The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRAMADA LIMITED SUITES PUD -- PRELIMINARY - 16-96A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSC� M Conclusions Based upon the above documented investigations, analyses, and findings, the following can be concluded: • Acceptable roadway operations currently exist in the area of the site. • The proposed hotel development will generate an estimated 27 morning peak hour trips, 29 afternoon peak hour trips, and 334 trips per day. • In the short-term, site generated traffic is not expected to cause a noticeable impact on roadway operations. • With the hotel fully developed and with the existing roadway geometry, intersection operations are expected to replicate current conditions . • No adverse impacts are expected with the proposed hotel. In summary, the hotel development can be efficiently and easily serviced by the existing street system. Furthermore, since operating levels -of -service are expected to remain stable whether or not the hotel is constructed, the hotel is not expected to adversely impact the adjacent street system. Given these findings, no roadway improvements are recommended in conjunction with this development. I trust this letter report will meet your current needs. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, 4Eue G. Coppola, P. . N N Driveway 0 PE� N N O L0 O tn 0) vv o0 M V�._ 0/23 0/118 8/24 X 9/56 CIO L0IO Lo 'o NIM NIN N (fl e- N In N 00 7n 8/8 � ♦ I 4/4 4/4 v v co co 00 Boardwalk T N LEGEND: AM Site/Total PM Site/Total Figure 3 SHORT-TERM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC N N As shown above, the hotel is expected to generate 27 morning peak hour trips, 29 afternoon peak hour trips, and 334 trips per day. Future Traffic Conditions Site traffic was assigned to the adjacent street system via the Mason Street access drive. The assignment was made in general conformance with current directional traffic flows. Background traffic was estimated by increasing current traffic to reflect late 1996 or 1997 conditions. Future peak hour traffic volumes at the access drive and Board- walk Drive intersections along Mason Street are shown on Figure 3. Capacity analyses were performed using short-term traffic volumes (site and back- ground) and the existing roadway geometry. Resultant operating levels -of -service are . presented below. INTERSECTION APPROACH- MOVEMENT PEAK HOUR LEVEL -OF -SERVICE AM PM Mason - Boardwalk (Stop Sign) WB LT B C WB RT A B SB LT A A Mason - Access (Stop Sign) EB LT/RT B B NB LT A A As shown above, acceptable operations can be expected with the hotel fully opera- tional. Furthermore, future levels -of -service are expected to replicate current levels -of - service without any supplemental roadway geometry. a c 0 N f0 2 cM O fM cv) N 0) O O N L) Lq Legend: AM /PM T N Figure 2 CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC a so Under current conditions, only the Mason Street - Boardwalk Drive intersection needs to be investigated. In the short-term, this intersection and the Mason Street driveway to the hotel should be evaluated. Short-term was defined as the opening of the hotel. Existing Conditions Morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were taken at the Mason Street - Boardwalk Drive intersection. This data is presented on Figure 2. Using Highway Capacity Manual procedures, intersection operations were evaluated. Mason Street has one lane in each travel direction with a southbound left turn lane at the Boardwalk Drive intersection. On Boardwalk Drive, a left turn and a right turn lane are provided. Resultant levels -of -service are stated below. INTERSECTION APPROACH- MOVEMENT PEAK HOUR LEVEL -OF -SERVICE AM PM Mason - Boardwalk (Stop Sign) WB LT B C WB RT I A I B SB LT I A I A Site Traffic Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, site traffic volumes were estimated. Since site traffic is a function of the number of occupied rooms, a 70 percent occupancy rate was assumed. This rate is typically used within the hotel industry. Resultant site traffic is presented below. Daily AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr Rate Trips Rate In Out Rate In Out 7.27 334 0.58 16 11 0.62 17 12 O 0 O I as JL PAMMU SPAM BOARDWALK DRNE RAMADA— -- TIT LlMllrw o z z I "Um IACCM W K j N& I a W �- - - r • I � I rn I Lm, 0 0 y I 0 0. MIT = I I I orwew+ s I 0 w i Im Figure 1 CONCEPT PLAN I 4 I I I RAMADALBO= �-- — — — --I i El SUM PM r 3 I - --t•t EUGENE G. COPPOLA May 15, 1996 Mr. George Holter Holter Realty 3501 S. Mason Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Traffic Impacts of Proposed Ramada Suites Hotel West Side of Mason Street at Boardwalk Drive - Ft. Collins, CO Dear Mr. Holter: P.O. Box 260027 Littleton, CO 80126-0027 303-792-2450 I have evaluated the traffic impacts of the above referenced Ramada Suites project. Key elements of the evaluation are documented in capsule form in the following sections of this letter report. Project Description The hotel will cater to business travellers. It will have 66 units, all of which will be constructed at the same time. No restaurant, lounge, or banquet facilities are planned in conjunction with the hotel. The current development schedule indicates ground breaking in August, 1996 and completion during December of 1996 or early in 1997. The site will have access to Mason Street via a shared driveway with the lot to the south which is currently undeveloped (See Figure 1). Agency Discussions A meeting was held with Eric Bracke concerning the elements of this study. At that meeting, it was determined that a brief analysis would suffice given the amount of traffic expected from the site, the area surrounding the site, and the expedited development schedule. Mr. Bracke requested that current and short-term conditions be evaluated. No Text DAILY ` ; AM`PEAK HOUR; ' : ` PM,,PEAK HOUR Rate:- . `` Trips ` Rste.: ,.. In Out Rate In ' Out'-, 40:67. 577 1`:0*' 8 6! ... `4.93 .. 40; 30:'.' BUSINESS SERVICE USES POINT CHART E For All Criteria Applicable Criteria Only Criterion t' criterionO" Appliccable I Circle the II Mulflp6er III IV Points Moftum Earned Yes No Correct Score Point Applicable Ixll a. Transit Route X 2 O LA b. South College Corridor X X 2 V03 g c. Part of Center X X 2 0 6 d. Two Acres or More X X O 0 3 6 e. Mixed -Use X X Q2 0 3 6 f. Joint Parking X 1 00 3 g.. Energy Conservation X 1 21314 0 1 2 O g h. Contiguity X X Q2 0 5 10 10 i. Historic Preservation X 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 k' 1 2 0 I. 1 M2O Totals 28 SLi v vi Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII lj;fl Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -73. Po"M 4M #p 5c)r�@5 PR��II .. Business Service Uses (continued) h. Is the project located with at least one -sixth (1/6) of its property boundary contiguous to existing urban development? i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event occurred, has special public value because of notable architecture, or is of cultural significance, does the project fulfill the following criteria? 1. Prevent creation of influences adverse to its preservation; 2. Assure that new structures and uses will be in keeping with the character of the building or place. Imitation of period styles should be avoided; and 3. Propose adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, conservation, and improvement in an appropriate manner while respecting the integrity of the neighborhood. Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -72- VAMn bsormsiPRsuM)*l(0_9loA ACTIVITY; Business Service Uses E DEFINITION; Those activities which are predominantly retail, office, and services uses which would not qualify as a neighborhood service, neighborhood convenience, or community/regional shopping center. Uses include retail shops; offices; personal service shops; financial institutions; hotels/motels; medical clinics; health clubs; membership clubs: standard and fast-food restaurants; hospitals; mortuaries; indoor theaters; recreation uses; small animal veterinary clinics; printing and newspaper offices; and, other uses which are of the same general character. CRITERIA; Each of the following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the development plan. Yes No N/A 1. Does the project gain its primary vehicular access from a street other than [� South College Avenue? 2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST FIFTY (50%) PERCENT OF w' THE MAXIMUM POINTS AS CALCULATED ON POINT CHART "B" FOR THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA? a. Is the activity contiguous to an existing transit route (not applicable for uses of less than twenty-five thousand (25,000] square feet GLA or with less than twenty-five (25] employees, or located in the Central Business District)? b. Is the project located outside of the "South College Avenue Corridor"? c. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of a neighborhood or community/regional shopping center, an office or industrial park, located in the Central Business District, or in the case of a single user, employ or will employ a total of more than one hundred (100) full-time employees during a single eight (8) hour shift? d. Is the project on at least two (2) acres of land, or located in the Central Business District? e. Does the project contain two (2) or more significant uses (for instance retail, office, residential, hotel/motel, or recreation)? f. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on -site parking areas and adjacent existing or future off -site parking areas which contain more than ten (10) spaces? g. Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy usage through the application of alternative energy systems or through energy conservation measures beyond those normally.required by the Model Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix "E" for energy conservation methods to use for calculating energy conservation points. Land uevelopment Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised March 1994 -71- . .. Activity A: FALL �+M U Sv�;S,PR�yM,�k1bf16A ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA CRITERIA I APPLICABLE CRITE�I,; ONLY s :he c.-tenan Nr,Y the era . a CFticat:lel be satisried7 " CRI T =LION #.1 Yes No If no, please explain Al. COMMUNI T YA-VIDE CRITERIA I 1.1 Solar Onertation I I I 1.2 Comprehensive Plan I I I I 1.3 Wildlife Habitat I I I I I I 1.4 Mineral Deposit I I I 1.5 =� ,locically Sensitive Araas I I I (reserved i I I 1 •= Lands of Aericultural Imoorance I resen-ed I I 1.7 =_nercv Conservation I I IPI III I 1.8 Air Qualitv I I I 1.5 1/1/a mar Cuality ` I I I I I ' 10 ELvace and w=_cte� I I 1 11 NaterCogn seryiivon V I 1.12 Residential Density I A 2. NhjcL-i RH000 COMP T IEILITY CRIT'c:=thl I I 2.1 V_�ic�iar. Pe=es;ran. Bika Transooration I I I 2 cuiicirc P!acament and Orient_ticr, I 2.3 Natural reatures IledI 2? Venicular Circulation anc P_rkirc I I I I I I I _ 2.5 cneryercy Access I I 2.3 r-SCe - _strian Cicc��lation I I i I I :2.; .Ar:,iieo:ure I I I I I 2 =' wilding Heicnt and Views - I I I I I 2.S Sha ding I I I 2.10 Solar Access I SAS 2.11 Historic Resources I 1 I I f 2.12 Satcacks 2.13 Landscape I I I 2.14 Sicns 2.15 Site Lighting I I I I I 2.16 Ncise and Vibration I I I 2.17 Glare or Heat I I I I 2.18 Hazardous Materials I I I A 3. ENGINEERING Cm,TERIA I I 3.1 Utility Capacity 3.2 Design Standards I 3.3 Water Hazards I I 3•4 Geologic Hazards I i Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, P.evised i1119 ..h 1994 -}-- - 61 - A-5IJ KCIAIL MUILUIIVV GAO1 CLCVAIIVN 1w—. 9 . NOTES, L TNESE ELEVATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. EXACT BUILDING ELEVATIONS WILL BE SUBMITTED AT FINAL. 2. MATERIALS AND COLORS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. (QVF@P@ SBJIl'Il'= R��A11�VLt111�U. TT M n^� "•-•"• 7A� Ru m. Il�llLVlllllllWWRum. PRELIMINARY RETAL ELEVATIONS eH, VIEW OF PROPOSED BUILDNG FROM BOARDWALK DRIVE VIEW OF ALTERNATE BUILDING FROM BOARDWALK DRIVE .-z .i®.an N. I...um.o... ANALYSIS SLUMARY _ _ 'HE APPLICANT 15 REQUESTING TO EXCEED THE 40 HEIGHT RESTIeIC•ION TO ALLOW A R" NIP AND GABLEDW ROOF TO ME ILT 'H15 15 BEING RECUESTED PRIMARILY TO CREATE A MORE AESTHETIC BUILDING. A 40' HEIGHT RESTRICTION WOULD REQUIRE A =_:T ROOF OVER A PORTION OF THE BUILDING, WHICH MAY CREATE A LONG TERM MAINTENANCE PROBLEM. 5 CAN BE SEEN IN THE ABOVE MODELS. THE BUILDING MASS AND PLACEMENT WOW:D BE IDENTICAL IN BOTH SCENAM05, THE O Y DI ERENCE BEING IN THE HEIGHT OF THE R ITSELF. THE INCREASED HEK.HT.OF THE PROPOSED ROOF WOULD BE BARELY PERCEPTIBLE BY BOTH PEDESTRIANS AND MOTORISTS THE SHADOW ANALYSIS ILLUSTRATES THAT THIS WILDWWG WILL NOT CAST A SHADOW BEYOND THA- CAST BY A HYPOTHETICAL 25 WALL PLACED ON THE F RMT LINE C•iit. lsQS' I \\I \III \ .I J111111il I II\ III 11�1111 I". I .III. SPECIAL REVIEW HEIGHT ANALYSIS IR!"HI MIMI lid"Et lee 11 9e1 I 1::::" 111 M', eel`-1 LL .. ...... ...... ...... ...... f .I' I I I 1' I �i I I I 1 1 I I I IL I I"""I Ii°"°'I I�� 'I I II I. I I I' :I Ell OREM I ISH-H! IMMI IR.M. I I i jon I ig d d MOM VACANT YnK IMMB 9 B�MIIW •�E ZQ�� H� wa+eww .e �®�eM4 ILLETLAND91 �s.ra I—c.��aue�Kt �r�ro 011 PHASE I �(�-�\• o iPHASE II LOT 3 GARTH C CIAL PLAZA LOT 4 GARTH Chi CIAL PLAZA U OLIVE GARDEN ZG 1. BOARDWALK DRIVE PLANT LIST wrm.4..9r RE f9eo�r. wm � rrw ..ems. r....r .. a ._.... PLANT NOTES LANDSCAPE BREAKDOWN BOARDWALK CROSSING M+w zDNi� �e fl'✓YOP09ED G01�t'tERGl4 DEVELOPI'E:.Ni) I aawmwm_ u'iei� I LEGEND LIM= F.U.D. PHASE I LANDSCAPE PLAN �9s6 0 a 0 cc J a 2 z Ec x 0 0 cr 0 J 0 U VACANT Za rws HB 'LLG_TL4ND5! LOT 5 GABM AL PLAZA L 0 0 I NB 0 earns s �r.om uuu I _ BOARDWALK DRIVE_— — em uA.voeouu ZONING L® Z cr L (_ �I_ > Q _J __ BOARDWALK CROSSNO J Q SUBDIVISION zo�I!w5 �5 I I O U L ED RETtl_/ H IAL DEVELOP"ENT) I Q 0 jFO ZGNING NB n IRAMADABU=w=, L— J ILIITYIIIIIl'1EIID Il�eIIJ,�> PRELIMINARY Y em.w.nem mx CONTEXT DIAGRAM BARES ► NOBLE I 1-� --4 ZONING uB 1 - 2 - 8 LAND USE BREAKDOWN \ vAcawr aa.u.e M I BOARDWALK ORWE III O -7 v �'I IOf• 1 80 MWAL cnosenO PHA P \ = ° PHASE II - /I 4 �I II I \ I I hII I E%18TRY TiaC�S[i WaLC LOT 6 Oa(ITN 0.AiA I I I I I I LOT a Oamw xw GENERAL NOTES PROPERTY DESCRIPTION w v`�ow merr �.eiw LEGEND o o� �nprtn�n 1R�R��\�\Vlll��illll��{jl�Ti�lTT�� f{}} LLa111V1111ll1L1W Rum. PRELWANARY SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN :1:I:Y"_\ :. = I . • F7 pro , - : E•Mt T-1 JITi I Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, # 16-96A August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 7 FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION: 1. The Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, #16-96A earns 52% of the maximum applicable points on the Business Service Uses point chart of the L.D.G.S. (exceeding the minimum required 50%); 2. The Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, #16-96A meets all applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. 3. The Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, #16-96A complies with the Interim Design Standards and Guidelines for Al/ Commercial Development. 4. The Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, #16-96A is compatible with surrounding land uses. 5. The Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, #16-96A can be granted a variance to the 40 feet height limitation for the hotel use on Lots 1 and 2 based upon the criteria for Special Review of Buildings With Height Over 40 Feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, #16-96A with a variance for the proposed hotel building on Lots 1 and 2 to exceed the building heigh limitation of 40 feet by an additional 3' - 611 . Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, # 16-96A August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 6 B. Views The taller building should not substantially alter the opportunity and quality of desirable views within the area. First, the proposed hotel has a ground coverage of approximately 12,900 square feet. Secondly, the proposed hotel is setback nearly 40 feet from the north property line and nearly 80 feet from the proposed back of the detached sidewalk along Mason Street. Therefore, the primary view corridor of the mountains from Boardwalk Drive is retained. The additional T-6" is virtually imperceptible to a pedestrian or motorist traveling along Mason Street. C. Light and Shadow The hotel will cast a shadow which is less than the shadow of a hypothetical fence 25' high along the property lines of this P.U.D. The shadow of the proposed hotel at 3 p.m. on December 21 will not extend beyond the existing western curb of South Mason Street. D. Privacy The additional height of the building is to allow a full gable and hipped roof. The top of any window on the third story is approximately 29 feet above grade. The closest residential property is a minimum of 270 feet from the western most facade of the hotel and is separated by from the site by the New Mercer Canal and the railroad tracks. There are no significant privacy concerns. E. Neighborhood Scale The proposed full gable hipped roof is more compatible with residential uses to the west of this PUD and is more architecturally pleasing than a flat roofed hotel which is 40 feet tall. The scale of the building is minimized by the combination of it's small building coverage, setbacks, and landscaping. After determining that the additional T-6" of building height will not create adverse impact on the surrounding area, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board grant the variance request for the proposed hotel building on Lots 1 and 2 to exceed the building height limitation of 40 feet. Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, # 16-96A August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 5 5. Transportation: Vehicular access to the proposed buildings will be via shared access drives between Lots 2 and 3; and Lots 4 and 5 of the Garth Commercial Plaza. The traffic study indicates that the proposed hotel will generate 334 average daily vehicle trips and that the retail/office will generate 712 average daily vehicle trips. With both developments fully operational, short term afternoon peak hour operating conditions are expected to operate at level of service "B" or "C" for critical left turn movements at the north and south driveways, respectively. All other movements at both driveways are expected to operate at level of service "A". Therefore, the proposed development is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. 6. Natural Resources: There are existing wetlands to the north of this site. The Natural Resources Department has reviewed the Site Plan and Grading Plans and has indicated that there will be no infringement on the wetlands. However, prior to Final PUD consideration for the hotel, the Natural Resources Department may request that the applicant modify the species of proposed landscaping along the north boundary of Lot 1. 7. Height Analysis: Section 29-476 (a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins precludes buildings of a height greater than 40 feet unless they are located in a planned unit development as defined, processed and approved according to Section 29-526 of the Zoning Ordinance (the LDGS). The proposed height of the hotel exceeds the 40' height limit within the City of Fort Collins by an average of less than 2 feet, with the highest peak of 43'-6". The applicant requests a variance based upon All Development Criterion A-2.8 Building Height and Views and the Special Review of Buildings with Height Over 40 Feet criteria in the City's Development Manual. A shadow analysis (Plan Sheet 5 of 6) has been submitted. A copy of the City's Special Review Criteria are attached. A. Community Scale The proposed hotel is neither located in the downtown, nor located in or adjacent to one of the established or developing activity centers. However, this criteria states that such buildings "should" locate in these areas but not "must" locate in these areas. Commercial uses with building heights of 20+ feet surround the proposed hotel on three sides and all adjacent residential uses are west of the proposed hotel. Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, # 16-96A August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 4 speculative nature of the retail/office building, further review will be required of all retail/office building elevations to insure compatible building materials and colors. B. Landscaping: The applicant proposes a four foot wide detached sidewalk along South Mason Street with street trees between the walk and the back of curb. 6' wide scored concrete pedestrian connections are proposed from the public sidewalk to the proposed buildings. Parking lots will be screened with deciduous and evergreen shrubs along the edges and in islands. A combination of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs will be planted along the foundations of the buildings. C. Parking: A total of 63 automobile parking spaces and 6 bicycle parking spaces are proposed with the Phase 1 (hotel) portion of the development. 61 automobile parking spaces and 6 bicycle parking spaces are proposed with the Phase 2 (office/retail) portion of the development. The traffic study indicates that a 70% occupancy rate is typical for the hotel industry. This combined with the fact that peak hours of usage between the two buildings are at opposite times, supports the use of shared parking. In addition, shared parking and access is provided to existing retail uses on Lots 5 and 6 of the Garth Commercial Plaza. Staff recommends that adequate parking will be provided. D. Signage: This site is located outside of the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Therefore, any proposed signage is subject to Chapter 29, Article IV of the City Code (the Sign Code) which is administered by the Zoning Department. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: Similar, existing retail, office, and restaurant uses surround the proposed hotel and retail/office uses of this P.U.D. on three sides. A railroad and canal provide a physical separation between existing single-family residential development to the west of this P.U.D. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, # 16-96A August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 3 spaces (shared access and parking is provided between all lots within this P.U.D. boundary and lots 5 and 6 of the Garth Commercial Plaza) - 6 points. h) having at least 1/6th contiguity to existing urban development (83% of boundary is contiguous to existing urban development) - 10 points. B. Interim Standards and Guidelines for All Commercial Development Any applications for commercial development (use -by -right or PUD) submitted after March 1, 1996 are subject to the Interim Standards and Guidelines for All Commercial Development. The purpose of these standards and guidelines is to serve as interim requirements for commercial land development in Fort Collins, consistent with the growing awareness of ways to make Fort Collins more livable for all residents by the way our physical surroundings are arranged (including such things as streets, buildings, outdoor spaces, and neighborhoods). These standards and guidelines are intended to apply only until the finished implementation products of "City Plan" are adopted to replace them. Examples of compliance with these Interim Standards and Guidelines are the provision of a Context Diagram (see Plan Sheet 2 of 6), and enhanced pedestrian connections to each of the buildings from Mason Street; between each of the buildings within the PUD boundary; and to adjacent land uses on Lots 5 and 6 of the Garth Commercial Plaza. This request for Preliminary PUD is in compliance with the Interim Standards and Guidelines for All Commercial Development. 3. Design: A. Architecture: The applicant proposes a hotel with a full gable and hipped roof structure with a maximum height of 43'6" (see Section 5 - Height Analysis). Hotel building materials will consist of 7' to 8' of brick around the entire base of the building; synthetic stucco; and high -profile, heavy dimensional fiberglass shingles. Additional architectural elements include a drive under porte on the east side of the building, vinyl shutters, lattice grilles, and synthetic stucco columns. All roof top mechanical equipment is to be fully screened from public view with metal decking structures. Building colors will be reviewed further during Final P.U.D. consideration. Conceptual elevations for the retail building show a maximum building height of approximately 21'. Retail building materials consist of 14' and 21' wide brick wall sections; in line retail/office bays; and a standing seam metal roof. Due to the Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, # 16-96A August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: H-B; vacant (wetland), existing commercial (Harms Sound Labs). S: H-B; existing retail (Lots 5 and 6 of Garth Commercial Plaza). W: R-P, R-L-P; railroad, New Mercer Canal, existing single-family residential (South Glen PUD 4th Filing, Park South). E: H-B; vacant (proposed bank); existing retail and restaurants (Olive Garden, Kentucky Fried Chicken, REI, Barnes and Noble Book Store). This property was annexed into the City as part of the Horsetooth-Harmony Annexation on July 5, 1978. The property was subdivided as part of the Garth Commercial Plaza on April 29, 1980. Office and retail uses are permitted uses in the H-B, Highway Business District. However, the H-B zoning district does not allow hotels/motels as a permitted use (use by right). Therefore this development request is required to be submitted as a Planned Unit Development plan as defined, processed and approved according to §29-526, The Land Development Guidance System. 2. Land Use: This is a request for Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) approval for a 38,700 square foot (66 room) hotel and an 17,500 square foot retail/office building on 2.54 acres known as Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Garth Commercial Plaza. A. LDGS This proposal meets all applicable All -Development Criteria and earns 52% (28 out of 54) of the maximum applicable points on the Business Service Uses point chart of the Land Development Guidance System (exceeding the minimum required 50%). Points were awarded for meeting the following criterion: d) Being located on at least 2 acres of land (site is 2.54 acres) - 6 points. e) Containing two (2) or more significant uses (hotel , office and retail) - 6 points. f) Direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on -site parking areas and adjacent existing or future off -site parking areas which contain more than ten ITEM NO. 3 MEETING DATE 8126196 6gi STAFF Mike Ludwig City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Ramada Limited Suites PUD, Preliminary, #16-96A. APPLICANT: The Swahn Group, Inc. c/o Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. 3555 Stanford Road, Suite 105 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: George Holter 3509 South Mason Street Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) approval for a 38,700 square foot (66 room) hotel and a 17,500 square foot retail/office building on 2.54 acres known as Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Garth Commercial Plaza. The property is located on the west side of Mason Street, south of Boardwalk Drive extended; and zoned HB, Highway Business. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with a variance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This request for Preliminary P.U.D. approval: • earns 52% of the maximum applicable points on the Business Service Uses point chart of the L.D.G.S. (exceeding the minimum required 50%); • meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System; • complies with the Interim Design Standards and Guidelines for All Commercial Development. • is compatible with surrounding land uses. • can be granted a variance to the 40 feet height limitation for the hotel use on Lots 1 and 2 based upon the criteria for Special Review of Buildings With Height Over 40 Feet. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT