Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PARKING GARAGE - MJA/FDP - FDP130056 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION1 CITY OF FORT COLLINS TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION HEARING DATE: March 5, 2014 PROJECT: Major Amendment to Summit on College Project Development Plan CASE NUMBER: FDP #130056 APPLICANT: Walker May Capstone Development Corp. 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35223 OWNER: Fort Collins Associates, L.P. 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35223 HEARING OFFICER: Marcus A. McAskin PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant proposes to construct a parking structure consisting of 440 parking spaces. The proposed parking garage is proposed to be built over the top of an existing surface parking lot, and, if constructed, will result in a net gain of 352 spaces over existing conditions. The proposed parking structure, if constructed, will consist of four parking levels, including parking on the roof of the structure, and the proposed structure has an overall height of approximately three and one-half stories (37’-9” with one stair tower extending to 49’-4”). The proposed parking structure is sited with vehicular access to the north (toward the existing Summit on College residences) and is partially located within the Spring Creek floodplain (FEMA map panel 08069C0979H dated May 2, 2012). The site is located just west of the intersection of South College Avenue and Stuart Street, where Stuart Street dead ends into the railroad track and the future MAX Bus Rapid Transit line. The lot (Lot 1, Choice Center) consists of approximately 6.7 acres, is zoned General Commercial (C-G), and is also located within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The Applicant is also requesting a Modification of Standard for a drive aisle width of 15 feet (15’) within the proposed parking garage, instead of the required 20 feet (20’). SUMMARY OF DECISION: Approved with conditions. ZONE DISTRICT: (C-G) General Commercial with Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:00 p.m. on March 5, 2014, in Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the written evidence summarized in ATTACHMENT 1, a copy of which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference as part of the record of this proceeding. 2 TESTIMONY: The following individuals testified at the hearing: From the City: Seth Lorson, AICP, City Planner Ward Stanford, City Traffic Engineer From the Applicant: Jeff Jones, Executive Vice President, Capstone Development Corp. Carolynne C. White, Attorney, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Jeff Henriksen, R.A., Vice President, DESMAN Associates Brian Williamson, Landscape Architect, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers Hoshi J. Engineer PE. SE., Associate Vice President, DESMAN Associates From the Public: Chris Havekost, Iron Prodigy Gym, 1739 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins Nalalie Parson, 1707 Remington St., Fort Collins Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant Fort Collins David Rose, 204 Maple St. #306, Fort Collins Jeffrey Leef, 2549 W. Stuart St., Fort Collins Andy Smith, 2012 Sheffield Court, Fort Collins Chris Ray, 1113 W. Plum #C-102, Fort Collins Travis Neider, 1801 S. College Avenue #C, Fort Collins Lauren Stadeker, 1721 Choice Center Dr. #1310, Fort Collins Les Kaplan, Imago Enterprises, Inc., 140 Palmer Dr., Fort Collins *Jan Grenat, 1905 Sequoia St., Fort Collins *Angela King, 1801 S. College Avenue #D, Fort Collins *John Steffy, 1820 Remington St., Fort Collins *Included in sign-in sheet, but did not offer testimony during the public comment portion of the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the hearing was properly noticed, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 2.2.6 of the LUC. 2. The Summit Center is a mixed-use development marketed principally to students attending Colorado State University (“CSU”). The Summit opened in 2013 and its residents are primarily CSU students. The Summit consists of 220 apartment-style units, with a total of 665 bedrooms. The surrounding land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North General Commercial (C-G) Retail and Restaurant South General Commercial (C-G) Creekside Park East General Commercial (C-G) and Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L–M–N) Retail along College Avenue and single- and multi-family residential farther to the east West Employment (E) and CSU Burlington Northern Railroad, MAX guideway, Spring Creek Trail, and vacant land. 3 3. When the Project Development Plan for the project was originally approved, there were no codified minimum parking requirements applicable to the project. Currently, the project provides a total of 185 parking spaces (with 665 bedrooms, approximately 27.8% of residents have a dedicated parking space assuming full occupancy). The City has recently adopted minimum parking standards applicable to residential development within the TOD Overlay Zone (Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) of the LUC). If the new parking requirements were applied to The Summit, the project would be required to have 364 parking spaces (a beds-to-parking spaces ratio of 54.7%). With the addition of the proposed parking garage, The Summit will have approximately 537 total parking spaces, resulting in a beds-to-parking spaces ratio of approximately 80.8%. At completion of the proposed parking garage, the project will have approximately 173 excess parking spaces from what would be required by the current LUC. 4. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the Choice Center Mixed-Use Redevelopment Project Development Plan, Case Number PDP #15-08 (the “PDP”) was processed as a Type 1 Administrative Hearing in accordance with the development review process set forth in Division 4.21 of the LUC at the time of the PDP submittal. The PDP was approved, with conditions, by a hearing officer on or about November 3, 2008. 5. Subsequent to approval of the PDP, Division 4.21 of the LUC was amended. If a project development plan similar to the PDP had been filed with the City following the effective date of the amendment, a Type 2 review process would have been required. That is, if a proposal for a residential project containing more than fifty (50) dwelling units, or more than seventy-five (75) bedrooms, were filed with the City today, a Type 2 review (review by the Planning and Zoning Board) would be required. However, the Type 2 review process is not applicable to this proposed Major Amendment. 6. Section 2.2.10(B)(1) of the LUC sets forth in relevant part that “[m]ajor amendments to development plans . . . approved under [the LUC] shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which amendment is sought.” Because the PDP was reviewed as a Type 1 review in 2008, the Hearing Officer finds that the Type 1 review process is the correct and appropriate review process for the major amendment application that has been submitted by the Applicant. 7. Sections 2.4.2 and 2.5.2 of the LUC require that a Major Amendment meet all applicable LUC standards set forth in Article 3 General Development Standards and Article 4 District Standards. 8. The City Staff Report concludes that the Major Amendment satisfies all applicable Article 3 and Article 4 standards and recommends approval, subject to certain conditions related to the existence of the floodplain and as set forth with specificity in the Staff Report. 9. Public testimony at the hearing was focused on five main issues: (1) lack of adequate parking for the commercial owners and tenants, and their respective clientele, in the vicinity of The Summit due to insufficient parking for the students; (2) a concern for where students and guests will park during the construction phase of the proposed garage; (3) preservation of the existing mountain view to the west enjoyed by the owners, lessees and patrons of the 1801 Building (1801 S. College Avenue); (4) public safety; and (5) project design and compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The Hearing Officer concludes that the special height review process outlined in Section 3.5.1(G)(1) of the LUC is not applicable to the proposed Major Amendment, as the height of the proposed parking structure does not exceed forty (40) feet. 10. The Hearing Officer was not provided with any clear evidence of whether spaces in the proposed parking garage will be available to students free of charge, whether students will be required to purchase monthly or annual parking passes to use the garage, or whether the Applicant is proposing to increase monthly lease/rental rates to offset the costs associated with the parking garage. The Hearing Officer assumes that the Applicant plans a restricted access garage, with access only available to residents or 4 tenants of The Summit that have paid the monthly or annual parking fee (TBD). Some members of the public that testified at the hearing questioned whether student residents of The Summit will actually pay for the use of the parking garage; the assumption being that students will continue to attempt to find “free” parking spaces in the surrounding neighborhoods or general vicinity of the project. The Hearing Officer shares this concern but sufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the construction of the proposed parking garage will present a viable long-term solution to the parking problem caused in large part by the student residents of The Summit and the fact that the project, as originally approved, did not have sufficient on-site parking. 11. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials in the record of this case, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Major Amendment satisfies the applicable standards set forth in Article 3 and Article 4 of the LUC. Article 4 District Standards 12. Section 4.21(A) of the LUC sets forth the purpose of the General Commercial (C-G) district: The General Commercial District is intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, this zoning can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City’s intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians. The Hearing Officer concludes that the proposed parking structure supports the existing mixed-use project (consisting of predominately multi-family residential housing) and that the project is currently providing adequate pedestrian connections and bicycle facilities. The project has various existing pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout the site which connect to public sidewalks. The record also demonstrates that the Applicant anticipates completion of the bicycle/pedestrian connection to Prospect Road by late spring or summer of 2014. 13. Section 4.21(B) of the LUC sets forth the permitted uses in the C-G District. The Hearing Officer finds that the proposed parking structure is an accessory use to The Summit. Section 5.1.2 of the LUC defines “accessory use” as “. . . a use of land . . . customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal use of the land . . . and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal use.” In addition, Section 3.8.1 of the LUC identifies “off street parking areas” as an appropriate accessory use, provided that the facts, circumstances, and context of such proposed accessory use is reasonable. 14. Section 4.21(D) of the LUC limits development in the C-G District to a maximum height of four (4) stories. The proposed Parking Garage is three and one-half stories, and is in compliance with this standard. 15. Section 4.21(E) of the LUC requires pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces to be placed next to activity areas that generate the users and states that the proposed development shall, to the maximum extent feasible, link outdoor spaces to and make them visible from street and sidewalks. The Hearing Officer concludes, based on the testimony of Brian Williamson and the landscaping plan included in the record of this proceeding, that the proposed parking garage has been sited to provide sufficient connections to the existing network of plazas and sidewalks to the north and the public park to the south. 16. Section 4.21(G) of the LUC sets forth that development located within the TOD Overlay Zone shall be subject to the requirements of Division 3.10 (Development Standards for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone) (the “TOD Development Standards”). As set forth in the LUC, the 5 purpose of the TOD Development Standards is to encourage land uses and design within the TOD Overlay Zone that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor. The Hearing Officer notes that because the TOD Development Standards contain a specific subsection dedicated to Parking Structure Design (Section 3.10.4(D) of the LUC), that the proposed parking garage is a use consistent with the TOD Overlay Zone. Section 3.10.4(D)(3) of the LUC requires that entrances [to the parking garage] shall be located and designed to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts. Based on the site plan, the Hearing Officer finds that the auto entrance to the proposed parking garage is oriented so that pedestrians will not be crossing in front of vehicles, and thus concludes that this standard has been met. Section 3.10.5(C) of the LUC requires buildings in the TOD Overlay Zone to be constructed with high quality materials and to utilize neutral or earth tone colors. Based upon a review of the materials in the record, the entire base level façade of the proposed parking structure will be constructed with stone veneer and the upper section is tinted concrete. Both of these materials are noted in Section 3.10.5(C)(2) as acceptable. The Hearing Officer also finds that the design of the proposed parking garage is complementary to the existing Summit mixed-use development. The Hearing Officer concludes that all applicable TOD Development Standards have been satisfied. 17. The Hearing Officer finds that Sections 4.21(C), (F) and (H) are not applicable to this proposed Major Amendment. Article 3 General Development Standards 18. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials in the record of this case, the Hearing Officer concludes that the project complies with the applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the LUC, including specifically the standards summarized in the table attached to this decision as ATTACHMENT 2, a copy of which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference. Request for Modification of Standard 19. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials submitted to the Hearing Officer in this case, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Modification of Standard (for Section 3.2.2(L) of the LUC)1 meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H) of the Code. Specifically, the Hearing Officer finds as follows: a. The requested Modification of Standard (the “Modification”) is not detrimental to the public good. b. The Modification satisfies Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of the Code – the Plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested. Section 3.2.2(L) establishes certain minimum standards for long- and short-term parking of standard and compact vehicles. The applicant hired parking consultants Desman Associates to analyze the proposed modification. The Desman Associates report analyzed the requested 1 Specifically, the Applicant is requesting a Modification based on the requirement of Column G (one-way drive aisle width) set forth in Table A in Section 3.2.2(L) of the LUC. The requested Modification is requested for only one of the three drive aisles on each of the four levels of the proposed parking garage; specifically the easternmost bay on each level that will have 60-degree angled parking. No Modification of Standard is requested or required for the remaining two drive aisles on each level of the proposed garage. Table A of Section 3.2.2(L) requires a one-way drive aisle width of 20’ (for 60 degree angled parking), the Applicant is requesting a reduction to 15’. 6 modification and concluded that the drive aisle width could be reduced to 15’ with no detrimental effect on users of the proposed parking structure. DECISION Based on the findings set forth above, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following ruling: A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in the drive aisle width (from 20’ to 15’) is not detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the 20’ width because the Applicant has submitted sufficient probative evidence to demonstrate that the requested modification will not have a detrimental effect on users of the proposed parking structure. The modification of standard, as approved, shall be limited to the easternmost bay of each level of the parking garage. B. The Major Amendment requests the approval of the proposed parking garage as an accessory use. C. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable land development standards of the General Commercial (C-G) District in Article 4, Division 4.21 of the Land Use Code. D. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article 3 of the Land Use Code, with the exception of the requested modification of standard to Section 3.2.2(L). E. The Major Amendment complies with the applicable procedural and administrative requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code. F. This Project (The Summit on College Parking Structure FDP #130056) is approved as submitted, subject to the following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (1) Lot 1 is partially located within the FEMA-regulated Spring Creek 100-year high risk floodplain and floodway. The project shall comply with all applicable sections of Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. (2) The Owner (Fort Collins Associates, L.P.) and its consultants and subconsultants shall complete all components of the action plan for amendment of the Floodplain Use Permit (FPUP) #11048 as outlined in the memorandum from Walker P. May dated February 14, 2014 and addressed to Brian Varrella, the City’s Floodplain Administrator. Specifically, all of the following five (5) items shall be completed and approved by the City’s Floodplain Administrator prior to the issuance of an amended FPUP for any site work on Lot 1 related to the construction of the parking garage: (a) The Owner shall work with its contractor to identify a maximum limit of disturbance (“LOD”) in the floodplain during construction of the garage; (b) The Owner shall work with its design team to prepare a new exhibit that overlays the garage LOD over the existing exhibit outlining the respective responsibilities (repair, reseeding, and establishment of growth) between the Owner, the Max Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and its subcontractor, Powell Restoration (“Powell”). (c) To the degree that work to be performed by the Owner or its consultants/contracting team in connection with the garage will disturb or damage areas under the responsibility of the BRT/Powell, the FPUP will be amended to reassign those 7 areas and the applicable repair, reseeding, and establishment of growth responsibilities, to the Owner. (d) A silt fence will be placed along the proposed area of disturbance with the oversight and assistance of the Owner’s surveying team to ensure that the Owner’s contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) remain within the boundaries of the (to be) amended FPUP #11048. (e) To the degree that actual work is performed by the Owner, its contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) that disturbs or damages an area outside of the (to be) amended FPUP or under the BRT’s separate existing FPUP that falls under the responsibility of BRT/Powell, an additional amendment will be made to remove those areas from the FPUP. (3) An approved FPUP and no-rise certification must precede any site work, building construction, or building or grading permits. No development work, as defined in Section 10-16 of Chapter 10 of the Code, shall commence until the FPUP and no-rise certification are approved by the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration. (4) The FPUP and no-rise documentation must clearly document compliance with the Floodproofing or venting requirements of Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code if elevation requirements of Section 10-37 cannot be satisfied. The Owner and its consultants and subconsultants shall complete all applicable items included in the City of Fort Collins Floodproofing Guidelines, provided previously to the Owner by City Staff and available online at http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fp-floodproofing.pdf. (5) A pre-construction FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be provided as part of the no-rise certification materials, and must be approved prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. (6) All no-rise certifications shall be re-certified by the professional engineer of record prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on the site. The no-rise re- certification shall include a FEMA Elevation Certificate of as-built conditions, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until the as-built Elevation Certificate is approved by City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration. (7) That the Owner / Applicant be required to deposit the $23,906.25 fee-in-lieu contribution (as detailed in the TST estimate dated February 17, 2014) with the City prior to the Applicant obtaining any grading or building permits related to the development of the parking garage. (8) That the Applicant be required to install appropriate cautionary signage to alert pedestrians to the presence of entering and existing vehicles from the parking garage and to inform drivers that pedestrians have priority, in accordance with Section 3.10.4(D)(3)(f) of the LUC. (9) All eighteen (18) handicapped accessible spaces on Lot 1, including the four (4) proposed accessible spaces within the garage shall be marked and identified in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(c) of the LUC. The project shall maintain a minimum of eighteen (18) handicapped spaces on Lot 1. (10) That any and all curbcuts and ramps associated with the parking garage shall be located at convenient, safe locations for the physically disabled, for bicyclists and for people pushing strollers or carts, and that the location of such curbcuts and ramps shall meet all applicable requirements of the International Building Code (IBC) and the City's Americans With Disabilities Act ramp 8 standards and shall avoid crossing or funneling traffic through loading areas, drive-in lanes and outdoor trash storage/collection areas. (11) That all 440 spaces within the proposed parking garage be reserved and dedicated for use by the student residents of The Summit, or their guests, or by the retail tenants/customers of the retail located within Lot 1 (collectively, the “Authorized Users”). The Applicant is seeking approval of the parking garage as an accessory use. Section 5.1.2 of the LUC defines Accessory use as “a use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal use of the land or building and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal use” (emphasis added). Section 3.8.1 of the LUC identifies off-street parking areas as a permitted accessory use when the facts, circumstances and context of such use is reasonably indicated. The principal use of Lot 1 is a mixed-use project consisting primarily of multi-family residential. In order for the proposed parking garage to be clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use of Lot 1, the parking garage shall be reserved and dedicated for use by the Authorized Users only. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that this condition will ensure that the parking garage is, and remains, an accessory use. The Applicant shall add a note to the FDP which clarifies that the parking garage is an accessory structure, and that parking within the garage shall be available only to the Authorized Users, as that term is defined in this condition (E)(11). The Applicant shall also record a covenant against Lot 1, Choice Center Subdivision which shall set forth that all 440 parking spaces within the parking garage shall be reserved for the exclusive use of the Authorized Users for so long as the parking garage remains operational and that no other individuals or parties shall be authorized to park within the parking structure (the “Covenant”). The Covenant shall run with the land and bind the Owner’s successor(s) or assign(s). The Covenant shall also set forth that no portion of the parking garage may be rented or leased (whether on an hourly, daily, monthly, annual or other basis) to any person or entity other than the Authorized Users. The Covenant shall authorize the City to inspect and audit the Owner’s records concerning the use and allocation of spaces within the parking garage at any time, upon reasonable advance notice, in order to ensure that the terms of the Covenant are being met. If the terms of the Covenant are not being met, the City shall have the authority to suspend the use of the parking garage until such time as the Owner is in compliance with the terms of the Covenant. The Covenant shall be reviewed and approved Director of Planning, Development & Transportation, or her designee, and by the City Attorney’s Office prior to the date on which the Covenant is recorded against Lot 1. The Covenant shall be recorded against Lot 1 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the parking garage. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that if the Applicant intends to make the parking garage available to the general public (whether on an hourly, daily, monthly, annual or other basis) and not exclusively to the Authorized Users, that the proposed parking garage does not qualify as an accessory use under the LUC, and that a Type 2 review (Planning and Zoning Board review) of this application is required, in accordance with the process required by the land use table set forth in Section 4.21(B)(2) of the LUC. The condition set forth in this paragraph (E)(11) is imposed pursuant to Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC to ensure that the proposed parking garage will be compatible with the existing neighborhood and uses. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer was sufficient to demonstrate that the construction of the proposed parking garage will alleviate the parking issues in the vicinity of the project caused primarily by the student residents of the project (and the fact that the project currently does not have sufficient parking) if the use of the parking garage is limited to, and reserved for the benefit of, the Authorized Users. Restricting the use of 9 the parking garage to the Authorized Users is designed to ensure that existing surface and street parking in the vicinity of the project is available, to the extent possible, to the general public, including but not limited to the employees, owners, tenants of the existing office and retail uses which are proximate to the project, and their respective customers. (12) That the Applicant complete the planned bicycle/pedestrian connection to Prospect Road prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the parking garage. DATED this 19th day of March, 2014. ____________________________________ Marcus A. McAskin Hearing Officer 10 ATTACHMENT 1: Evidence accepted by Hearing Officer as part of the record of this proceeding A. Planning Department Staff Report prepared for the March 5, 2014 hearing (the “Staff Report”), together with attachments and other documents referenced in the Staff Report, including the following: 1. Site Plan 2. Landscape Plan 3. Elevations 4. Floor Plans 5. Plat 6. Photometric Plan 7. Shadow Study 8. Bike Parking Alternative Compliance Request, as revised on March 3, 2014 9. Drive Aisle Modification Request 10. Ecological Characterization Study 11. Ecological Characterization Study Checklist 12. Fee in Lieu Estimate for Landscape Buffer 13. Transportation Impact Study Memorandum 14. Public Comments (a) Letter dated January 8, 2014 from Lester M. Kaplan (Imago Enterprises, Inc. and addressed to Ms. Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development and Transportation) (b) Letter dated February 16, 2014 from Jeffrey Leef, David Rose & Angela King (The Laboratory) and addressed to Seth Lorson, City Planner B. Supplemental Memorandum from City Planner Seth Lorson dated March 5, 2014 and the following documents attached to the Memorandum: 1. Response Letter to public comment letters from Jeff Jones of Capstone Development Corp., dated March 3, 2014. 2. Revised request for alternative compliance, dated March 3, 2014, which should replace the first two pages of attachment 8 of staff report. 3. Revised shadow analysis, dated March 3, 2014, which should replace, in entirety, attachment 7 of the staff report. 4. Memorandum from Walker P. May, to Brian Varrella, dated February 14, 2014, regarding “The Summit on College – action plan for amendment of FPUP #11048 upon garage entitlement”. 11 5. Attachment 9 – Drive Aisle Modification Request (Attachment 9 to Staff Report). C. Images provided by Applicant at the hearing (IMG_0562.jpg, IMG_0563.jpg, view1.jpg, view2.jpg, view3.jpg and view4.jpg). D. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation presented at the hearing prepared by Fort Collins staff; E. A copy of materials submitted by the Applicant at the March 5, 2014 hearing, including the following: (1) A copy of the PowerPoint presentation presented at the hearing prepared by Capstone Development Corp. (2) Letter from Carolynne C. White of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck dated March 5, 2014 and addressed to the Hearing Officer and containing the following exhibits: (a) Revised Shadow Study (b) Bike Parking – Request for Alternate Compliance (c) Parking Counts (d) ELB Engineering, LLC Traffic Impact Study Addendum dated December 16, 2013 and Supplemental Memorandum dated January 28, 2014. (e) Desman Associates Letter Regarding Substantial Modification for Drive Aisle Width. (f) Leasing Staff TOD-Oriented Marketing Materials (g) Newspaper Articles regarding The Summit development (h) TIF Gap Financing Analysis (i) Student Satisfaction Survey (3) Letters from citizens and businesses concerning the parking structure. (4) Letters: (a) To Les Kaplan, President of Imago Enterprises, Inc., 140 Palmer Dr., Fort Collins CO, 80525 dated January 14, 2014 from Karen Cumbo, Fort Collins Director Planning, Development, and Transportation Service Area. (b) To Karen Cumbo, Fort Collins Director Planning, Development, and Transportation Service Area dated March 3, 2014 from L. Jeff Jones, Executive Vice President of Capstone Development Corp. (c) To Les Kaplan, President of Imago Enterprises, Inc., 140 Palmer Dr., Fort Collins CO, 80525 dated February 26, 2014 from L. Jeff Jones, Executive Vice President of Capstone Development Corp. F. Affidavit of publication dated February 25, 2014, confirming publication of the notice of public hearing in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on February 25, 2014. 12 In addition to the specific items listed above, the Hearing Officer also considers the following part of the record of this proceeding: the City’s Land Use Code (“LUC”), the City’s Municipal Code (the “Code”), and the Comprehensive Plan. 13 ATTACHMENT 2: Article 3 General Development Standards Section reference – Article 3 of LUC Description of Satisfaction of Standard 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection The landscape plan provides for dense landscaping along the eastern portion of the property. The developer is providing a fee-in-lieu of constructing/planting the full landscape buffer area to the south until after the City’s Parks and Stormwater Departments have completed the planned Spring Creek improvements (currently estimated to be completed in 2016). 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking 3.2.2(C)(1) Safety Considerations - To the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians shall be separated from vehicles and bicycles. Pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the parking deck has been established along pre-existing access routes at the northwest and northeast corners of facility. Neither access route will require pedestrians or bicycles to cross in front of vehicles turning into or exiting the parking deck; safety considerations have been adequately addressed. 3.2.2(C)(2) Curbcuts and Ramps - Curbcuts and ramps shall be located at convenient, safe locations for the physically disabled, for bicyclists and for people pushing strollers or carts. The location and design of curbcuts and ramps shall meet the requirements of the International Building Code and the City's Americans With Disabilities Act ramp standards and shall avoid crossing or funneling traffic through loading areas, drive-in lanes and outdoor trash storage/collection areas. Shall be required as condition of approval. 3.2.2(C)(3) Site Amenities - Development plans shall include site amenities that enhance safety and convenience and promote walking or bicycling as an alternative means of transportation. Site amenities may include bike racks, drinking fountains, canopies and benches as described in the Fort Collins Bicycle Program Plan and Pedestrian Plan as adopted by the city. The Applicant proposes additional bike racks on the ground floor of the proposed parking structure and has proposed adding additional bike racks around the existing buildings. The parking garage project also includes a connecting walkway to access the adjacent city park (to the south) and two pedestrian bench seating areas. 14 Section reference – Article 3 of LUC Description of Satisfaction of Standard 3.2.2(C)(5) Walkways - Directness and Continuity and emphasis of pedestrian access and safety in crossing of drive aisles or internal roadways. Pedestrian access to and from the proposed parking garage has been established utilizing existing sidewalk routes at the northwest and northeast corners of the parking deck that will not require pedestrians to cross in front of vehicles when turning into or exiting the deck. 3.2.2(C)(6) Direct On-Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations. The Summit's existing on-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation system provides for various on-site connections to facilities. The Summit is also in the process of building a bike and pedestrian path to the north to Prospect Road with construction anticipated to begin in spring / summer of 2014. Completion of this bike and pedestrian path to the north shall be a condition of approval. 3.2.2(C)(8) Transportation Impact Study Required As part of the Major Amendment application, a transportation impact study was required, including revised total traffic project impact numbers. (12/16/13 ELB Engineering, LLC Traffic Impact Study Addendum (Parking Structure Addition) and 1/28/14 Supplemental Memorandum). The capacity analysis indicates the intersection of College and Stuart will operate at acceptable levels through 2028. No additional residential units are being proposed, so the amount of traffic that is currently exists is projected to remain constant. The transportation impact indicates that, due to its location and proximity to the MAX bus rapid transit system, the proposed parking garage may be used for predominantly storage parking. 3.2.2(D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements - Vehicular uses shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive, considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system. This includes, to the maximum extent feasible, separation of pedestrians and vehicles through provision of a sidewalk or walkway Pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the parking deck has been established along pre-existing access routes at the northwest and northeast corners of facility. Neither access route will require pedestrians or bicycles to cross in front of vehicles turning into or exiting the parking deck. 15 Section reference – Article 3 of LUC Description of Satisfaction of Standard 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions - Off-street parking areas for automobiles must meet minimum standards for long- and short-term parking of standard and compact vehicles. (3) Long-Term Parking Stalls. As an option in long-term parking areas, all long-term parking stalls may be designated using the following stall dimensions: Parking Angle 60, Stall Width, 8.5', Stall Length 18' Parking Angle 90, Stall Width, 8.5', Stall Length 18' The Parking Structure proposed parking angle for the east bay of parking is 60 degrees, with stall widths of 8.5', stall lengths of 18' and one-way drive aisles on all levels. The proposed angle for the west two bays of parking will be 90 degrees, with stall widths of 8.5', stall lengths of 18' and two-way 24' wide drive aisles on all levels. The request for Modification of Standards detailed below is to decrease the drive aisle for the east angled one-way parking bay to 15'. 438 stalls are proposed at this size. Two stalls are proposed to be compact at 8' x 16', which is consistent with the size allowed at Section 3.3.2(L)(2) for up to 40% of the Parking Structure. 3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading - Requires that buildings, to the maximum extent feasible, not cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow of a hypothetical 25 foot tall wall on the property line based off of December 21 between 9 am and 3 pm, the day where the longest shadows of the year occur. As part of the Major Amendment application, a shadow study was required (see Revised Shadow Study). As confirmed in the Staff Report, the shadow study shows that the proposed parking structure does not cast a shadow larger than permitted by Section 3.2.3 of the LUC. 3.2.4 Site Lighting - Exterior lighting should be functional and provide security needs, but in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood. All lighting is down-directional with sharp glare cutoff fixtures. No foot-candles exceed one-tenth as measured 20' from property lines, as required by Section 3.2.4(C). At night, a photocell will automatically reduce light level below the maximum of 10 foot- candles in accordance with Section 3.2.4(D)(7). 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features - Applies if portion of the development site is within 500' of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature on the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Purpose is to ensure design and arrangement of site protects the natural habitats and features both on the site and in the vicinity of the site. An Ecological Characterization Study was performed as part of the Major Amendment. A Natural Habitat Buffer 16 Section reference – Article 3 of LUC Description of Satisfaction of Standard City Staff has concluded that the Section 3.4.1 standards have been satisfied, as summarized on page 12 of the Staff Report. The Hearing Officer has determined that this standard has been satisfied. 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility - Ensure that characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the context of the surrounding area. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. The Parking Structure is architecturally consistent with The Summit. It is intended to blend with The Summit, both in color and materials. Architectural elements match the adjacent development and stone clad pilasters and window elements have been incorporated at ground level to establish human scale and to encourage pedestrian activity. The ground level has a stone veneer with matching accent columns stretching the entire height of the building. Cementitious panel elements with windows are protruding on corners and in several locations along the façade to break up the overall size of the building. The panels are painted to match the existing Summit buildings. The roofline is capped with a sheet metal cornice. 3.5.1(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale -"Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures." The proposed parking structure is compatible with surrounding development in terms of building size, height, bulk, mass, and scale in that it is 3 ½ stories tall (37’-9” with one stair tower extending to 49’-4”). The building to the east (known as the Maytag Building at 1801 S. College Street) is one story with a garden level and approximately 100 feet in length, and directly to the north is the residential portion of Summit which is 4 and 5 stories in height and a maximum length of 560 feet. The east and west sides of the parking structure is 230 feet in length and the north and south sides are 175 feet in length. 3.5.3 Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings - Intended to promote human scale development and to create attractive street fronts and walkways. Building massing is required to be varied so it does not exceed a height-width ratio of 1:3 without projecting or recessed elements and is required to relate to interior spaces. The proposed parking structure is not abutting a public street and sits at the end of a private drive used to access the garage which is currently a surface parking lot. The 17 Section reference – Article 3 of LUC Description of Satisfaction of Standard stone veneer pillars and projections of cementitious siding and panels in varied colors to break up the massing of the building. The building may not have blank walls or building bays exceeding 30 feet in width without incorporating architectural features, and also have recognizable base and top treatments (Sec. 3.5.3(E)). The principal material is precast architectural concrete spandrels with 3” wide and ¾” deep reveals to add visual interest. The voids that open into the parking garage are broken up with vertical concrete spans. The entire base is stone veneer protruding out from the concrete face. Each stone veneer pillar and cementitious projection panel extends above the concrete roofline providing variation and all rooflines are capped with sheet metal cornices. 3.6.4 Transportation Level of Service – Project must provide adequate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the City's adopted Levels of Service standards. A Traffic Engineering Study was submitted and accepted by the City’s Traffic Operations Department. City Staff has concluded that the project adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the City’s adopted standards pertaining to Levels of Service. The Hearing Officer agrees that this standard has been satisfied. site plan does provide a connecting sidewalk both to the residential portion of the development to the north and to the public park to the south. The building is required to vary its building mass so that it does not exceed a height: width ratio of 1:3 without projecting or recessed elements and shall relate to the interior spaces (Sec. 3.5.3(D)). The building provides Zone is proposed to buffer the development from Spring Creek. The standard buffer requirement for Spring Creek in the LUC per Section 3.4.1(E)(1) is 100' and an average 100' buffer is proposed. The Major Amendment proposes to meet the standards by applying the performance standards at Section 3.4.1(E) and incorporates various elements into the design, including no fencing, incorporating native plantings and screening, payment of a fee-in- lieu based on conceptual landscape plan.