Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPVH MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING & PARKING STRUCTURE - PDP - 14-07 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - (3)F I Bill Van Eron Party -In -Interest 71 Ross Heikes Party -In -Interest and John B. Knezovich Party -In -Interest Jean Yule Party -In -Interest John Yule Party -In -Interest Jody Eidsness Party -In -Interest Gail McKenzie, Party -in -interest obvious implications to our neighborhood but, moreover, the rest of Fort Collins. 2. The hospital, as valuable as it is to us, has acted like the big corporation it purports not to be. It is working the flaws of the system to financially gain at the expense of, not only University Acres but, ultimately, the entire citizenry of Fort Collins. The City will imminently have to deal with a constricted, constricted arterial, which is Lemay. 3. The real and calculable effect on Lemay from this and an imminent PVH master plan has not been accurately represented. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen, all at the expense of Fort Collins taxpayers. There is no practical plan to mitigate the damages that will accelerate Lemay to an F rating many years before current "normal" predictions illustrate, that have not factored in the PVHS master plan. The overall master planning of the entire hospital should be first addressed before any approval for a parking structure and the office building. The hospital clearly needs to grow to the north and east to gain access to Riverside, a presently underutilized arterial street. 4. Our primary concern is to encourage the hospital to better explore other options as intimated by David Lingle and Brigitte Schmidt. It would be nearly impossible to mitigate the damages to University Acres if this project is allowed through. It is a poor zoning application because there is no real buffer, and increased traffic poses a real danger to the 2000 school aged children that walk back and forth twice a day during peak hospital shift change hours. This issue has accelerated beyond PVH alone stating their'needs' as justification for this project. No one denies the need for more staff parking. We do deny the need for it to be on the west side of Lemay. A true solution has to involve the city, our neighborhood and PVH in a more accountable environment to work through the issues and reach a solution that is satisfactory to the neighborhood, PVH, and the city. Parties -in -interest Parties -in -interest include University Acres residents and the following team of representatives: John Knezovich. 1205Green Street, Ft Collins, CO 80524 970-493-8145, who is authorized to receive, on behalf of all appellants, any notice required to be mailed by the City to the appellants under the provisions of Section 2-50. Dr. Jenny Hand and Ross Heikes. 900 Garfield Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970- 490-1899 John and Jean Yule, 1109 Williams Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970 482-5486 Jody Eidsness, 1108 Morgan Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970 482-1022 Bill Van Eron , 712 Garfield Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970 493-7749 ] Gail McKenzie 1116 Green Street, Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-482-8053 Thank You, - 1 Dr. Jenny Hand Party -In- Interest disingenuous. They referred to an agreement with an impacted owner and no such agreement had been reached — disingenuous. The applicant won a favorable ruling because this overly massive structure only reached a height of 38 feet at its lowest point. So not only does the mass of the property in fact adversely impact the residential character of the neighborhood; but an averaging of the height prevents a shadow study. 7. The parking garage was designed with narrower and shorter parking stalls because it was meant for long-term hospital employee parking. At the presentation, the hospital announced that garage parking will be allowed for doctors making hospital visits and all staff occupying MOB. The neighborhood believes this type of parking is short-term and believes the parking garage should be denied on this basis. 8. The application for the MOB proposed by PVH is further disingenuous. The MOB is intended to be sold to the Women's Clinic. (See statement by James Martell, attorney for-PVH, inthe DVD of the Planning,& Zoning Board meeting. "...Women's Clinic will eventually own that building..."). Were the Women's Clinic apply for approval for this structure, it would be denied. Does this not represent a conflict of interest? Further, the property is too small for such a large structure. It has room for only 1/2 the necessary parking. The lot, as zoned, can handle only two stories. 9. Zoning exists to protect property values. Allowing for proper transition between zones is the responsibility of the planning department. The City Planning and Zoning Board exists to protect the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods while encouraging and supporting business growth beneficial to the community. Criticized for losing economic development projects to surrounding areas, this board and City Council appear fearful of losing the hospital. Hospital Board members have made this threat. The neighborhood believes the threat to be empty and believes the esteemed Banner Health or another healthcare corporation would gladly fill any void the hospital would leave. The review of the property appears to be greatly compromised by undue pressure from PVH and the disingenuous information provided by them. 10. We seek reasonable solutions and to mitigate the damage caused by a disregard for the rights of our community as represented by PVHS and reviewing boards and city staff. The spirit guiding our appeal 1. The impacted community was never notified in a manner consistent with evoking a response on the matter of rezoning NCL (NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION LOW DENSITY) to E (Employment) nor were we ever made aware of the risks involved with a loosely worded zoning "guideline". The 'E' zoning on the west side of Lemay is an anomaly and does not exist further north or south on the west side of Lemay between Riverside and just north of Drake at Woodward Governor, yet it DOES exist along the length of Riverside. In practice, this property is not adjoining and does not work. Lemay is the obvious and natural transition between 'E' towards NCL and thence RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). The P&Z Board Members have been entrusted with protecting the intent of the zoning. In this instance, they have failed having been misled with erroneous and leading information. They have been threatened by Hospital Board members and pressured and mislead by attorneys hired by PVH to push the intensity beyond intent or practical application. This has 2bB A substantial amount of material was presented to the Planning and Zoning office on the afternoon prior to the meeting. The fifteen minute break taken by the Board was insufficient to review the letters and photographs submitted by the neighborhood. Additional Details: 1. It is the neighborhood's position that the need for skywalks is, by definition, an admission of the fact that the traffic generated by these huge structures would become immediately unbearable. There is no need downtown or anywhere else in the city that requires the use of skywalks. 2. The Board's chairperson — David Lingle - stressed that other options should have been explored. The Board's decision was based upon the deficient and misleading information placed before them by a highly experienced. political machine.- the . hospital. Brigitte Schmidt expressed serious reservation along with others of the Board. 3. The hospital said its master plan extends to 2013 but repeatedly presented testimony to contradict that. The intent is for the site to be greatly developed. As long as it's developed in a way which addresses the natural divisions and allows for proper transitioning, it will be the continuation of a wonderful relationship between the hospital and the citizens of Fort Collins. Other alternatives aside from the'E' anomaly need to be considered. The natural, logical placement for the parking garage is on the east side of Lemay where the hospital buildings exist. Riverside, underutilized as it is, is the proper highway for additional traffic flows. This garage properly belongs to the east or north of the existing hospital properties. That would open the traffic flow onto Riverside, Prospect, Mulberry and 1-25. A responsible and cumulative impact review of the traffic should have led to City insistence that PVH look hard at Riverside rather than set up an expedited F rating at all intersections on Lemay at taxpayer expense. It is already bad enough. 4. This project, a 4-story, 737 space garage and 60,000 square foot MOB with some hundred plus more spaces yields more traffic and proposes no traffic movement solutions. Common sense dictates this conclusion - there will be more traffic on Lemay and west of Lemay. Lemay Avenue is a CONSTRAINED arterial. The possibility of six -lanes on Lemay, as a likely solution, is not possible. 5. The parking garage provides no additional property taxes to finance any improvements. The applicant is PVH to build the MOB. As such, any properties owned by PVH such as the MOB may not be obligated to pay property taxes. The applicant proposes significantly greater intensities on Lemay and proposes no solutions in its application. In the back of the Traffic report, Lemay scores an F at the intersections, looking out to the future. We see the approval of this application as escalating the time to F much faster. 6. Shading. Both the MOB and the garage produce adverse shading. As originally submitted the projects' height was so great that shading studies were required. Some portions of the parking garage are at 46 feet. The applicant worked with staff so that the interpretation became that only an average height be used which required no shading study. This seems to be one of the many points where PVH was designations between the'E' of the hospital to the'RL' of the neighborhood. 1 C. Has the city given the right of way to PVH to construct sky walks over Lemay and Garfield? What laws regulate these structures? Can a sky walk over public space be limited to private use only? By definition, the need for skywalks proves this project is wrong for the west side of the street (Lemay). 2. The board failed to hold a fair hearing by: a. Considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence 2aA. The applicant is PVH. Yet the 60,000 square feet Medical Office Building is to be sold to the Women's Clinic. The Women's Clinic intends to occupy 20,000 square feet. The hospital administration intends to occupy 10,000 square feet. The- remaining -30,000'squa-re"feet is un'spbken for but might be leased for more office space for physicians, as was presented by PVH. The hospital presented the plan to the city and P&Z as the creation of new areas for the hospital. The hospital says it "needs" this monstrosity. Apparently this is not true. Traffic on Lemay, especially Lemay at Prospect; Lemay at Elizabeth and Lemay at Riverside is already overburdened. The hospital wants to bring employees that are not part of the hospital into this area. The unspoken for 30,000 additional square feet of the MOB will have an even greater impact. Traffic is so limiting that PVH should not be bringing unrelated employees into this area. At the MOB site there is only enough parking for the spoken for 30,000 square feet. 2aB. The Traffic Study is seriously flawed. It dwells on the existing hospital employee base and assumes the projects will not add to the numbers. The 50,000 square feet MOB adds both employees and, for each doctor, there will be many client visits per day which were not factored in. One of the studies was done during a CSU student break. None of the studies focused on the 'real' peak time as it pertains to hospital shift changes and school hours. The hospital report elided over the fact that all MOB traffic would flow to and from Garfield. 2aC. The applicant in their presentation sited Section (A) as an example of compliance with Code. The Board was improperly advised by not fully reading this Section. 2aD. The Code provides foi 4.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of construction. Because the MOB will have a constant patient impact, this Code provision should be strictly enforced as inadequate on -site parking will adversely impact the neighborhood. b. Improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered 1 bA. Doctors Lane/Lemay entrance. The change on Robertson came so late in the discussions that the severe impact on Doctors Lane and Lemay never received proper discussion. At least two lanes of entrance are required to accommodate the 737 parking spaces, right or south on Lemay and left or north. The adverse turning patterns impacting traffic from Lemay never received proper consideration. The signals and format at Doctors Lane and Lemay were not discussed. The impact of two, separate exit lanes of one north and one south never received proper consideration as to how they would interact with the city's existing traffic system. a. Considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence b. Improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered Explanations: 1. Relevant laws were not property interpreted and applied Approval was based on the nature of the applicant (on behalf of Poudre Valley Hospital) and not on the merits of the project. If any other business made the same application, it would be denied. This proposal must stand on its own and must fit land use codes. 1A. This project violates Code as follows: The Fort Collins Land Use Code, Division 4.27 Employment District, Section (A) purpose states that "...the Employment District.is intended ... to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods." This proposed project with its quantified traffic problems violates this provision and its lack of tax base impacts the vitality and quality of life in the greater Fort Collins community. The P&Z Board, entrusted to enforce the intent of the law, was given misleading information that resulted in yielding to the letter of the law. The interpretation of Land Use Code and Zoning guidelines was loose and prejudiced by misleading information and false impressions. Site visits and drawings provided by PVH looked from points advantageous to the hospital, not from the backyard of a single -story home in the adjacent neighborhood which is designated Low Density Residential. The lack of transition was glossed over. The removal of the buffer creates a stark contrast from 4-story business to 1- story residential. The overall schematic of trees that are currently there and would be removed was largely ignored. The anticipated approval by City Staff was flawed and led to incorrect decision making by the P8Z Board. Further, the same code division, Section (E) states "... where an employment ... use abuts a residential area, there shall be no drastic and abrupt changes in scale and height of buildings." The height of the parking structure holding 737 cars is drastic compared to the garages of single story homes in the neighborhood. The mass and volume do not properly scale with the adjoining residences. For instance, the 60,000 square feet of the planned medical office building could contain thirty (30) of our homes. Its height is greater than 60 feet and it will be less than 100 feet from the one story residences on Robertson. Its parking lot will directly abut these single -story, ranch, fifteen hundred (1,500) square foot residences. These drastic and abrupt changes in height and mass are not compatible with the Land Use Code, which requires a graduated buffer. This project would be the only place in Fort Collins where a 4-stury commercial building is juxtaposed against 1-story homes. 1 B. Spot Zoning 'E' zoning on the west side of Lemay Avenue is an anomaly. It does not exist north of this little bump until Riverside. It does not exist south on Lemay until just north of Drake at Woodward Governor. Common sense would dictate that Lemay Avenue is the natural divider between the 21 zoning City of Fort Collins City Hall West 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 City Clerk Attention: Wanda Krajicek NOTICE OF Amended APPEAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: Amended Appeal Deadline: PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2007 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 20, 2007 October 24, 2007 Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, #14-07 Poudre Valley Hospital . The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project" or the "PDP") requesting approval to build a 4 story, 737 space, parking structure and a 4 story, 60,000 square foot, Medical Office Building, west of the hospital across Lemay on property up -zoned from light commercial to ' 'E. Robertson Street defines the West boundary and Garfield Street splits the two properties. Both streets are in a neighborhood zoned R-L, low density residential. These two properties abut a low density residential area. There are 21 designations of zoning between 'R-L' and 'E'. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Conditional Approval GROUNDS FOR APPEAL — Allegations of error: 1. Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and/or applied 2. The board failed to hold a fair hearing by: City Clerk City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, November 6, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board made on September 20, 2007, regarding -the Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building,, PDP #14-07. You may have received previous - notice on this item in connection wifh�Fiea'nngs held by the Planning and Zoning Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (970-221-6515) or the Planning Department (970-221-6750). Any written materials that any party -in -interest may wish the City Council to consider in deciding the appeal shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 [Section 2-54 (b) of the City Code]. Section 2-56 of the City Code provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by October 30. Agenda materials provided to the City Council, including City staff s response to the Notice of Appeal, and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers and any party -in -interest, will be available to the public on Thursday, November 1, after 12:00 noon in the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website at: http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. 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 the City Clerk's Office at 970-221-6515 (TDD 970-224-6001) for assistance. `. Wanda M. Krajicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: October 26, 2007 cc: City Attorney _ ,pp `^n Planmhk4Depai-tinent� — (�e(,t ^�'iflvt Planning and Zoning Board Chair Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515_• FAX (970) 221-6295