Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPVH MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING & PARKING STRUCTURE - PDP - 14-07 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILPVH Parking Structure & Medical Office Building PDP— #14-07 September 20, 2007 P & Z Meeting Page 14 11. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The land uses, parking structure and medical office building, are allowed as a primary uses in the Employment zone district, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards of the Employment zone district of Article Four. C. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards of the General Development Standards of Article Three. D. The P.D.P. represents redevelopment and intensification in the Employment zone district that is bordered by the Low Density Residential zone district. The parking garage is separated from the R-L zone by 200 feet while the M.O.B. abuts the R-L zone. The standards relating to development on the edge of the Employment zone district and neighborhood compatibility — Site Design 4.27(E)(1)(b); Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass Scale 3.5.1(C); Privacy 3.5.1(D,G) and Land Use Transition 3.5.1(H) have been evaluated and the project is found to be in compliance. E. Two neighborhood information meetings have been held. Please see the summaries of these two meetings attached. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, #14-07. PVH Parking Structure & Medical Office Building PDP—#14-07 September 20, 2007 P & Z Meeting Page 13 The Lemay skywalk is enclosed but the Garfield bridge is open-air. The metal panels and railings will match the garage. A grid pattern of metal panels and railings are designed to match the garage and office building. The three-story height is designed to allow clear sight distance for traffic signals below. The two buildings comply with the Character and Image standards. 9. Section 3.6.4 — Transportation Level of Service Requirements: The Transportation Impact Study has been reviewed and evaluated by the Traffic Operations and Transportation Planning Departments. The P.D.P. adequately provides vehicular and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. In the short range future (2009), and the mid -range future (2013), the key intersections will operate acceptably. In the long range future (2030), however, given development of the expansion of hospital campus, and in increase in background traffic, some key intersections will experience delays that are commensurate with Level of Service F along Lemay Avenue. The Lemay Avenue corridor is defined as a "constrained corridor." 10. Traffic on Garfield Street: The two neighborhood meetings revealed a deep concern regarding additional traffic and speeding on Garfield Street between the proposed parking garage and the Stover Street. There is a concern that hospital staff will use local streets within University Acres to gain access to Prospect Road and points west. The City's Traffic Operations Department has agreed to perform a before -and -after analysis on Garfield Street. Counters have placed along Garfield to establish a baseline condition. After the opening of the garage, counters will again be set to establish any changes in the baseline. The data will reveal the next course of action. If warranted, the neighborhood may participate in the City's traffic calming program. In addition, Poudre Valley Hospital has agreed to finance the purchase of two electronic speed indicators to be placed on Garfield at the time of garage opening. According to Traffic Operations, these electronic read-out devices provide more effective traffic calming than speed tables and neck -downs. This obligation will be noted in the Development Agreement. PVH Parking Structure & Medical Office Building POP— #14-07 September 20, 2007 P & Z Meeting Page 11 The applicant has provided perspective views looking north and east from the neighborhood to the M.O.B. This view indicates that the height of 56 feet is relatively mitigated by a combination of distance and existing and proposed landscaping. 6. Land Use Transition — Section 3.5.1(H): This standard states: "When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through compliance with the standards set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors and adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise -generating activities and similar restrictions." For reference, the Code defines compatibility as follows: 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. As can be seen by the standard and definition, this P.D.P. is challenged to comply with a rigorous requirement to be of as high quality as possible. Through a combination of distance, landscaping, quality exterior materials and architectural detail, the P.D.P. achieves a sufficient level of quality to meet the Land Use Transition standard. The distance between the nearest houses in University Acres to the southwest comer of the parking structure is 200 feet. It is at this particular corner where the landscaping is the heaviest with cluster of 10 evergreen trees. In addition, street trees will be planted along both Garfield and Robertson Streets. Finally, the use of brick and (other quality materials) contribute to mitigating the height, length, bulk and scale of the structure. Staff finds that the proposed parking structure, at four stories (ranging in height from 39 to 46.5 feet), and the M.O.B. (56 feet) achieve compatibility with University Acres PVH Parking Structure & Medical Office Building PDP—#14-07 September 20, 2007 P & Z Meeting Page 9 In fulfillment of the review criteria for the Medical Office Building which exceeds 40 feet in height, a shadow and visual analysis has been provided. The Board is reminded that these proposed heights are allowed in the Employment zone district and a Modification is not necessary. Rather, this standard calls for an analysis based on four specific criteria. For the Medical Office Building (M.O.B.), Staff has evaluated the criteria for a special review of buildings in excess of 40 feet in height: Views. Taller buildings shall not substantially alter the opportunity for and quality of desirable views from public places, streets, and parks within the area. The M.O.B. is located north of the existing homes which back onto the south property line. There is no park in the vicinity and at no point do these buildings block a view to the west. Staff concludes, therefore, that the two proposed buildings will not substantially alter the opportunity for desirable views. 2. Light and Shadow. This standard states: "Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure's shape." The M.O.B. will cast shadows in the morning and afternoon on December 21 s�, the shortest day of the year. At 3:00 p.m., the shadow will be cast onto the parking structure and adjacent public streets. At 9:00 a.m, however, shadow will be cast onto the parking lot of the I i :�FEIF PVH Parking Structure & Medical Office Building PDP— #14-07 September 20, 2007 P & Z Meeting Page 7 pilasters which run from grade to above the upper level parapet wall. This alternating pattern is symmetrical and contributes to visual interest at the pedestrian scale. • The horizontal band that defines the second level is colored to match the brick veneer. To create contrast, the next two upper bands that define the third and fourth levels are colored in a darker tone. The vertical pilasters project from the primary wall by a sufficient depth to create shadowlines. True shadowlines are created by the metal security screens on the ground level and the garage openings on the second and third levels. • The pilasters are topped with a band of soldier course brick and a pre- cast capstone for emphasis. • At the ground level of the two stair towers, there are entry overhangs for identification and weather protection. These are rounded forms, which enhances the contrast with the bulk of the building. The entry features are designed to be functional and yet add visual interest at the street level. Along the three ground floor elevations that face public streets, there are decorative ornamental lighting fixtures that complement the metal security screening and the painted steel guardrails. Staff finds that the parking garage, while larger than the surrounding buildings to the north and west, is articulated and subdivided into massing that is roughly proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same block face and opposing block face. C. Section 3.5.1(D) — Privacy Considerations The parking structure is 200 feet to the nearest single family residence as measured from property comer to property corner. The M.O.B. is 130 feet from the nearest single family residence. The parking structure is far enough distant from University Acres as to not infringe upon the privacy of the residents. For the M.O.B., however, the standard calls for preserving the privacy of the three abutting lots directly south of the building. In order to provide a more effective landscape screen for Lots 297, 298 and 299 of University Acres Ninth Subdivision, the landscaping along the south property line of the M.O.B. is enhanced to include a concentration of evergreen and deciduous PVH Parking Structure & Medical Office Building PDP— #14-07 September 20, 2007 P & Z Meeting Page 5 G. Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(4) — Parking Lots — Maximum Number of Spaces If the medical office building was not part of a campus, it would be assigned a maximum allowable parking at a ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet for a total of 270 spaces. The surface parking lot includes only 129 spaces. As part of the PVH campus, however, the physicians, hospital administrators, medical technologist and staff of the office building would be allowed to park in the garage thus freeing up the surface lot for patients, families and visitors. The parking garage is designed to serve the staff of the PVH campus in accordance with their facility master plan for a ten-year timeframe. Based on this P.D.P., and other future expansions planned for this ten-year period, there is a projected parking demand ranging from 1,913 to 2,253. This estimate is based on two methods one using the amount of building square footage and one using the number of personnel. The PVH campus currently features 1,532 parking spaces. (300 of these spaces will be lost due to proposed construction.) With the remaining existing parking (1,232), the proposed garage (737) and the surface parking for the medical office building (129), there would be a new total of 2,098 parking spaces. This new total is approximately the midpoint in the range of projected parking demand. Staff finds this approach to estimating parking demand to be appropriate for a medical campus that includes a variety of uses. Since the campus includes a medical office building, in -patient beds, emergency room, medical staff, support staff, administration, and support functions such as laundry and food services, there is no one ratio that can logically be assigned to a general land use category such as "hospital." The methodology used to project parking demand appears reasonable and based on accepted practice. H. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting For the parking structure, the top-level surface will feature poles no higher than 15 feet and located in the center approximately 60 away from the edge. These fixtures will be full -cutoff to minimize glare. For all levels, there will be parapet walls of sufficient height to block headlights. For the office building, parking lot and building -mounted lighting will feature down - directional and full cut-off fixtures. Fixtures near the south property line will feature back -side shields. There are no foot-candles that exceed the maximum allowable. 4. Buildina and Proiect Compatibility— Section 3.5.9(B-F): The purpose of the following standards PVH Parking Structure & Medical Office Building PDP— #14-07 September 20, 2007 P & Z Meeting Page 3 2. Employment Zone District Land Use and Standards: A. Section 4.27(D)(4)(a) — Dimensional Standards — Maximum Height The maximum allowable height for non-residential structures is four stories. Both the parking structure and M.O.B. are four stories in height and, therefore, do not exceed the maximum allowable height. B. Section 4.27(D)(4)(b) — Dimensional Standards — Size This standard requires that any new structure greater than 50,000 square feet must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. The P.D.P_ complies with this standard. C. Section 4.27(E)(1)(b) — Development Standards — Site Design This standard states that where an employment use abuts a residential area, there shall be no drastic and abrupt change in the scale and height of buildings. This standard is essentially the same as Section 3.5.1(A-F). Please seethe discussion regarding compliance with these standards in the following subsection. 3. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) — Landscaping and Tree Protection Both the garage and office building are landscaped with the proper quantity and quality of trees and shrubs. Street trees are provided along all public streets. Foundation shrubs surround all four sides of both structures. Of particular interest is the quantity of evergreen trees at the southwest corner of the parking structure densely planted in a cluster to help mitigate the height and mass of the structure as viewed from the adjacent neighborhood to the west — University Acres. B. Section 3.2.1(E)(4)(a) — Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The only applicable parking is associated with the office building as the garage is considered a structure. The nine foot wide landscape strip along the south perimeter exceeds the required minimum of five feet and will be combined with the existing six foot -high privacy fence. The area next to Lots 297, 298 and 299 of University Acres 9 Subdivision has been enhanced with additional trees in order to provide privacy. ITEM NO. 4 MEETTNGDATE 9120/07 STAFF Ted Shepard PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, #14-07 APPLICANT: Poudre Valley Hospital c/o B.H.A. Design 1603 Oak Ridge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Poudre Valley Hospital 1024 South Lemay Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a new parking structure and new medical office building. The new parking structure would be located at the northwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street and be reserved for staff use only. The new medical office building would be located at the southwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street. The parking structure would be four stories in height and contain 737 parking spaces. Access would be from both Lemay Avenue and Robertson Street. A pedestrian bridge, at the third floor, would span Garfield Street to provide safe access to the proposed medical office building. The medical office building would contain approximately 60,000 square feet, at four stories in height. A second pedestrian bridge, also at the third floor, would span Lemay Avenue to provide safe access to the hospital. Both properties are zoned E, Employment. 7* RECOMMENDATION: Approval j� ^ _( `7 C C N n I j l t. i.l S 3 r t / ,.Q/{%*=` I' y L) COMMUNITY PLANNINGAND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 500 Fort Collins, CO 80520-0580 (970) 2'1-6750 111. \NNINC DEPARTbIEN"'r 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 dearly 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, 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 fad 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, in the 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 its 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 square feet is unspoken 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 for 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 impact]np traffic from Lemay never received proper consideration. The signals and formal 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 P8Z 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 7 4 pool CITY CLERKS OFFRCE 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 property interpreted and/or applied 2. The board failed to hold a fair hearing by: ATTACHMENT 3 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL City Clerk City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the CityofFort 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 with hearings 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 staffs 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 Planning Department 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 ATTACHMENT 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING #14-07 PVH Parking Garage and N Medical Office Building PDP 10/31/07 1 inch: 300 feet ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION MAP November 6, 2007 -12- Item No. 18 6. Shadine Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. — Light and Shadow "Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure's shape." Section 3.8.17(C) — Exemptions From Building Height Regulations Exemptions From Building Height Regulations. The following structures and features shall be exempt from the height requirements of this Land Use Code: (1) chimneys, smokestacks or flues that cover no more than five (5) percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof; (2) cooling towers, ventilators and other similar equipment that cover no more than five (5) percent of the horizontal surface area of the roof; (3) elevator bulkheads and stairway enclosures; (4) fire towers; (5) utility poles and support structures; (6) belfries, spires and steeples; ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Notice of Appeal Hearing 3. Amended Notice of Appeal 4. Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Board, dated September 20, 2007 5. Summary of Neighborhood Meetings Held May 8, 2007 and July 11, 2007 6. Transportation Impact Study 7. Public Input 8. Verbatim Transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, September 20, 2007 November 6, 2007 -11- Item No. 18 5. Parkin Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) — Nonresidential Parking Requirements "Non residential uses will be limited to a maximum number of parking spaces as defined by the standards defined below." "The table below sets forth the number of allowed parking spaces based on the square footage of the gross leasable area and of the occupancy of specified uses. In the event that on -street or shared parking is not available on land adjacent to the use, then the maximum parking allowed may be increased by twenty (20) percent." "Medical Office — 4.5 spaces/1,000 square feet." Section 3.2.2(K)(3) —Alternative Compliance "Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative parking ratio (as measured by the number of parking spaces based on the applicable unit of measurement established in the table contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(2)(a) for nonresidential land uses or the number of parking spaces based on use for recreational and institutional land uses) that may be substituted in whole or in part for a ratio meeting the standards of this Section." Section 3.2.2(L)(3) — Long Term Parking Stalls "Long -Term Parking Stalls. As an option in long-term parking areas, if no compact car stalls are to be included, all long-term parking stalls may be designated using the following stall dimensions:" Parking Angle Stall Width Stall Length 0 8 21 30 8 19 45 8 19 60 8.5 1 18 90 8.5 1 18 Long-term parking shall mean parking which has limited turnover during a normal working weekday. Long-term parking includes employee -type parking or residential -type parking. Short-term parking shall mean customer parking which has regular turnover. Parking which is intended to serve a retail business and provide access to commercial activity is short-term parking. November 6, 2007 -10- Item No. 18 2. Neighborhood Compatibility Section 4.27(E)(1)(b): "Where an employment or industrial use abuts a residential area, there shall be antic and abrupt change in the scale and height of buildings " , ��`�. Section 3. S.1(H): , L "When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through compliance with the standards set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors and adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise -generating activities and similar restrictions." Section 5.1.2 — Definition: "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." Soot Zoning There is no Code citation related to this allegation. 4. Traffic Section 3.6.4(A)(B) — Transportation Level of Service Requirements: "In order to ensure that the transportation needs of a proposed development can be safely accommodated by the existing transportation system, or that appropriate mitigation of impacts will be provided by the development, the project shall demonstrate that all adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards will be achieved for all modes of transportation." "All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi -modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes oftravel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The Transit LOS standards contained in Part II of the Multi -modal Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section." November 6, 2007 -9- Item No. 18 In addition, the signal timing at the Lemay/Doctors Lane intersection is not impacted by the closure of the Robertson egress. Additional exits onto Lemay can be accommodated by the proposed left/through and right -turn lanes. As is the case today, medical staff operates on three shifts beginning at 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. whereas administrative staff operates on one shift from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This means that the traffic at the Lemay/Doctors intersection will be distributed over the course of 24-hours. Staff finds that with the regard to the discussion of the impacts on the Lemay/Doctors Lane intersection, particularly with the closure of the Robertson egress, the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing. Nor did the Board consider evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading. Shadin A shadow analysis is required for buildings over 40 feet in height. The medical office building is 56 feet in height. The shading on December 21 st at 3:00 p.m., will be cast a shadow onto the proposed parking structure and adjacent public streets. At 9:00 a.m., however, shadow will be cast onto a portion of the parking lot of the medical office building at 1053 Robertson Street at the northwest corner of Garfield and Robertson Streets. The Board found that the shadow cast onto 1053 Robertson Street will not be substantially adverse and is acceptable for an urban condition in the Employment zone district. While the stair and elevator towers of the parking structure exceed 40 feet, the top of the upper -most parapet wall does not. The building, therefore, is not considered to be in excess of 40 feet. This interpretation is not due an averaging of the height. Rather, the stair and elevator towers are specifically exempted from overall height by Supplemental Regulation 3.8.17 which addresses how to measure height. Staff, therefore, finds that the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing and that the Board did not consider evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading. LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS Employment Zone Purpose Statement Section 4.27(A): "The Employment District is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces including light industrial uses, research and development activities, offices and institutions. This District also is intended to accommodate secondary uses that complement or support the primary workplace uses, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and housing." "Additionally, the Employment District is intended to encourage the development ofplanned office and business parks; to promote excellence in the design and construction ofbuildings, outdoor spaces, transportation facilities and streetscapes; to direct the development of workplaces consistent with the availability of public facilities and services; and to continue the vitality and quality of life in adjacent residential neighborhoods." November 6, 2007 -8- Item No. 18 The Board specifically found that the averaging of two models was a valid approach to estimating parking demand for a medical campus that includes a variety of uses. Since the campus includes a medical office building, inpatient beds, emergency room, medical staff, support staff, administration, and support functions such as laundry and food services, there is no one ratio that can logically be assigned to a general land use category such as "hospital" or "medical office building." The Land Use Code provides a degree of flexibility for establishing an appropriate level of parking for non-residential land uses. While there are prescribed maximum parking ratios for 16 broad categories, applicants may avail themselves of the flexibility offered under Alternative Compliance or Exception to the General Office Standard. These provisions allow the Board to evaluate the unique characteristics that maypertain to an individual project and customize the parking that meets both public and private objectives. Staff finds, therefore, that the Board exercised reasonable judgment in evaluating the appropriate number or parking spaces for the mix of uses on the hospital campus, including the medical office building. The Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing. The Board did not consider evidence regarding parking that substantially false or grossly misleading. B. Parking Stall Dimensions Within the Garage With regard to the dimensions of the parking stalls inside the structure, these stalls are allowed by Section 3.2.2(L) to be downsized from 9 feet by 19 feet to 8.5 feet by 18 feet if such stalls are "Long Term." These are stalls that are designated for employees only and are not available to the public. The parking stalls in the garage will be 9 feet by 18 feet and available to staff only. Since the garage is not available to the general public, the stalls qualify as being long term in accordance with the definition. The Board was made aware of the distinction between short and longterm parking stalls. Accordingly, the Board added a condition of approval that the Final Plan specifically states that the garage is to be limited to staff only and not the general public. Staff finds, therefore, that the Board did hold a fair hearing and did not consider evidence regarding parking stall dimensions that was substantially false or grossly misleading. 6. Impact on Lemay�Doctors Intersection The Board conditioned its approval on the closure of the Robertson egress to the parking garage. During its deliberation, the Board acknowledged that such closure may have an impact on number of entrance and exit lanes and adequate stacking at the Doctors Lane access. In direct questioning, the Board asked the applicant's consultant about potential design adjustments that may have to be made to accommodate the Robertson closure. The applicant responded that design modifications would be looked at and considered upon submittal of the Final Compliance Plan. Staff finds that a condition of approval that causes a design change between Project Development and Final Compliance is not improper. In fact, it is one of the functions of the Board to critique design and operational aspects of a P.D.P. November 6, 2007 -7- 3. Snot Zonine Item No. 18 The area in question was not "spot zoned." Ever since the platting of University Acres First Filing, 1959, through the Ninth Filing, 1965, the eastern edge of the neighborhood terminated at a point roughly equivalent to today's western edge of the Employment zone. Historic zoning maps going back to the late 1950's confirm that there was a variety of non-residential zoning districts on the west side of Lemay between Elizabeth and Robertson. This pattern was affirmed in two citywide rezonings in 1965 and 1997. Although the Appellants do not cite a specific code section, staff finds that the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant laws or zoning maps. 4. Traffic It is a requirement that prior to submitting a Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.), that the magnitude and extent of the study be determined in consultation with the City's Traffic Operations Department. The subject T.I.S., and subsequent amendments, were properly scoped and adequately addressed the affected streets and intersections in accordance with standard operating procedures. Trip generation rates for existing hospital and proposed medical office building were correctly factored into the analysis. The field data that was gathered was not flawed by the absence of students. The recommendations and conclusions in the T.I.S. were supported by the data. The Planning and Zoning Board considered the T.I.S. and asked questions of staff and the applicant's consultant. Public testimony regarding traffic was generously offered. After considerable testimony, the Board added the condition of approval that the Robertson access to the parking garage be closed except for egress only in emergency situations. Such closure would remove the opportunity to gain access to westbound Garfield Street. Staff finds that the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing. The evidence presented to the Board in response to traffic issues was not substantially false or grossly misleading. 5. Parking A. Number of Spaces The parking demand for the hospital, parking structure and medical office building was calculated based on two methodologies. The first method was based on total gross square footage. The second method was based on trip generation rates as per the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Both methods factored in the loss of current surface parking and the net gain of both surface and structure parking. Both methods included the new Surgery Center (under construction) and the new medical office building. The result is that the P.D.P. provides 15 more spaces than the average of the two methods. The Appellants' reference to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is derived from the Land Use Code for the medical office category and represents a maximum number of allowable spaces. There is no required minimum. Staff further informed the Board that this methodology is overly simplistic and better suited for a suburban office park than for a hospital campus. November 6, 2007 -6- Item No. 18 Staff, therefore, finds that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the purpose statement to the Employment zone district. 2. Neighborhood Compatibility The Land Use Code requires new projects to comply with a rigorous requirement to be of as high quality as possible. Compatibility standards are found in both Article Four [Section 4.27(E)(1)(b)] and Article Three [Section 3.5.1(B-F)] and are supplemented by the definition of Compatibility. Through a combination of distance, landscaping, quality exterior materials and architectural detail, the P.D.P. achieves a sufficient level of quality to meet the applicable criteria within the definition of Compatibility. For example, the distance between the nearest houses in University Acres to the southwest comer of the parking structure is 200 feet. It is at this particular corner where the landscaping is the heaviest with cluster of 10 evergreen trees. In addition, street trees will be planted along both Garfield and Robertson Streets. Finally, the use of brick and (other quality materials) contribute to mitigating the height, length, bulk and scale of the structure. Staff finds that the proposed parking structure, at four stories (ranging in height from 39 to 46.5 feet), and the M.O.B. (56 feet) achieve compatibility with University Acres by a combination of distance, landscaping and architectural quality. The relative relationships between height -to -mass and length -to -mass of the parking structure accomplishes a human scale and does not overpower or dominate the neighborhood. Staff finds that the parking garage, while larger than the surrounding buildings to the north and west, is articulated and subdivided into massing that is roughly proportional to the mass and scale of other structures on the same block face and opposing block face in accordance with the standard. The parking structure is far enough distant from University Acres as to not infringe upon the privacy of the residents. It does not abut the single family detached homes. Rather, it abuts one-story medical office buildings. For the M.O.B., however, the standard calls for preserving the privacy of the three abutting lots directly south of the building. In order to provide a more effective landscape screen for Lots 297, 298 and 299 of University Acres Ninth Subdivision, the landscaping along the south property line of the M.O.B. is enhanced to include a concentration of evergreen and deciduous shade trees that will achieve a mature height to provide reasonable screening and privacy. In fact, the Board emphasized enhanced landscaping in this area by adding a condition of approval. Staff, therefore, finds that the Planning and Zoning Board heard considerable evidence and public testimony regarding compatibility issues and that the Board properly interpreted Section 4.27(E)(1)(b) and Sections 3.5.1(B-F). November 6, 2007 -5- Item No. 18 The dimensions of the parking stalls in the garage are sized for long term parking but will be used on a short term basis. 6. Imnact on Lemav/Doctors Intersection The Appellants allege that the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence with regard to the traffic impacts on Lemay Avenue and Doctors Lane intersection, particularly in conjunction with the condition of approval requiring closing of the Robertson Street egress to the parking garage. Specifically, the Appellants allege: The impact on Lemay Avenue and Doctors Lane never received proper discussion. There is an inadequate number of entry and exit lanes. The signal timing at the Lemay/Doctors intersection never received proper consideration. 7. Shading The Appellants allege that the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence with regard to the height of the parking garage and the shading impacts on the two properties to the north. A shadow analysis is required for buildings over 40 feet. Specifically, the Appellants allege: The parking structure achieves a height of 46 feet and yet the applicant, working with Staff, obtained a favorable interpretation where only the average height would be used. Since the average height is below 40 feet, no shading study was required. The mass of the garage adversely impacts the residential character of the neighborhood, but an averaging of the height prevents a shadow study. The applicants informed the Planning and Zoning Board that an agreement was reached with an impacted owner to the north of the garage for snow and ice removal. No such agreement had been reached. STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Employment Zone Purose Statement All 25 zone districts are preceded by a purpose statement which states, in general terms, what the land use intentions are for the district. These statements do not convey regulatory code provisions. Rather, the language is deliberately broad in order to describe a context of how each district is distinct from another. According to the Section 1.4.9(l) — Rules of Construction of Text, terms such as "shall," "will" or "must' are mandatory and yet these words are not included in any of the zone district purpose statements. November 6, 2007 -4- Item No. 18 2. Neighborhood Compatibility The Appellants allege that Section 4.27(E)(1)(b) was not properly interpreted and applied. Specifically, the Appellants claim: The parking structure holding 737 cars is drastic compared to the two -car garages in the neighborhood and its mass does not properly scale with the adjoining residence. The medical office building, with its height being greater than 40 feet, will be less than 100 feet from the residences on Robertson and its parking lot will directly abut these single story residences. • These two buildings represent drastic and abrupt changes in height and mass. 3. Spot Zoning The Appellants allege that relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied because the land area associated with the project is the result of spot zoning. (No code citation is provided.) Specifically, the Appellants claim: A small area of land within an existing neighborhood was singled out and placed in a different zone from that of neighboring property. 4. Traffic The Appellants allege that the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering the results and conclusions of the Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.) as required by Section 3.6.4 which were false or grossly misleading. Specifically, the Appellants allege: The addition of a new four-story medical office building will bring new traffic to the neighborhood and yet the evidence presented to the Board indicated that the medical office building will simply serve existing physicians, staff and patients that are already using the hospital campus. The T.I.S. is seriously flawed in that it did not factor in the doctors, staff and patients that will be using the medical office building. The T.I.S. was conducted when college, secondary and elementary students were not in session. 5. Parkins The Appellants allege that the Board tailed to hold a fair hearing by improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence with regard to parking as required by Section 3.2.2(K). Specifically, the Appellants allege: • There is insufficient parking for the medical office building. There should beat least 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leaseable area for this building. November 6, 2007 -3- Item No. 18 3. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the applicant shall have provided a glare analysis for the Medical Office Building to reduce potential glare impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. 4. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Landscape Plan for the Medical Office Building shall indicate enhanced plant material along the southern property line for purposes of promoting privacy for the adjacent residential properties. Such enhancement shall include, but not limited to, increased caliper sizes for deciduous trees, increased height sizes for evergreen trees, and increased quantity of materials to the maximum extent feasible. ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On October 4, 2007, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from representatives of the University Acres neighborhood. The Appellants allege that: Relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied. In particular, the Appellants cite Code provisions related to neighborhood compatibility, long term parking, shading and spot zoning. 2. The Board failed to hold a fair hearing by: a. Considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence. In particular, the Appellants allege that the information contained in the Transportation Impact Study and adequacy of parking for the M.O.B. qualify under this criterion. Also, the allegation that project was for the creation of new areas for the hospital is offered as grounds for appeal. b. Improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered. In particular, the Appellants allege that traffic impacts on the Lemay/Doctors intersection were not properly presented to the Board especially in light of the condition that the Robertson access to the Parking Garage be closed. QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER Did the Planning and Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant laws? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? Did the Planning and Zoning Board consider substantially false or grossly misleading evidence? Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to receive all relevant evidence offered? SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ISSUES Employment Zone Purpose Statement The Appellants allege that Section 4.27(A) was not properly interpreted and applied. Specifically, the Appellants claim: The proposed project with its quantified traffic problems violates the purpose statement of the Employment zone. November 6, 2007 -2- Item No. 18 The parking structure would be four stories in height and contain 737 parking spaces. Access would be from Lemay Avenue. A pedestrian bridge, at the third floor, would span Garfield Street to provide safe access to the proposed medical office building to the south. The medical office building (M.O.B.) would contain approximately 60,000 square feet, at four stories in height. A second pedestrian bridge, also at the third floor, would span Lemay Avenue to provide safe access to the hospital to the east. Both properties are zoned E, Employment. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the P.D.P. subject to four conditions. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At the September 13, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board made the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. The land uses, parking structure and medical office building, are allowed as a primary uses in the Employment zone district, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. B. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards of the Employment zone district of Article Four. C. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards of the General Development Standards of Article Three. D. The P.D.P. represents redevelopment and intensification in the Employment zone district that is bordered by the Low Density Residential zone district. The parking garage is separated from the R-L zone by 200 feet while the M.O.B. abuts the R-L zone. The standards relating to development on the edge of the Employment zone district and neighborhood compatibility —Site Design 4.27(E)(1)(b); Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass Scale 3.5.1(C); Privacy 3.5.1(D,G) and Land Use Transition 3.5.1(H) have been evaluated and the project is found to be in compliance. E. Two neighborhood information meetings have been held. The summaries of these two meetings are attached. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted 7 — 0 to approve the Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, # 14-07, subject to the following conditions: At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Final Development Plan shall state that, due to the fact that the design of the parking spaces are long term, parking within the Parking Structure shall be limited to staff, physicians, and all other employees of the Poudre Valley Hospital, the Medical Office Building and other surrounding medical office buildings that are duly authorized by P.V.H.S. And, that the Parking Structure is not available to the general public. 2. At the time of submittal for Final Plan, the Parking Structure access onto Robertson Street shall be restricted for emergency access only and shall not be open on a regular daily basis. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT ITEM NUMBER: 18 DATE: November 6, 2007 STAFF: Ted Shepard Consideration of the Appeal by Representatives of the University Acres Neighborhood of the September 20, 2007 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to Approve with Conditions the Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building, Project Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and Charter, and after consideration, either: Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or 2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board's decision; or 3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On September 20, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building P.D.P. The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and Staff. The P.D.P. was approved with four conditions. Representatives from University Acres Neighborhood have appealed the Board's decision. The allegations are that relevant laws were not properly interpreted and applied, and the Board failed to hold a fair hearing by considering substantially false or grossly misleading evidence and improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered. BACKGROUND The Poudre Valley Hospital Parking Structure and Medical Office Building P.D.P. is a request for two new buildings. The new parking structure would be located at the northwest corner of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street and be reserved for staff use only. It would replace an existing surface parking lot. The new medical office building would be located at the southwest comer of Lemay Avenue and Garfield Street. It would replace an existing one-story medical office building and surface parking.