Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PARKING GARAGE - MJA/FDP - FDP130056 - REPORTS - (33)140 Palmer Drive t 97 0 .226 .68'.t9 Fort Collins, CO 80525 r lesterkaplan@comcast.net c 97 0 .222 .7 528 t 97 0 .207 .925 6 January 8,2014 Ms. Karen Cumbo, Director of PDT City of Fort Collins 281 N. College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Re: The Summit Student Housing Proposed Major Amendment for Parking Structure Ms. Cumbo: There are certainly plenty of mistakes to be shared by the City of Fort Collins and the developer of The Summit student housing project in Midtown. Heralded to the community as a "catalyst" for a Midtown renaissance, the reality is disappointingly massive and unattractive, incongruous to the Crty's high standards while blocking mountain views and crowding College Avenue. Separate from this visual impact is a much-publicized (and misunderstood) condition of inadequate parking. The goal of this letter is to prevent the City's response to this parking issue from inadvertently compounding public criticism of The Summit and the City's already- darnaged credibility to review this and other large scale residential projects. The developer responsible for this regrettable design and parking issue is proposing a three-story parking structure on site as the only solution. There are more appropriate ways to address what could very well be a short term parking issue without further degrading Midtown. But, the City must remains true to the planning objectives for this project and the integrity of the review process, instead of accepting a quick, politically- expedient fix, which appears to be the direction. I believe that the current parking problem at The Summit is largely a result of three (3) factors, all potentially temporary. First, although the public objective for transit-oriented student housing was marketed to the City and Urban Renewal Authority and became a condition for project and TIF approvals, the associated reduced parking requirement was not successfully communicated to students and parents. While the developer may have accomplished his August 2013 lease-up objectives, not fully explaining the reduced parking a:rangement is an underlying cause of today's parking problem. Second, the rational for transit-oriented student housing at this location was largely based upon a functioning MAX Transit system and the completion of a north-south bike/ pedestrian trail extending north to Prospect Road, neither of which are in place. MAX is scheduled to serve this project for the Fall2014leasing term, and the developer was not required by the City to install this importarrt bike/ pedestrian connection, only to secure an easement which remains unimproved. Throughout City and URA Board reviews, the developer (and City Administration) touted that this "catalyst" project would not have been proposed were it not for MAX, yet now MAX's role in reducing required parking appears to be completely discounted. Attachment #14 Thfud, the developer had represented to both the City and URA Board that adequate long term ("storage") parking would be available to students at a remote location via an agreement with CSU. For whatever reason, the developer never secured this critical parking agreement, and its completion was not a condition for approval by either the City or URA. Absent this agreement for storage parking, the developer still proceeded with leasing while attempting to arrange for temporary parking elsewhere. No doubt, part of the current parking problem can be addressed as the developer more accurately markets to students during the 2014leasing season and completes the bike/ pedestrian trail connection. Screening tenants and placing a higher price on the limited on-site spaces will address student expectations for on-site parking. The City should expect a leaming curve by the developer as he better positions The Summit to take advantage of its proximity to CSU and mass transit, rather than focusing on the first year's occupancy rate to satisff investors. Despite an achievable reduced parking demand for daily trip, failure by the Crty to require that the developer secure an agreement with CSU has created a condition of inadequate long term, or storage, parking. The developer could have shown a "possible parking structure" location on his application but did not. This would have served as a parking contingency plan, allowing the City, URA Board, and the public to consider this parking structure during initiat reviews. Or, of course, the developer could have reduced densrty as a safeguard, but did not. Nonetheless, the developers' contention that absent this parking agreement with CSU, there is justification for a three-story parking structure adding to the already excessive mass of this project is simply ridiculous. In addition to making farcical the City's long- standing policy objective of reducing dependency on the automobile, an on-site parking structure would have dramatically different impacts than the originally-intended, off-site parking storage. These new, adverse impacts include: ' Worsening the appearance of mass and scale by extending yet another large scale structure south of W. Stuart Street. ' Blocking visibility of the west-facing side of 1801 S. College, recently remodeled as double-sided to be visible by MAX, as encouraged by Midtown Plan. ' Significantly extending The Summit's line-of-site barrier to mountain views. .Discouraging MAX ridership by offering daily parking options. 'Likely eliminating parking along W. Stuart Street that is much needed by the adjoining, 20,000 s.f. of retaiUrestaurant users, thereby, sending those cars into neighborhoods. ' Potentially distributing traffic flow beyond the capacity and design of W. Stuart St. Parking structures are by their nature unattractive. Such a massive structure, even with the City's design guidelines, would worsen this already visually-degraded area of Midtown. Both the City and developer have a poor record of addressing parking for this project. Allowing the first ever developer-operated parking structure with the associated safety issues sets the stage for significant unintended problems. Then what can be done? To begin, the developer must do more through leasing policies. Concurrently, gains from both MAX and improved bike/ pedestrian connectivity must be properly assessed to determine the extent of the remaining parking issue. Next, the developer needs to pursue altemative off-site locations for long term parking similar to the remote location at CSU which was previously acceptable to the developer and the City. Finally, the City needs to assume a constructive role in coordinating among the developer, MAX, CSU, the South Fort Collins Business Association and other private developers in identif,iing the opportunities for shared parking facilities at strategic locations in proximity to Midtown. Please note that my company controls nearly 450 parking spaces either adjoining this project or easily accessible to a MAX transit stop, but has never been approached to discuss a long term parking iurangement with The Summit. As per the Land use Code, a parking structure constitutes a substantial change in character to The Summit and needs to be evaluated thoroughly in terms of traffic, shadow and view impacts. Most regrettably, the initial planning approval for The Summit did not involve the beneht of Planning andZorung Board review and the associated opportunities for public inputs. The negative consequences of this to our community are evident. Circumventing the P&ZBoard for this Major Amendment once again would indeed be a travesty. Certainly, the conditions of City and URA Board approvals cannot be ignored during City review of this Major Amendment. The basis for previous approvals cannot be undone. It is implausible to believe that The Summit would have earned City approvals with its current density, mass and form had this parking structure been initially proposed. Furthermore, considering that The Summit received public funds on the pretext of accomplishing public objectives of transit orientation and reduced reliance on the automobile, this proposed Major Amendment should require either a new hearing before the URA Board or, minimally, a much higher standard of review. The public deserwes an explanation regarding how the URA accepted a developer's "but for" analysis leading to $5 million in TIF, and who now not only proposes to alter the public policy basis for the award but who has $6-7 million to do so. I appreciate the City's desire to address the volume of complaints to the City conce.ning student parking along public streets adjoining neighborhoods. However, please consider that my property at 1623 S. College Avenue ("Chuck E. Cheese Building") adjoining The Summit to the north is the property most adversely impacted by student trespassers. There are typically between 35-50 cars parked throughout the day and overnight on my property. However, I am not complaining to the City. Why? I believe that inevitably this parking condition will substantially improve with the completion of MAX and bike/pedestrian connectivity, marketing adjustments to have the tenant base better match the objectives of the project, and the identification of off-site storage parking. While the parking situation at The Summit has solutions, the negative visual impact of this apartment project is a regrettable legacy and failed opportunity. The additional mass of a parking structure at this location would be inexcusable and would further erode public confidence in the City's development review process. Allowing a parking structure to further degrade the visual experience of Midtown does not need to be the price of reducing the parking problems at The Summit. Certainly, the number of Fort Collins citizens af,lected by what arguably could be a temporary parking problem is a small fraction of those who are required to accept forever this disturbing visual impact. In closing, I need to express my concerns after meeting with City staff members from city planning and re- development review that you and others in the City Administration feel compelled to achieve a politically expedient solution to the current parking conditions at The Summit by endorsing the proposed parking structure. This shortsightedness appears to be influencing the professional objectivity and thoroughness by staffin responding to this proposal. Hopefully, the opinions expressed herein will temper your support a parking structure and contribute to a caliber of review that has been lacking thus far. I look forward to hearing from you by the end of next week regarding your response to the my observations, concerns and suggestions and to hopefully discuss these with you and others in person. Sincerely, cc. Darin Atteberry Tom Leeson Cameron Gloss 4 February 16, 2014 Dear Seth: Thank you so much for your time the other day. It was great to meet you and see you again at the community meeting for the FoCo Cafe. As you recall, we are opening a restaurant / tavern in the garden level of the old Maytag building, 1801 S. College Ave. Our space faces west, and we chose this space specifically due to it's visibility from the Max / Mason Street corridor, as well as the beautiful view of the mountains. We are very concerned about several issues that will arise from the construction of the structure. First we would like to mention those specific to our business: • Our view of the mountains will be completely obstructed. • We will no longer be visible from the Max/Mason Street Corridor. • The shadow from the structure will make our patio less desirable. • Sound echoing off the structure from College Ave. will ruin the ambiance of the patio. Next, issues specific to the area: • Increased traffic on Stuart to and from the parking structure will limit access to our parking lot • Stuart Street is our only access point and customers need to turn left to access our parking lot • Stuart Street is already overloaded and not designed for the traffic it is currently seeing, let alone an increase from a 3 story parking structure • The current overuse of the Stuart / College Ave intersection is already dangerous, more traffic will lead to high speed collisions on College Parking in the community: • Much of the current Summit parking lot is empty, especially since Winter Break. We have emailed several photos documenting this at various times of the day/week. • Stuart Street and the surrounding areas are packed with student cars trying to avoid paying for a parking permit. A new parking structure will not change this behavior. Issues for all Fort Collins residents: • Capstone received $5 million from the City of Fort Collins in tax increment funding to defray the cost of needed improvements to their site • Capstone (magically) now has $6.5 million to complete the proposed parking structure • Capstone is already marketing on their website a new parking structure for Fall 2014 to attract more car owning students to the area • More cars at Summit is more cars in Fort Collins, the opposite of a Transit Oriented Development Possible solutions: • Have Capstone market their housing as transit oriented (this was recently changed on their website. Current residents had no knowledge of this) • Have the City issue free parking permits to residents of the surrounding areas, limiting parking to said permits • Have Capstone develop the connections to the bike path they previously promised but have yet to complete • Have Capstone provide ride share vehicles for necessary car trips • Give Max a chance to get up and running to determine if their Transit Oriented Development will work in Fort Collins • Have Capstone pursue their claimed agreement with CSU for off-site storage parking • Since the winter break we have noticed a significant decrease of cars at Summit (maybe the problem is solving itself…) In conclusion: We have invested over one million dollars in building our business so that we could serve the Mason Street Corridor / Max mass transit and the Spring Creek bike trail as well as the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. We chose our space specifically for its location, views and accessibility. Capstone's newly proposed parking structure impacts all of these, making our local investment in Midtown less viable. We are members of the community and business people trying to stimulate an area of Midtown the City of Fort Collins has made a priority for redevelopment. We are also taxpayers that feel that Capstone has pulled a "bait and switch" on the residents of the City. We realize that the proposed parking structure does not fall outside the Land Use Code for the area. That being said, does the City want to reward Capstone for lying to them about their intentions? Sincerely, Jeffrey Leef David Rose Angela King The Laboratory