HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PARKING GARAGE - MJA/FDP - FDP130056 - CORRESPONDENCE - APPLICANT COMMUNICATION (3)Carolynne C. White
Attorney at Law
303.223.1197 tel
303.223.0997 fax
cwhite@bhfs.com
410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202-4432
main 303.223.1100
bhfs.com Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
August 22, 2014
VIA EMAIL
Marcus A. McAskin
Administrative Hearing Officer
City of Fort Collins
281 N. College Avenue, Suite 100
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: City Council Remand for Administrative Review of Major Amendment to the Previously Approved
Choice Center Project Development Plan for The Summit on College Parking Structure
Dear Mr. McAskin:
This letter accompanies Capstone Development Corporation’s, on behalf of Fort Collins Associates, LP
(“Capstone”), August 5, 2014 alternative design submittal for a Major Amendment (“Major Amendment”)
to the previously approved Choice Center Project Development Plan to add a parking structure (“Parking
Structure”) at the existing mixed-use property known as The Summit on College (the “Summit”). The
Summit is located just west and north of the intersection of South College Avenue and Stuart Street.
On March 5, 2014, an Administrative Hearing was held before you on this matter. On March 19, 2014,
the Findings of Fact and Decision were issued. The Administrative Hearing Officer decision was
appealed and City Council held a hearing on May 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2014-050, which was amended and readopted via Resolution No. 2014-063 on July 22,
2014. Specifically, Resolution No. 2014-063 sets forth the following findings of fact in support of City
Council’s decision on the appeal:
1. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing by exceeding its authority or
jurisdiction as contained in the Code or Charter of the City.
2. That the Hearing Officer did not fail to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence
relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading.
3. That the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the
Land Use Code with regard to the impact of the major amendment upon Spring Creek
viewsheds; and Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code with regard to the number of off-
street parking spaces.
4. That the Decision is hereby remanded to the Hearing Officer for further consideration of
the impact of the major amendment on Spring Creek viewsheds and for consideration of
the possible reduction of the size of the parking structure building and the reduction of the
number of parking spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking
requirements as established by Ordinance No. 121, 2013, and presently contained in
Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for multi-family development in the Transit-Oriented Development
Marcus A. McAskin
Administrative Hearing Officer
August 22, 2014
Page 2
(TOD) Overlay Zone, with a view toward compliance with the Land Use Code sections
set out in paragraph [3] above.
5. That except for those provisions in paragraph [3] above, the Hearing Officer did not fail to
interpret and apply any other provisions of the Land Use Code…
Capstone’s original submittal continues to meet all of the criteria in the Land Use Code (“LUC”) for
approval, as more fully outlined in Capstone’s March 5, 2014 Administrative Hearing submittal packet and
cover letter. Nonetheless, should the Administrative Hearing Officer determine that additional conditions
must be imposed on the Major Amendment in order to grant approval, Capstone has taken the liberty of
submitting an alternative design of the Parking Structure for consideration. As detailed below, Capstone’s
alternative design fully addresses the two items City Council directed the Administrative Hearing Officer to
further consider on remand.
Capstone requests administrative approval of the Major Amendment as originally submitted. That said, if
the Administrative Hearing Officer determines that additional conditions must be imposed, Capstone
encourages adoption of the proposed alternative design.
I. Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the LUC - Further Consideration of the Impact of the Major
Amendment on Spring Creek Viewsheds
Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the LUC states: “Projects shall be designed to minimize the degradation of the visual
character of affected natural features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to
and from the natural features within the site.” Although the criterion refers to “natural features within the
site” and Spring Creek is located in Creekside Park and not within the property site, Capstone’s Major
Amendment submittal and alternative design are nonetheless specifically designed to minimize any
potential visual degradation or obstruction to or from Spring Creek.
As further discussed below under Section II, to directly address City Council’s concern, Capstone’s
alternative design proposes to remove the top level of the Parking Structure and introduces additional
green screening on the south elevation facing Creekside Park. This reduction in height along elevations
facing Spring Creek further minimizes both the scale of the Parking Structure and obstruction of scenic
views to and from Spring Creek.
As outlined in the City Staff Report for the March 5, 2014 hearing, the Major Amendment enhanced the
visual character by incorporating various elements into the design, including:
1. No fencing;
2. Multi-structured vegetation screen (vertical trellis);
3. Plants of native vegetation; and
4. Payment of a fee-in-lieu based on a conceptual landscape plan.
On the south façade of the Parking Structure, vertical trellis green screens were introduced to soften the
building’s appearance and provide vertical habitat and refuge areas, and colors were carefully chosen to
minimize the impact to the adjacent Creekside Park. In response to City Council’s concern, Capstone
has doubled the amount of “green screening” planned for the south side of the Parking Structure beyond
what was originally considered at the March 5, 2014 Administrative Hearing. This additional green
vertical trellis will serve to further screen the Parking Structure from Spring Creek, minimizing any
potential impact on views.
Marcus A. McAskin
Administrative Hearing Officer
August 22, 2014
Page 3
The character of the existing views to and from Spring Creek are already somewhat degraded by the area
that surrounds Creekside Park which consists of mini-storage units and an automotive repair shop on the
south, the Burlington Northern Railway on the west, College Avenue on the East, and the Dairy Queen
and the Summit on the north. Currently, the view from Spring Creek to the north is of a surface parking
lot and the Summit. The Parking Structure will enhance the existing view with increased landscaping,
trees, plantings, and green screening.
While Section 3.4.1(E) on buffer zones is a separate LUC criterion which was not identified by City
Council for consideration on remand (in fact, City Council expressly found that the Hearing Officer did not
fail to interpret Section 3.4.1(E)), the Major Amendment also addresses the Spring Creek Buffer Zone.
Specifically, as confirmed by the Administrative Hearing Officer in the May 19, 2014 Findings of Fact and
Decision, an Ecological Characterization Study was performed in compliance with Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of
the LUC and a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone is proposed to buffer the Parking Structure from Spring Creek.
The Major Amendment applies the performance standards at Section 3.4.1(E) and incorporates the
above-described landscaping elements into the design.
To the greatest extent possible, traffic and the use of the Parking Structure have been oriented away from
Spring Creek. All of the surface traffic is located on the north side and all of the internal traffic is buffered
by walls. On the ground floor, a 28’ water quality area, which includes additional landscape plantings and
screening, and a 16’ bike parking area have been used to buffer vehicles. The upper levels of the
Parking Structure include the vertical trellis green screen. All stormwater is to be treated by a bio-swale
on-site, prior to entering Spring Creek. This is an improvement from the existing condition, where the
stormwater from the parking lot sheet flows untreated across a planting area and into Spring Creek.
Lighting has been designed so that no light will spill over past the southern face of the Parking Structure.
This project was developed as part of the TOD overlay district and, as a part of the review, the elevations
and four-sided architecture of the Parking Structure were placed under heavy scrutiny by City Staff. Not
only did this Parking Structure need to be compatible with the character of the adjacent developments, it
needed to be sensitive to and complement the visual context of the natural area and Creekside Park
adjacent to the south. Capstone’s design team put forth a significant effort, working in conjunction with
City Staff, to make sure that this Parking Structure meets Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the LUC by minimizing any
potential visual degradation or obstruction to or from Spring Creek.
II. Further Analysis of Shifting Parking Structure to the North
Although initially considered in the siting of the Parking Structure, Capstone has further modeled and
analyzed the possibility of shifting it further to the north, away from Spring Creek and closer to the
Summit. A maximum shift of 17’ (to comply with Fire Department clearances) and a minimum shift of 8’
were both considered. In this analysis, the following limiting factors were considered:
1. Impacts to traffic flow, particularly at the intersection of Stuart St. and Choice Center Dr.;
2. Impacts to existing crosswalks at the intersection of Stuart St. and Choice Center Dr.;
3. Required Fire Department easements and clearances for adequate equipment access in
the event of a fire emergency (60’ is preferred, but 45’ is the minimum distance required,
of which a paved 30’ clear easement must be maintained);
4. The loss of six handicap parking spaces (two van accessible) on the south end of the
Summit, which would negatively impact accessibility from the south for the disabled, with
the van accessible spaces likely being relocated to the parking lot on the north end of the
property (adding as much as 650’ of travel for an individual requiring van accessible
handicap parking);
Marcus A. McAskin
Administrative Hearing Officer
August 22, 2014
Page 4
5. Relocation of existing utilities including power and telephone services to the Summit,
resulting in lengthy outages to occupied residences.
In order to maintain the minimum clearances needed for vehicles turning into and out of the Parking
Structure while maintaining minimum Fire Department building separation and access clearances,
Capstone calculated and modeled the maximum shift of the structure 17’ to the north. The enclosed
August 8, 2014 ELB Engineering Memorandum is the result of that analysis and makes the following
findings:
1. The 17’ offset creates a direct alignment between eastbound and westbound
vehicles. This alignment creates a safety hazard and is “deficient in sound
intersection design practice.”
2. “The pedestrian connection on the north side of Stuart, crossing Choice Center Drive,
and then gaining access to the garage is awkward and circuitous.”
3. A 17’ shift would result in the “loss of 12 premium/HC handicap spaces.”
4. “It is my recommendation that the 17’ alternative be abandoned from further
consideration.”
Capstone also analyzed a potential shift of the Parking Structure 8’ to the north. The 8’ shift assumes
that the Fire Department would grant a variance to allow for a 24’ wide drive easement in lieu of the
normally required 30’ easement. This would avoid the loss of handicap parking spaces as well as
eliminate the relocation of the existing transformer, which would reduce the impact of associated service
disruptions to residents of the Summit. The enclosed August 8, 2014 ELB Engineering Memorandum is
the result of that analysis and makes the following findings:
1. “In both designs, the north and south drive entrances do not line up well. The
extreme offsets will make any through movements awkward for drivers” and is
“deficient in sound intersection design practice.”
2. “The 8’ alignment still has the same issues as the 17’ alternative as it relates to north-
south movements. The east-west movements are still not aligned [but] there appears
to be a 3-4’ offset. At slow speeds of 20 mph, this alignment will work, but it is far
from ideal and should be well lighted to promote safety.”
3. “Additional pavement markings should be used to redirect traffic from on-coming
vehicles. An all-way stop is the most appropriate control of the intersection.”
4. “The 8’ alignment is not ideal but will work if it is well lit, controlled by an all-way stop,
and supplemental pavement markings are in place to redirect east-west traffic.”
A northward shift of the Parking Structure as much as 8’ is possible, but not prudent given the
complicating factors outlined above. A variance for a 24’ access easement would likely have to be
granted by the Fire Department and modifications to the existing intersection of Stuart St. and Choice
Center Dr. would have to be deemed acceptable to the City and adjacent land owners. A shift of such a
small magnitude is not worth the impaired function at the intersection of Stuart St. and Choice Center Dr.,
resulting in the potential for negative impacts to drivers and pedestrians at this intersection. It is because
of these very marginal benefits, decreased functionality, and safety concerns that relocation of the
Parking Structure from the currently proposed location is both imprudent and impractical. The original
proposed location in the Major Amendment continues to be the safest and most appropriate location.
Marcus A. McAskin
Administrative Hearing Officer
August 22, 2014
Page 5
III. Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC - Further Consideration of the Possible Reduction of the Size of
the Parking Structure and the Reduction of the Number of Parking Spaces in the Structure
to a Number Closer to the Minimum Parking Requirements for Multi-Family Development
in the TOD Overlay Zone
Capstone’s alternative design directly addresses both of City Council’s concerns regarding the size of the
Parking Structure and the number of parking spaces. While compromising Capstone’s ability to meet
market-demand for Summit resident parking, Capstone proposes to remove the top level from the Parking
Structure and, in doing so, reduce the number of parking spaces to a number closer to the minimum
required for multi-family development in the TOD Overlay. Enclosed is a Parking Table, updated from the
version provided to City Staff on August 5, 2014, summarizing the current number of parking spaces,
proposed parking under the Major Amendment, and proposed parking under the alternative design, along
with TOD parking information.
The removal of the top level from the Parking Structure reduces the average height of the south elevation
facing Creekside Park by 10’-4”. This translates to an average precast parapet height on the south
elevation of approximately 26’-5” and an average height of 25’-1” on the east elevation. Enclosed for your
consideration is a comparison of the south elevation of the Parking Structure contrasting the original
submittal and the alternative design (which reads as a two level building). This exhibit clearly
demonstrates the reduction in height and scale, as well as the approximate doubling of green screening
that is proposed relative to the elevation facing Spring Creek.
This significant reduction in height provides for a façade that is comparable in height to a conventional
two-level structure and further enhances the Parking Structure’s “compatibility with surrounding
development in terms of building size, height, bulk, mass and scale” pursuant to Section 3.5.1 of the LUC.
Further, the design incorporates architectural elements such as overhangs, projections and recesses of
varied heights and depths. These design elements include cornices, stair towers, simulated tower and
window elements, reveals, stone clad piers, and horizontal banding of stone veneer to create a strong
architectural base component. All of these elements subdivide the elevation, add visual interest,
articulate the facade, and provide relation to human size and scale.
At the time the Summit was approved by the City, the TOD zoning overlay did not require any minimum
number of parking spaces for this type of development. Nonetheless, the Summit provided 390 bike
parking spaces and 185 on-site vehicle parking spaces. As detailed in Capstone’s March 5, 2014
Administrative Hearing submittal packet, although 76% of the Summit residents walk or bike to school,
73% still bring their cars with them to school and need a place to park them. CSU’s studies on this issue
similarly indicate 80% of students bring their cars to school.
In the fall of 2013, the City adopted interim minimum parking requirements within the TOD Overlay via
Ordinance No. 2013-121, found at Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC. While the interim requirements are
not applicable to the Summit, if they did apply, 364 parking spaces (beds-to-parking spaces ratio of
54.7%) would be required. The Parking Structure originally considered at the March 5, 2014
Administrative Hearing and May 20, 2014 City Council hearing proposed adding 344 parking spaces for a
total of 535 spaces on-site (including residential, handicap, visitor and employee parking). Capstone’s
alternative design reduces the number of proposed parking spaces by over 27% to a net add of 251
parking spaces in the Parking Structure for a total of 442 on-site spaces (including residential, handicap,
visitor and employee parking), for a beds-to-parking spaces leasable ratio of 56%.
Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC allows conditions to be imposed upon the Major Amendment approval to
ensure that the Parking Structure is compatible with the existing context, including the location and
number of off-street parking spaces. If the Administrative Hearing Officer determines that additional
conditions must be imposed, Capstone’s alternative design reduces the height of the Parking Structure
Marcus A. McAskin
Administrative Hearing Officer
August 22, 2014
Page 6
and the number of parking spaces, the two issues identified by City Council for further consideration by
the Administrative Hearing Officer on remand.
IV. Conclusion
In closing, the originally proposed Major Amendment continues to meet or exceed all of the applicable
criteria set forth in Articles 3 and 4 of the LUC. Nonetheless, Capstone’s alternative design fully
addresses the two items City Council requested the Administrative Hearing Officer further consider on
remand by: 1) removing the top level to reduce the height, scale and sense of mass of the Parking
Structure, therefore minimizing any potential impact to the Spring Creek viewshed; 2) doubling the use of
vertical trellis green screening, which further softens views from Spring Creek; and 3) reducing the total
number of proposed parking spaces by 93, representing a 27% decrease.
The Summit has been a catalytic in-fill project for the area, fulfilling City goals. As desired by the City, the
Summit has already been a major force in stimulating redevelopment in the area including the adjacent
Maytag Building acquisition and renovation, the Chuck E. Cheese/Harbor Freight building to the
immediate north, and the renovation of the Choice Center by the Johnson family. Additional renovations,
and infill developments have been completed or are underway to the north, all of which are a testament to
the Summit’s impact on the Mason Corridor.
While many college students walk or bike to school, most students still bring their cars with them to
college and need a place to park these vehicles. Adjacent commercial and residential neighbors and
current residents of the Summit have expressed significant concerns about spillover parking from Summit
residents. Instead of looking to the City for a solution, such as street permit parking or other methods,
Capstone recognized both the community and market need for an on-site solution via the Parking
Structure and submitted its proposal.
The Land Use Code is purposely objective. The City should review and either approve or deny an
application based on the applicable LUC criteria. Therefore, the only question to be asked is in this
instance is whether, upon further consideration of the two remand issues identified by City Council, the
Major Amendment meets Sections 3.4.1(I)(2) and 3.5.1(J) of the LUC for approval -- which it does.
Accordingly, Capstone respectfully requests administrative approval of the Major Amendment as
originally submitted. That said, if the Administrative Hearing Officer determines that additional conditions
must be imposed, Capstone encourages adoption of the proposed alternative design.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Carolynne C. White
Enclosures:
Memorandum from ELB Engineering, LLC dated August 8, 2014
Comparison of South Elevations of Parking Structure
Parking Table (updated from 8/5/14 to incorporate TOD, other parking numbers have not changed)
Marcus A. McAskin
Administrative Hearing Officer
August 22, 2014
Page 7
Documents Submitted to City Staff on August 5, 2014
Parking Table
Site Plan (alternative design – revised only for updated parking counts)
Architectural Floor Plans (alternative design)
Landscape Plan (alternative design)
Elevations of Parking Structure (alternative design)
Landscaping Visual (alternative design)
CC (via email):
Seth Lorson, Planner
Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager
Laurie Kadrich, Director, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
Karen Cumbo, Director, Planning, Development & Transportation
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
John Duval, Deputy City Attorney
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
017186\0001\11481773.3
-=--ELBEn/Jineerin/J, LIe
-;. TrclDsporidtion En/JineerinIJ Solutions
Memorandum
TO: Mr. Walker May, Capstone Development
Karen Brigman, JVA
FROM: Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E
DATE: August 8, 2014
SUBJECT: Summit Parking Garage
I have had an opportunity to review the two proposals regarding the relocating the Summit
Parking Structure either 8' or 17' to the north. From a traffic engineering perspective, both
designs are deficient in sound intersection design practice. In general, the intersection has
four legs of which none line up appropriately.
In both designs, the north and south drive entrances do not line up well. The extreme
offsets will make any through movements awkward for drivers. However, that being said,
the conflicts will be minimized since the primary movements involving the north and south
legs will be the WB left, the NB right, the SB left, and the WB right turn movements.
North-South thru movements will be minimized.
The east-west leg of the intersection is problematic. In the 17' option, there are three
critical components that make the design impractical.
1. There is a loss of 12 premiumlHC handicap spaces. The point of building the
garage was to maximize on-site parking opportunities.
2. Most importantly, the 17' offset creates a direct alignment between eastbound
and westbound vehicles. This alignment creates a safety hazard. The hazard will
be exacerbated at night unless the intersection is very well lit.
3. The pedestrian connection on the north side of Stuart, crossing choice Center
Drive, and then gaining access to the garage is awkward and circuitous.
The plans I review did not indicate the type of control that would be used to control the
right-of-way at the intersection. The poor alignment shown would be best controlled
through a mini-roundabout. That being said, there doesn't appear to be enough space to
accommodate a mini roundabout at this location in the built environment.
ELB Engineering, LLC
5401 Tay/or Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Phone: 970-988-7551
ELBEngineering@/pbroadband.net
1
The 8' alignment still has the same issues as the 17' alternative as it relates to north-south
movements. The east-west movements are still not aligned by there appears to be a 3-4
offset. At slow speeds of 20 mph, this alignment will work, but it is far from ideal and
should be well lighted to promote safety.
The 8' option has the benefit of preserving premium parking spaces. Additional pavement
markings should be used to redirect traffic from on-coming vehicles. An all-way stop is
the most appropriate control of the intersection.
It is my recommendation that the 17' alternative be abandoned from further consideration.
The 8' alignment is not ideal but will work if it is well lit, controlled by an all-way stop,
and supplemental pavement markings are in place to redirect east-west traffic.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
ELB Engineering, LLC
5401 Taylor Lane
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Phone: 970-988-75511 FAX: 970-225-8942
ELBEngineering@lpbroadbandnet
2
z:
<~-:I J!
~u'
U'.)o'r.
~"Q: ' if
--ir--i--- _ ==--~~.---
I1'1 , : @ 1 : I -----__ ------ ---
I !i, : --------
r ii' , I i i --F-!;! --------- -------------
, ,
0[-11[ \InfJl)iVARl(S t I
I II :
" ,
I Ii i
iii I ~~. jP' 'IJ:' ~:O::::- :=::I':=::I'::c,::::r::,:::c:I' '===:::::C=:==r::::L===~'€)
1'1 ili , a-i:'~ r i"- "-rr=/I;TT I'IIIIr='~
I'
I'.I,I, !
"1,
111111
!:, II.
,
I
II j ";!f, \' ~ sJVt
! : ' :1: ~ I••t••{ ?"(
, I " 7 l v
,I. _~i ~, ",\
'II l'_I _____I _{_fJ _______ ------J , ~ I~-I , -~ 11 -1-I --~_I -~'I' 1 - r-n ",
I
' , I I I i I I' ~~_~_ CHO~_~~R.~.~._ - - -
! /', I
, II " I' I 011 '~Iii' _:1_:-'--1:~ '" / I , '-"~ .
I
', II, , ' J ! I I I I '.I 1 : '.'.... 1, I' ',!9 ' em
, I ,I ;- II. """"1' I'll'---?t-of
5fv.r.:;z.rf
,.
-,-••.-..- ,- •..."- .._-,".-.,..•..".- _ .•.' ..•.- ~. ., ,
;;
8
/
O~ItW:E£ASEt.I[~
W1DTHVARI(S
1J,: n'
,
i
i!
4
"i~!< '
~
Q)
01)
~o
U
rI:§/J
~
EXISTING
BUILDING ONE
Q)
~ 0
II ~:.IO.<rJ5~ii z: ~-~'" Q: '",''''' I :.••,•.J~ .."..••••
----~\Il'i rt~-: f---c_ --- -'--- -'- ---'-- -~- --- --- --- - ' ~ _~ ,,'__-c- __..::-__~ __~ __..; :. =-®~~
II I· : '" I 'II!'" I : !, ! I : ! : I , I I
I" " __ '" ! , ,,'
\ \ I \ 111"1,, 1 I ""'''' """"""""""'" I
] 'I '"I : '" " '" "" " , ~,
\ \ \g \ Illl' :',,1' 1, , ,; =!: " ! UCn -- I",,, • I 1lTlTITl, ' ,
I II I I I~I If]\f'I]fill: fr.d , i) : /r[i:11'1 ill'~I; III, I: , ' '~=I ij I]]I !" " r _ = = = = - !'I ~ j I i i I i I :
I I LI~I~' " • I I
\ \, :1 .Ie - I
'"11
( I I \I \ I~.. \ \ "\ \, t' ~J:Irili' ',' I' 1'1' ~:~o_~, ._
\ ) f"'", 1,:,1" 1~,'" ." ," "" ,," 'VI<
\
\ '1' ni," ~ :",
\ I ) I \ ! ,I I'',I~ \' 'J" i i I' I.~,}@ \ .\, r-
20 ~ "
/-
ORAlw.GEEASEIoIENl
~THVARIES
" ~lllrN z
•..C~I) ...•
"u 0 ~] (!) 0
~ .!l
Q ,,", 8
••.+o S S -..' .. :'-.bJ)Q I-;;; a ' ,~ :8 -g l "
VJ. ;:l &: '"
~
i' Ul'tV ~
f 'V'~ of()/' I ~
/ II01)
~ I S 5 U E
City of Fort Collins, Colorado
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
APPROVED: NO.! DtsCRIPTION iOATEI
CfECKEOBY: ~~- ---0;;;- II~~~;~
_or' w..t •.•• , iJttI)' -----00;-
CHECKEOBY __
CHECKED BY :::-vt-, : II DRAWINC; NO. I
C","'O", P"" •• ndlloctMlI<>n -0010 II C401
CHECKED BY EnNonm •••• PlI1IIIO' ~ '=;:- _
CHECKED BY: 1-=. :,:._•._ -•3:· ::= 0>. 10 .IIDllTE: II".= DES. """''''' I ORWN. 05-"••.14-I 1<C~K·O 4 •• •
Summit on College Parking Garage
Fort Collins, CO
A B C D
Precast concrete column with stone veneer
to match adjacent development to project
approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels.
PHOTO [1]
Precast architectural concrete spandrel
panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals,
painted to match adjacent development.
PHOTOS [1] [2]
Sheet metal cap.
Color to match cornice.
PHOTO [2]
Cementitious panel reveal
system, finished to match
adjacent development color.
PHOTOS [1] [2]
8" horiz. projection 8" horiz. projection
Green screen panel with climbing vegetation.
TOP OF GRADE TO TOP OF PRECAST PARAPET
26' - 5" AVERAGE HEIGHT
SOUTH ELEVATION
A B C D
Precast concrete column with stone veneer
to match adjacent development to project
approx. 3" beyond spandrel panels.
PHOTO [1]
Precast architectural concrete spandrel
panels with 3" wide x 3/4" deep reveals,
painted to match adjacent development.
PHOTOS [1] [2]
Sheet metal cap.
Color to match cornice.
PHOTO [2]
Cementitious panel reveal
system, finished to match
adjacent development color.
PHOTOS [1] [2]
8" horiz.
projection
8" horiz. projection
Green screen panel with climbing vegetation.
SOUTH ELEVATION
The Summit on College - Comparison of Existing and Proposed Parking
8/22/2014
TOD
Standard at
PDP
November
2008
TOD Interim
Standard
(est. 2013)
Proposed
TOD
Standard
Current
Summit On
Site Parking
Total On Site
Parking per
Major
Amendment
Application
(3 Elev Lvls)
Net Spaces
Added per
Major
Amendment
Application
(3 Elev Lvls)
Total On Site
Parking with
Alternative
Design
(2 Elev Lvls)
Net Spaces
Added per
Alternative
Design
(2 Elev Lvls)
Parking Option
Comparison
(3 to 2 Elevated
Levels)
Residential Parking
no minimum
to Unlimited
364 (min) -
Unlimited *
499 - 574* 160 467 307 374 214 -30.29%
Handicap Parking 13 Incl. Above Incl. Above 13 17 4 17 4 0.00%
Employee Parking N/A * Incl. Above Incl. Above 10 10 0 10 0 0.00%
Visitor Parking N/A * Incl. Above Incl. Above 0 33** 33 33** 33 0.00%
Short term Parking N/A* Incl. Above Incl. Above 8 8 0 8 0 0.00%
TOTALS
No min to
Unlimited*
364 -
Unlimited*
499 -574* 191 535 344 442 251 -27.03%
Gross Parking % 1.9% + 54.7% + 75% - 86.3% 29% 80% 66%
Residential Parking %
(Resident Spaces Only)
24% 70% 56%
** 5% of total beds. The Summit on College accomodates up to 665 residents, plus staff and visitors
* Parking requirements at time of PDP approval (2008) were not regulated (no min or max).
The current (interim) TOD parking requirement only addresses minimum parking
requirements, with no limit to the maximum number of spaces that may be provided . The
currently proposed TOD standard allows for the number of spaces to exceed 115% of the
minimum, provided that the excess spaces are provided in a parking structure.
History of TOD Parking Requirements Parking Structure Proposal Options
o:!a s ".§ "
c.:J 8
gp~
:g 8
!a ~
il; "'
't••
t s SUE
III
I
City of Fort CoUins, Colorado
UTIUTY PLAN APPROVAL
NO.! OESCRIPTlON b\T[
~WM~ ~II=~
CHECI(ECB'(; V*/otAWO•••••!OIUIt\I ~
z~
I ~~~ -:-11 ~wmG ~. I
•....-..i_.._ ---g;;--- C401
tIJ<_OOil""""" ~ ~I~ "",, 0,,-14-14
j_§.""'<=iI"-""" "E:::..".:' " II PROJECT DES. ! I/O: ORWN. HeMe I CHI( O.