient probative evidence to demonstrate that the requested modification will not
have a detrimental effect on users of the proposed parking structure. The modification of standard, as
approved. shall be limited to the easternmost bay of each level of the parking garage. "
The February 3, 2014 report from Desman Associates can be found in attachment 9 of the staff report
(Attachment 7). Staff recommended approval of the Modification of Standard request on page 15 of the staff
report.
Discussion regarding the Modification of Standard can be found at page 17, line 5 through page 18, line 19,
and page 51, line 10 through 22 of the Verbatim Transcript.
• (Jeffrey Leef) The Hearing Officer received and considered information about "why" the Summit
needs more parking.
The Hearing Officer did not address this topic in the findings and decision
Item # 24 Page 5
Agenda Item 24
that parking within the garage shall be available only to the Authorized Users, as that term is defined in this
condition (E)(11). The Applicant shall also record a covenant against Lot 1, Choice Center Subdivision which
shall set forth that all 440 parking spaces within the parking garage shall be reserved for the exclusive use of
the Authorized Users for so long as the parking garage remains operational and that no other individuals or
parties shall be authorized to park within the parking structure (the "Covenant'). The Covenant shall run with
the land and bind the Owner's successor(s) or assign(s). The Covenant shall also set forth that no portion of
the parking garage may be rented or leased (whether on an hourly, daily, monthly, annual or other basis) to
any person or entity other than the Authorized Users." (Additional information on the "Covenant" is contained in
the Decision on page 8.)
And, the hearing discussion regarding this topic can be found in the Verbatim Transcript at page 8, line 20
through line 24, and page 21, line 32 through page 22, line 6.
• (Jeffrey Leef) "The Hearing Officer received no evidence to support the applicant's mere
assumption that the parking spaces with drive aisles reduced ... be limited to 'long term' parking."
Provided as Attachment 2: Article 3 General Development Standards to the Hearing Officer's Decision
(Attachment 6), long-term parking stalls are referenced as follows:
Section reference - Article 3 of LUC
(Hearing Officer) Description of Satisfaction of
Standard
3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions - Off-street
The Parking Structure proposed parking angle for
parking areas for automobiles must meet minimum
the east bay of parking is 60 degrees, with stall
standards for long- and short-term parking of
widths of 8.5', stall lengths of 18' and one-way drive
standard and compact vehicles. (3) Long -Term
aisles on all levels. The proposed angle for the
Parking Stalls. As an option in long-term parking
west two bays of parking will be 90 degrees, with
areas, all long-term parking stalls may be
stall widths of 8.5, stall lengths of 18' and two-way
designated using the following stall dimensions:
24' wide drive aisles on all levels. The request for
Parking Angle 60, Stall Width, 8.5, Stall Length 18'
Modification of Standards detailed below is to
Parking Angle 90, Stall Width, 8.5, Stall Length 18'
decrease the drive aisle for the east angled one-
way parking bay to 15'. 438 stalls are proposed at
this size. Two stalls are proposed to be compact at
8' x 16', which is consistent with the size allowed at
Section 3.3.2(L)(2) for up to 40% of the Parking
Structure.
The Applicant spoke to the topic of "long-term" parking on page 19, line 38 through page 20, line 4 of the
Verbatim Transcript.
Additional discussion regarding the topic of "long-term" parking can be found in the Verbatim Transcript at
page 17, Line 13 through 15 and line 35 through page 18, line 2, and page 41, line 16 through 29.
• (Lester M. Kaplan) also alleges "the applicant presents no analytical support for this assertion"
that "100 percent of the parking ... will be used as 'long term' rather than normal parking."
However, this allegation was filed on the grounds "failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the code".
• (Lester M. Kaplan) The Hearing Officer considered evidence in the form of "grossly distorted and
inaccurate slides of the impacts" of the proposed structure on "the existing views to the west from
the property at 1801 S. College Avenue".
The Hearing Officer noted in Attachment 1: Evidence accepted by Heating Officer of the Hearing Officer's
Decision (attachment 6), as part of the record of this proceeding in Section C that he accepted into the record
the images referenced by the Appellants.
Item # 24 Page 4
Agenda Item 24
• (Lester M. Kaplan) The Hearing officer intruded "into Jurisdiction of Urban Renewal Authority."
The Hearing Officer did not reference the Urban Renewal Authority in his findings or decision.
The applicant's comments regarding the topic can be found on page 19, line 4 through line 23 of the Verbatim
Transcript.
(Jeffrey Leef) "The Hearing Officer exceeded its authority or jurisdiction by not considering the size of
vehicles to be parked on the roof of the proposed structure and not appropriately protecting the views
of neighbors."
The Hearing Officer's findings of fact regarding building height and view are as follows:
'9. Public testimony at the hearing was focused on five main issues: ... (3) preservation of the existing
mountain view to the west enjoyed by the owners, lessees and patrons of the 1801 Building (1801 S. College
Avenue), (4) public safety: and (5) project design and compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The
Hearing Officer concludes that the special height review process outlined in Section 3.5.1(G)(1) of the LUC is
not applicable to the proposed Major Amendment, as the height of the proposed parking structure does not
exceed forty (40) feet."
The staff report notes that, "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."
There is no additional information in the record regarding vehicles parked on the top of the parking structure.
• (Jeffrey Leef) also alleges "the maximum height of the proposed structure together with the size of
parked vehicles on its roof would potentially, if not likely, exceed 40 feet."
• (Jeffrey Leef) "The Hearing Officer improperly assumed and opined that college students who are
residents of the Summit would drive smaller cars."
This allegation was not addressed in the record of the hearing.
• (Jeffrey Leef) "The Hearing Officer exceeded its authority orjurisdiction by requiring the applicant
to record a covenant against Lot 1."
The Hearing Officer's condition of approval, referenced by the Appellant, is as follows:
"(11) That all 440 spaces within the proposed parking garage be reserved and dedicated for use by the student
residents of The Summit, or their guests, or by the retail tenants/customers of the retail located within Lot 1
(collectively, the "Authorized Users'). The Applicant is seeking approval of the parking garage as an accessory
use.
Section 5.1.2 of the LUC defines Accessory use as "a use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily
used with. and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal use of the land or building and ordinarily
located on the same lot with such principal use" (emphasis added). Section 3.8.1 of the LUC identifies off-
street parking areas as a permitted accessory use when the facts, circumstances and context of such use is
reasonably indicated. The principal use of Lot 1 is a mixed -use project consisting primarily of multi -family
residential.
In order for the proposed parking garage to be clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of Lot 1,
the parking garage shall be reserved and dedicated for use by the Authorized Users only. The Hearing Officer
specifically finds that this condition will ensure that the parking garage is, and remains, an accessory use. The
Applicant shall add a note to the FDP which clarifies that the parking garage is an accessory structure.. and
Item # 24 Page 3
Agenda Item 24
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
Did the Hearing Officer fail to conduct a fair hearing?
• (Lester M. Kaplan) Process should be Type 2 not Type 1 because a condition was imposed that
limits use to Summit tenants only.
• "The Hearing Officer has determined that the parking garage must qualify as an Accessory Use as
defined in the Code in order for the application not to require a Type 2 review. However, the
Hearing Officer's attempt to adjust the application by conditioning approval upon restricted user to
`Authorized Users' is contrive and fails to satisfy his motive."
The Hearing Officer's findings of fact and decision regarding the hearing type are as follows
"4. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the Choice Center Mixed -Use
Redevelopment Project Development Plan, Case Number PDP #15-08 (the "PDP') was processed as a Type
1 Administrative Hearing in accordance with the development review process set forth in Division 4.21 of the
LUC at the time of the PDP submittal. The PDP was approved, with conditions, by a hearing officer on or about
November 3, 2008.
5. Subsequent to approval of the PDP, Division 4.21 of the LUC was amended. If a project development plan
similar to the PDP had been filed with the City following the effective date of the amendment, a Type 2 review
process would have been required. That is, if a proposal for a residential project containing more than fifty (50)
dwelling units, or more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms, were filed with the City today, a Type 2 review (review
by the Planning and Zoning Board) would be required. However, the Type 2 review process is not applicable to
this proposed Major Amendment.
6. Section 2.2.10(B)(1) of the LUC sets forth in relevant part that "[m]ajor amendments to development plans. .
. approved under [the LUC] shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original
development plan for which amendment is sought." Because the PDP was reviewed as a Type 1 review in
2008, the Hearing Officer finds that the Type 1 review process is the correct and appropriate review process
for the major amendment application that has been submitted by the Applicant.
13. Section 4.21(B) of the LUC sets forth the permitted uses in the C-G District. The Hearing Officer finds that
the proposed parking structure is an accessory use to The Summit. Section 5.1.2 of the LUC defines
"accessory use" as a use of land ... customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the
principal use of the land ... and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal use." In addition, Section
3.8.1 of the LUC identifies "off street parking areas" as an appropriate accessory use, provided that the facts,
circumstances, and context of such proposed accessory use is reasonable."
The condition of approval referenced by the Appellant can be found in the Decision on page 8. The Hearing
Officer writes, "In order for the proposed parking garage to be clearly incidental and subordinate to the
principal use of Lot 1, the parking garage shall be reserved and dedicated for use by the Authorized Users
only. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that this condition will ensure that the parking garage is, and
remains, an accessory use."
Staff also presented the reason the project is being processed via an Administrative Hearing (Type 1) instead
of by the Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2) on page 21, line 32 through page 22, line 6 of Verbatim
Transcript.
• (Jeffrey Leef) Also alleges that, process should be Type 2, not Type 1. However, this allegation was
filed on the grounds "failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the code".
• "The proposed structure is not an accessory use."
Item # 24 Page 2
Agenda Item 24
STAFF
Seth Lorson, City Planner
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Mgr
SUBJECT
Consideration of Three Appeals of the Administrative Hearing Officer's March 19, 2014 Decision to Approve
the Summit on College Parking Structure, Major Amendment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 29, 2014, three separate parties filed a Notice of Appeal; the grounds for appeal are as follows:
Appellant Lester M. Kaplan and Appellant Jeffrey Leef:
• Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, the Land Use Code
and Charter.
• 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;
c The board, commission or other decision maker considered evidence relevant to its
findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
Appellant Councilmember Cunniff:
• Other.
Council directed staff to prepare a matrix of allegations of appeal illustrating the grounds for appeal from each
Appellant and the allegations similarities.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On March 5, 2014, an Administrative Hearing Officer considered the application for the Summit on College
Parking Structure, Major Amendment. The Hearing Officer issued a decision to approve the Major Amendment
with conditions. The application consisted of a request to construct a parking structure consisting of 440
parking spaces. The proposed structure will be built over an existing surface parking lot, resulting in a net gain
of 352 spaces. The parking structure consists of 4 levels, including parking on the roof, for an overall height of
3'/2 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 track and the 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. On April 29, 2014, three Notices of Appeal to the Hearing Officer's decision to approve
were filed on the grounds that the Hearing Officer failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly
interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code.
Item # 24 Page 1