HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PARKING GARAGE - MJA/FDP - FDP130056 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held Tuesday, March 5, 2014
Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
In the Matter of:
The Summit on College Parking Garage #FDP130056
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER:
Marcus A. McAskin
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Seth Lorson, City Planner
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Ward Stanford, Traffic Systems Engineer
Brian Varella, Floodplain Administrator
Sandy Lindell, Senior Building and Development Review Tech
2
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MARCUS MCASKIN: We are here tonight
2 on case number FDP130056. This is a Major Amendment for The Summit on College parking
3 structure. The proposal is essentially to construct a parking structure consisting of 440 parking
4 spaces to be built over the top of an existing surface parking lot. There’s also a request for a
5 Modification of Standard to allow for a drive aisle with reduction from twenty feet to fifteen feet.
6 The subject property is located in the CG, or General Commercial, zone district, and is also
7 located in the TOD, or Transit Oriented Development Overlay District.
8 Just to give you a little bit of an overview of the process of the hearing tonight, we will
9 start with the presentation from the applicant, that will be followed by a presentation by staff,
10 and I think Seth Lorson, the case planner on that will be presenting for the City. At that point
11 there will be public testimony, and we do have a sign-up sheet up here, so if you would like to
12 provide testimony tonight, I would ask that you sign in on this sheet and make sure that you have
13 your full name on there as well as your address. I’ll ask you to re-state that since we are
14 recording the hearing tonight, I’ll ask you to re-state that on the record. And, generally, what I’d
15 like to do is keep public comment to about three minutes per speaker. I’m not going to be
16 incredibly…anal with that time limit, but I do want to avoid repetitious testimony if at all
17 possible. If you are here representing an organization such as an HOA, or other
18 organization…you’re here on their behalf, I will give you more time. But, just go ahead and
19 state that upfront so that I know which organization it is that you’re appearing on behalf of.
20 Following public testimony, there will be an opportunity for the applicant to provide
21 response, as well as City to provide a response or to answer any questions or give additional
22 input on questions that have been raised during the public testimony portion of the hearing. So,
23 with that I will turn it over to the applicant and ask them to give us an overview of the Major
24 Amendment that’s being requested here tonight and the application.
25 Yeah, and you know…I’ll have to…maybe what we can do is maybe pass one of these
26 around, or feel free to state your name on the record, but make sure that you sign in as well.
27 And, just to let you know, the Fort Collins Land Use Code does require that if you are signed in
28 here and you do provide testimony, that when ultimately I make my written findings of fact and
29 decision on this matter, you are entitled to receive a written copy of that, and hence why we ask
30 for your address…that we can make sure we get you a copy of that decision. So, with that, I’ll
31 turn it over to the applicant.
32 MS. CAROLYN WHITE: Alright, good evening, my name is Carolyn White; I’m land
use counsel for the applicant. For the record, my address is 410 17
th
33 Street, Suite 2200, and
34 that’s in Denver, 80202. I’d like to start by introducing our team. With me to my left is Jeff
35 Jones, who is the Executive Vice-president of Capstone, who is the applicant and the property
36 owner of The Summit. Behind me is Walker May, who is the Senior Development Manager,
37 Mike Howard, who is the Construction Manager, Jeff Henriksen who is the architect with
38 Desman Associates, Hoshi Engineer, who is the Engineer with Desman Associates, Brian
3
1 Williamson, who is the landscape architect with TST, my associate Caitlyn Quander with
2 Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck. Only some of our team members will actually be presenting
3 during our program, but all of them are available to answer questions as needed throughout the
4 process.
5 Just for the record, also, I would like to mention the handout that we provided to the
6 Hearing Officer and to staff ahead of time, and certainly we have a couple extra copies that we
7 can provide as well. That handout contains a paper copy of our PowerPoint presentation, a cover
8 letter explaining…summarizing in writing what we’re going to present tonight in terms of why
9 and how this project meets the applicable criteria in the Land Use Code, and a couple of selected
10 exhibits, some of which are duplicative of what’s already in the record, and some of which are
11 additive. And, as we go through our presentation, we’ll identify and reference the things that we
12 are speaking about in the record.
13 As you mentioned, we are here to request administrative approval, pursuant to a Type I
14 hearing, as required under the Land Use Code, for a Major Amendment to an already approved
15 PDP for The Summit on College, and the purpose of that Major Amendment is to add a parking
16 structure. And so, all of our program tonight will be focused on presenting about that parking
17 structure, why and how it meets the applicable criteria in the Land Use Code. In a moment, I’m
18 going to turn it over to Jeff to talk a little bit about the background of Capstone in this project,
19 how we got to this point, just to provide some context, both for the Hearing Officer and for the
20 audience, and then we’re going to dive into the specifics of the applicable Code requirements,
21 not summarizing them all, of course, but only the one that we think are probably most relevant to
22 your determination.
23 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, I do have one initial
24 question, and I think I received a little bit of guidance on this from staff earlier, but if I look at
25 the Code now, this type of development, the multi-family development having this many units,
26 for a parking garage, would fall into the Type II approval category. But, it’s my understanding
27 that the controlling PDP that was approved in 2010 or 2011 was processed under a prior version
28 of the Code as a Type I hearing, hence we’re doing the amendment as a Type I. Is that…?
29 MS. WHITE: That’s exactly right, and the Code, before it’s amendment, did require that
30 this type of application would be a Type I administrative hearing, and the Code still requires that
31 any amendments to an already approved plan will be processed in the same way as the original
32 application, and that’s why this is a Type I hearing in front of a Hearing Officer as opposed to a
33 Type II hearing in front of the Planning Commission. And that’s also, for the record, and for the
34 audience in case there are any questions, why there wasn’t a required formal neighborhood
35 meeting, because those are only required when you have a Type II hearing in front of the
36 Planning and Zoning Board.
4
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Great, and I don’t know…I
2 apologize if I didn’t introduce myself. My name is Marcus McAskin, the last name is M-C-
3 capital A-S-K-I-N. I’m with the Denver law firm of Widner, Michow and Cox. So, with that…I
4 guess I’ll turn it over to Jeff and let him run through the presentation.
5 MR. JEFF JONES: Thank you Mr. McAskin. I’d like to start by giving you a bit of
6 background on our company, Capstone Development Corp. We are a national developer and
7 operator of student residential communities. We were formed in 1990 to focus in this market
8 niche and we have developed off-campus and on-campus housing…over a hundred projects
9 since our formation in 1990. My particular division focuses on on-campus developments and
10 what we call campus edge, walkable developments, where we find sites that are close to a
11 university that has a housing need and we develop those communities to meet a university need
12 and to help also fulfill community revitalization or redevelopment goals. So, we’ve been at this
13 for twenty-three plus years now and are generally considered one of the national leaders in
14 this…in this market niche. And we really look for opportunities like the one that we have
15 developed here with The Summit on College apartments, where we have walkable, bike-able
16 locations that students can easily access the campus and other, you know, commercial
17 and…destinations.
18 We started working on this project in about 2007 or 2008. It was a difficult site, from a
19 regulatory perspective, it had some floodplain issues that took a long time to work through, and it
20 had other issues that we challenging. So it was a long pre-development period. We actually
21 started construction in 2012, opened the project in August of 2013…I’m pleased to say that it
22 opened at above 95% capacity. And we felt like…and we got great feedback from City officials
23 who we were working with and University officials who were involved in our decision…we felt
24 like this was the exact kind of development that the City of Fort Collins was trying to encourage
25 and stimulate, particularly along the Mason corridor where they were investing $80 million plus
26 in the MAX BRT line. We felt like that was an important attractant, if you will, to this particular
27 site and to this particular market. And I think the City officials that we worked with in Planning
28 and Development felt like it was a great project, properly designed and properly executed. We
29 built 220 units that comprise 665 bedrooms, apartment style housing. We do have about eight
30 thousand square feet of retail in our building that fronts College Avenue. We have our…our
31 initial tenant is open and operating, Red Robin’s Burger Works with a new concept for Fort
32 Collins, so we hope to have two or three additional retailers before it’s all said and done.
33 And one of the things that occurred soon after we occupied…our first tenants occupied
34 the community back in August of ’13, was that we had a parking deficiency, or a parking
35 shortage. We built about 185 total parking spaces on-site…that was as many as we could
36 squeeze onto the site. We had about 390 parking spaces, which I think at that time exceeded the
37 Code requirement. And we felt like, and we have seen that most of our students actually do walk
38 or bike or ride the bus to and from, you know, classes and other activities at CSU. We’ve done
39 surveys of our students and have learned that about 76% of our residents have a car with them
5
1 while they’re in school here…or excuse me, 73%, and 76% mostly walk or bike or ride the bus
2 to and from CSU. So, this has proven to be a walkable, bike-able transit-oriented location as we
3 had hoped. The parking deficiency on site, however, began to cause problems in the residential
4 and commercial neighborhoods near the community from the very beginning, and frustration
5 among our student residents.
6 When we envisioned how this community would be parked, we felt like there were, you
7 know, two or three elements to the parking: there was the on-site, surface spaces that we were
8 going to provide, both for residential occupants and commercial tenants and patrons, then there
9 were spaces that we expected and anticipated would be available to our student residents,
10 commuter parking spaces on the CSU campus that we felt could take a significant percentage of
11 our parkers who weren’t going to be able to park on site, and then we felt like there would be
12 some percentage of our student residents who would not have cars or not need parking. So, we
13 were…I guess, you know, accurate in terms of the number we could park on site, we were
14 relatively accurate in our projections about how many would come without a car. But about a
15 month or two before we occupied the community in August of ’13, CSU notified us that its
16 parking policies were changing, it was losing surface parking areas on campus as more and more
17 buildings were being developed, and that it would not be able to accommodate our students
18 parking long-term and storage parking commuter lots as we had anticipated and understood.
19 That was a curve ball that we didn’t anticipate, so soon after move-in, it became fairly evident
20 that we were going to be having…dealing with the parking deficiency. Colorado State did tell
21 us, for the first year, they would provide 150 spaces, or permits, for parking but, in a lot that’s
22 about 1.2 miles west of our location on the sort of western end of the campus. We have had
23 students park there and it didn’t prove to be a very convenient place, and hasn’t been as well
24 utilized as we, you know, would have hoped and everybody would have liked. So, with the loss
25 of the opportunity to park more students on the CSU campus, we began looking at other off site
26 options. We were able to lease a couple of lots, one near our community where a building had
27 been taken down; we were able to get twenty-five spaces in the Discount Tire lot. We were able
28 to lease about 60 to 80 spaces at the Foothills Assembly Church, which is about 1.2 miles south
29 along the Mason trail. So, we cobbled together as much parking as we could. Our retail wasn’t
30 fully occupied so we had some retail spaces that could be utilized by students. But we have
31 literally had to cobble together a parking solution for this first year, and it’s really hurt us
32 reputationally [sic], it’s made our residents frustrated, and I’m afraid we’ve, you know, not made
33 ourselves great neighbors to some of our commercial neighbors or our residential neighbors,
34 particularly to the south and the east.
35 So, as we have continued through the fall and winter to look for alternatives that would
36 replace the parking that we’d anticipated utilizing on the CSU campus, what we were trying to
37 find were other lots that we could lease long term, or purchase long term, that would work for
38 our residents and not cause this parking spillover in these neighborhoods. We were not able to
39 find anything that we felt like was a solution to the magnitude of the problem that we had, and so
6
1 we made a pretty painful decision to build a parking structure on our southern parking lot, where
2 we had about a hundred parking spaces on a surface lot, to take those away and build a three and
3 a half story garage. It will cost us about six and a half million dollars, will substantially reduce
4 our return on our investment in the project overall, but we feel like, for the community, for the
5 neighborhood, it’s really the only responsible solution and it’s the solution that will assure
6 adequate parking for this community in future years as we continue to re-lease.
7 We are about…we are projecting about fifteen percent renewals from our existing tenants
8 this year to next year, whereas we normally see about a forty percent renewal rate. So, the
9 dissatisfaction of this year’s tenants with the parking situation is contributing to a much lower
10 renewal rate, and I think we are roughly 130 leases behind where we were last year with an
11 under-construction project, in trying to get new leases this year. So, our leasing is clearly
12 suffering renewal-wise and new leases because of our parking situation. So, we’ve tried to let it
13 be known to our residents and to prospective residents, that we are proposing this parking
14 structure, that we believe if it is approved will hopefully solve our parking need and parking
15 challenge going forward. The structure that we have proposed that you’ll hear a lot about is
16 going to add about 352 parking spaces to our site to get us to about 537 total spaces for our 665
17 beds. That’s about 80%...81% of our total bed spaces. And, if you take out the spaces that will
18 be dedicated for handicapped parking, for short term pick-up, drop-off parking, for staff parking,
19 and for a reasonable number of visitors and guests, that will allow us to park about 70% of our
20 residents on site. So, we’re not trying to build enough structured parking here to park 100% as
21 some people do; we’re saying, we think we can still attract something on the order of 30% of our
22 residents annually who will not need a car and will depend on the MAX and walking and biking,
23 so that’s our plan. We’re also going to add about 275 additional parking…bicycle parking
24 spaces. And I think you’re going to hear tonight that our garage parking structure meets all of
25 the Land Use Code requirements of the Fort Collins Code. We’re going to ask for only one
26 modification of one of the design standards, and that will be to build a slightly narrower drive
27 aisle in one of our three bays of our garage on each level. So, we have 60-foot bay, 60-foot bay,
28 and then a slightly narrower bay that’ll have 24-foot drive aisles and a 15-foot drive aisle with
29 angled parking on one of our three bays on each level. That’s the one modification of standard
30 we’ll be asking for. And we’ll be happy to answer any questions that you have and I can give
31 you a little bit of…
32 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Sir, if I’m understanding
33 that…there will be two drive aisles on each level that are in compliance with the 20-foot
34 standard, but one…there’ll be one drive aisle on each of the three proposed levels that
35 would…requesting the modification.
36 MR. JONES: And we’ll have some slides that will depict that very graphically for you.
37 Just in case you’re not, you know, familiar with all of the area that we’re talking about…this is
38 South College Avenue, Prospect Road, which is sort of the southern edge of the main CSU
39 campus. This area in red is the site that we have redeveloped with The Summit and we have
7
1 access off of College between the existing older retail buildings that are on the frontage, and then
2 at Stuart Street where there’s a signalized intersection that brings residents back to our buildings.
3 These are images that we presented to the City and the Urban Renewal Authority in the early
4 days of our design work; this shows building two that fronts on College Avenue at the corner of
5 Stuart Street that you see here, and building two is an L-shaped building that has ground floor
6 retail, about 7700 square feet of ground floor retail, and three and four levels above. This is the
7 one portion of our project that’s really kind of a four-five story element. We slid a fifth story
8 under in the back to take up the grade and then we have our building one in the background that
9 is, you know, four stories on grade.
10 These are images that we presented to the City early on of what we anticipated building,
11 again building one…excuse me, building two with the retail and in the background, building one.
12 This is at the intersection again of Stuart and College. That’s a photograph of the actual
13 completed project, so you can see that we built exactly what we had proposed and rendered with
14 the ground floor retail, residential above and building one here. This was an image that we
15 provided that looks west from across South College Avenue at our community and how it relates
16 to the one-story older retail buildings on the College Avenue frontage so this is our building one
17 in the background and that’s our L-shaped building two. And again, these are photographs…not
18 the best photographs in the world, I apologize for the quality, but again, it shows you, here’s the
19 Choice Center retail buildings and there is our building in the background. So, from a massing
20 and a scale standpoint, again, I think we were very true to what we had proposed. And then this
21 is an aerial overview of our community which shows, again, the Choice Center retail buildings
22 fronting on College Avenue, our L-shaped building one with the retail, and this L that comes out
23 to College, and parking for retail, and then we have sort of an E-shaped building with three very
24 nice courtyards that face west. Our existing parking, surface parking…we had a larger lot on the
25 south and a slightly smaller lot on the north using all the ground that we could. All of this land
26 right here was reserved and dedicated to stormwater channeling as required by the City of Fort
27 Collins and FEMA, and we go down to Spring Creek here. And then these are, again, additional
28 photographs of the community that look from south to north along what we call Choice Center
29 drive here. So that’s looking between building two and building one. This is a shot looking into
30 one of the courtyards here, and then this is a shot looking at the corner of building one…is this
31 building two? Okay, I’m sorry, this is looking at this corner of building two.
32 So, as we looked at where we could build this parking structure and get the amount of
33 spaces that we needed in a Code-compliant building with reasonable height and scale, this was
34 really the only site we had available to do the garage. And we worked very closely with a lot of
35 the City staff to try to site this garage, dimension this garage, in a way that would work within
36 the various limitations and restrictions which included the flood channel, underground utility
37 lines, and the buffer to Spring Creek. Happy to answer any questions or we can go on and come
38 back.
8
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I think we can, we can keep
2 moving on, and I think if we can get into the Article Three and Article Four standards…
3 MS. WHITE: That’s what’s coming next.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: That’s what’s coming next,
5 okay.
6 MS. WHITE: Okay, Carolyn White, again, for the audio tape. So there are three
7 categories of criteria that are applicable here. All development in Fort Collins has to meet the
8 design and performance standards in all of Chapter Three, so all of that’s applicable. In
9 particular 3.10, which is the transit oriented development overlay, which modifies and adds
10 additional standards to everything else in Chapter Three, also applies here because this property
11 is within the TOD overlay zone. And then additionally, the underlying zoning is CG, which is
12 4.21 in the Code, so the specific zone district regulations that are applicable to CG also apply.
13 So the three things we’re going to talk about, Chapter Four, Chapter Three, and then specifically
14 Chapter 3.10, the TOD overlay.
15 And all of what was just provided to you is just background and context of…how we got
16 here. Obviously, as you pointed out, really the test of approval or denial or approval with
17 conditions tonight is whether or not we meet the criteria. So, that’s what we’re going to focus
18 our presentation on, but we wanted to give a little flavor of why we would come back and amend
19 it, you know, afterwards, after this thing was just built last year. In particular, with respect to
20 Chapter…I’m going to start with 4.21, then we’re going to talk about Chapter Three. So, the
21 zone district specific standards in CG…a parking structure is a use-by-right as an accessory use
22 to an existing use, and that’s what’s being proposed here. This is not a free-standing, stand-alone
23 parking structure that would serve, you know, the general public at large. It is meant to be an
24 accessory use to the existing Summit, so the functional use of it is use-by-right.
25 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And…Ms. White, my
26 understanding…I think I saw the plat in the materials, but it’s my understanding that this site is
27 one lot, as it’s currently platted.
28 MS. WHITE: I believe that is right, it is a single FDP certainly.
29 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It’s actually…there’s two lots that are owned by Capstone
30 and our investment group. There’s one lot which is the building one and the parking lots and
31 then building two is its own lot…exactly.
32 MS. WHITE: Okay, got it.
33 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But the site where the parking garage is proposed is part of
34 that lot…lot one.
9
1 MS. WHITE: And the PDP that we’re amending and the FDP for the first phase, for The
2 Summit encompasses both of those lots that Capstone owns. So it’s all under one PDP and that
3 is what’s being sought to be amended here…two property owners within the same PDP.
4 The other thing that should be pointed out is that The Summit is a mixed-use building, it
5 includes both multi-family use and retail use, and so the…functionally types of parking demands
6 that we’re trying to meet here and the way that this building functions is a little different that a
7 straight-up single-use multi-family might work. And, that’s really the key point from 4.21 is the
8 use…all of the other performance criteria and design standards and the way that we judge
9 compatibility and setbacks and all of that is in Chapter Three. So, I’d like to turn next to Chapter
10 Three, and before I introduce the architect to describe some of the highlights of the design
11 standards in Chapter Three, I want to just mention that in the letter that we submitted, we go
12 through in summary not all of the criteria, but virtually all of the criteria, and if there are any that
13 you particularly want to focus on, we will be glad to address them. But, what we’re planning to
14 focus on in this presentation and highlight are those that we think are probably of most concern
15 to you and to the public, and that is the questions of compatibility with existing development,
16 and the human scale and design elements that make this harmonious and functional with the
17 surrounding development, both the existing Summit and the adjacent properties and property
18 owners. So, with that, I would like to introduce Jeff Henriksen who is the architect with Desman
19 Associates. And while he’s coming forward to the microphone, I’d like to briefly mention that
20 Desman Associates was an architect firm…a firm that was specially retained by Capstone for
21 this parking structure project, in particular because that is their core competency and their core
22 expertise, is the design of parking structures all over the country and perhaps internationally…so
23 if you can elaborate on that if that’s true, but…so, really analyzing the siting decisions, the
24 relationship to the street and all of those types of decisions is the central core competency of this
25 firm and that’s why Capstone retained them. So, with that, Jeff, do you want to address your…?
26 MR. JEFF HENRIKSEN: Jeff Henriksen with Desman Associates, should I give my
27 residence? It’s 202 West Indiana Street in Wheaton, Illinois, 60187. Yes, we are a nationally
28 recognized parking garage specialist, both in architectural and engineering…have over 1500
29 car…parking garages, structured parking garages throughout the country. I’ve worked on
30 parking garages in other countries as well. We’ve performed a number of tasks which includes
31 traffic studies, parking garage design, parking restoration…so we pretty much specialize in that.
32 And so, with regard to this structure, I think one of things we really wanted to focus on today
33 was basically compliance of the general standards for Article Three and I want to go over a few
34 of what we felt were the key sections of the Land Use Code and what we did to make this a
35 compatible structure with the surrounding environment and area. So, the first one Section 3.5.1
36 which talks about compatibility and it really talks about project compatibility ensuring that the
37 characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the
38 context of the surrounding area. And so, what we had kind of intended from the beginning was
39 that this…the proposed structure would be architecturally consistent with the existing Summit
10
1 development. So we wanted to make sure that the building was architecturally consistent with
2 The Summit development, with the surrounding development, and also consistent with other
3 developments or other buildings within the area. Our intent was to blend, you know, with The
4 Summit both in colors and materials. We have architectural items that include elements such as
5 revealed wall panels which are consistent with The Summit project, and similar if not exact
6 colors. I think the intent is the colors are to match so that it appears as one consistent type of a
7 development. We wanted the garage to really be…the residents to know that that was part of the
8 development itself. So, we have revealed wall panels which are in the precast concrete, we have
9 the reveled cast…actually the revealed concrete panels for the vertical elements, we also have
10 concrete siding and windows which are similar to the existing development for the stair towers.
11 There’s overhangs on the stair towers as well as cornices which match the consistency of The
12 Summit, and we also have and have included that there be cast stone piers which are basically
13 the same material as The Summit as well that give more human scale to the garage itself so that
14 people walking by there won’t feel as though it’s this huge wall…there’s a base, a middle, and a
15 top to the building and there’s a banding as well that helps develop that scenario.
16 Three point five point one B talks about when in areas where the existing architectural
17 character is not definitely established or is not consistent with the purpose of this Land Use
18 Code. The architecture of the new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for
19 future projects or redevelopment in the area. And what that means is that The Summit
20 development has created that architectural character for the area and that The Summit was
21 originally an infill development and some of the…existing buildings surrounding it are older and
22 not necessarily consistent with the Midtown Plan, but that this is the most appropriate building to
23 compare the proposed parking structure to…it would be The Summit itself.
24 Section 3.5.1(c) states that buidlings either be similar in size and height, or if larger, be
25 articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the masses and scale of the
26 structures. The garage itself is approximately 175 feet in the east to west direction and 230 feet
27 in the north to south direction. The existing Summit buildings are the one that consists of mostly
28 four, but in some cases the five story element, and are approximately 516 feet. And so we felt
29 the size of the garage was consistent…actually was smaller and really was supposed to be not a
30 primary building but really a secondary building to the rest of the structure.
31 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And the height again was just
32 under 40 feet, except for the towers, which are…higher.
33 MR. HENRIKSEN: That’s correct, it’s a three and a half story structure to the west side,
34 it’s three for a good portion of it, on the east side it’s three stories…full three stories, and the
35 highest point is about 35 feet, which is the cornice…the towers go up to about 45, 50…50 feet I
36 believe.
11
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: It’s my understanding that
2 there’s a minimum building height in the TOD overlay district of 20 feet. Is that…
3 MR. HENRIKSEN: Correct, correct.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, so that’s a minimum?
5 Okay.
6 MR. HENRIKSEN: Section 3.5.3 talks about human scale and the attractive street fronts
7 and walkways. And, again, that is where we added features which are similar to the existing
8 Summit project with the stone cast piers, with the banding, with breaking up the elevation with
9 vertical stonecast elements, breaking up the elevation further with vertical…vertical elements
10 between the spandrils so that they look…appear more like windows and they’re not this long
11 expanse of horizontal, or horizontality within the structure. Adding the concrete panelized
12 systems with the reveals, which is consistent again with The Summit project, and even keeping
13 the coloring in a similar fashion, same color palette, and then having windows as well as cement
14 siding for the stair tower elements. And the idea of all of that is that to subdivide the elevations,
15 to have interest within the elevations, to break up the verticality and the horizontality of the
16 elevations, all consistent with the LUC…with the guidelines.
17 Some more photographs…along the south edge there is a landscaping wall that was
18 added to help…to really, you know, to help with the park element area on the south elevation.
19 But the main idea is that it is broken up, that it creates some interest within the community and it
20 creates more of a human scale to a building which can be, you know, rather large and obtrusive
21 within an area.
22 MS. WHITE: Any questions for Jeff, and if not we’ll move on and he can always come
23 back and answer questions later.
24 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, I don’t have any
25 questions at this point.
26 MS. WHITE: Next we’d like to introduce Brian Williamson who is with TST, local firm
27 here in Fort Collins.
28 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Well it’s about time.
29 MS. WHITE: And Brian is going to talk about, in particular, Section 3.10…some of the
30 key components of the TOD overlay zone that are required to be met, and that are in fact met
31 both with the underlying existing project and with this proposed application, and also a little bit
32 about the transition and buffering into the park greenway to the south.
33 MR. BRIAN WILLIAMSON: Thanks, Brian Williamson, I live at 1433 Peach Court here
34 in Fort Collins, it’s 80521. And I do want to just speak a little bit about how we’re in
12
1 compliance with the aspects of the Transit Oriented Development overlay zone. First I’d like to
2 just briefly speak about the central feature or gathering spaces that are required. Existing in the
3 development, there are three courtyards that offer a variety of amenities to the residents of the
4 buildings, and they are located on the western side so they have views out to the west, to the
5 mountains, and they’ll be adjacent to the BRT. New…with the parking garage, we are adding
6 two separate gathering spaces. One is a much smaller gathering space that’s at the northeast
7 corner of the garage, and a separate one that’s at the southeast corner of the garage. The
8 northeast corner of the garage is more of a pausing area or place for students to maybe meet as
9 they enter or leave the parking garage. The one on the southeast corner is more of a…a public
10 gathering space. It’s going to have views into the park…and these are mainly composed with
11 just some concrete pads and benches for people to…
12 What those do is they are adjacent to a main passage through the development that links
13 Creekside Park on the south all the way up to Prospect on the north. And what that is, is that’s a
14 connection that links to regional bike trails over to the Mason Trail, and what it does is it allows
15 a safe passage for both our residents and the general public to pass thorough that area to get to
16 the commercial and retail that are adjacent on Prospect and to access our site.
17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The BRT station soon.
18 MR. WILLLIAMSON: And soon to be opened BRT station that’s on Prospect, that’s
19 correct.
20 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And Brian, what might help me
21 is if…when you’re presenting if you tell me what specific, you know, criteria…and I’m
22 assuming it’s 3.10.3 and .4 on the site planning and the streetscape pedestrian connections.
23 MR. WILLIAMSON: That’s correct. Specifically, that was 3.10.3(b) that we were
24 talking about. The next section I’d like to talk about is 3.10(4)(d)(3), which is how the parking
25 structure auto entrances should minimize the pedestrian and auto conflicts. And that kind of
26 goes to both our site layout and the pedestrian connection that we’ve already mentioned here.
27 There is only one vehicular entrance into the garage, and that’s at the far western side, and what
28 we’ve done is we’ve kind of aligned that to allow for as much stacking to the east as possible,
29 and we’ve moved it as far away from the intersection between Stuart and Choice Center Drive as
30 possible. What that’s going to do is that’s going to allow an area for vehicular movement and
31 will keep that separate from any pedestrian movement. There’s two pedestrian access points to
32 the garage, one is in the northwest corner and that is linked to the west side of our development
33 through a dedicated concrete trail, and then there’s another entrance…pedestrian entrance, on the
34 northeast corner and that will cross the entry drive through…be a crosswalk. However, what
35 we’ve tried to do is separate any stacking of cars or any movement away from those pedestrians
36 as much as possible. It’s not really possible to completely separate those.
13
1 The…we also wanted to point out that we were consistent with Section 3.2.2(c)(1), which
2 is the development access standards. And really what we’re doing is…the main pedestrian point
3 through our development…the walk that’s on the eastern side of our parking garage and runs
4 kind of straight through is a ten foot wide path, and that is sized so that it can basically
5 accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians on the same path. And we want to just emphasize
6 that we’re creating this corridor through here.
7 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And that’s existing?
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: That’s correct.
9 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Because…it’s existing because
10 of the surface parking lot is there?
11 MR. WILLIAMSON: That’s correct, it’s existing and both the connections to Spring
12 Creek…or Creekside Park and all the way up to Prospect are existing. And I wanted to point out
13 that while it’s not actually required as part of this submittal, we are bringing this project into
14 compliance with the City’s recently adopted fall of 2013 minimum requirement parking. And
15 what that is is a new ratio between bedrooms and parking spaces, and if it was applied to our site
16 today, the TOD would require 54.7% of the beds to have parking. We’re actually going to be
17 providing over 80% of parking to our beds.
18 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Right, and it’s my
19 understanding that when the project was originally approved, there were no required parking
20 ratios.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: There was no minimum requirement for…
22 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And if this were built today, the
23 required parking spaces would be in the 390 range? That’s what I remember seeing in the
24 materials.
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: That’s correct…it would be roughly 55% of the beds would
26 require a parking stall.
27 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And the total now that’s being
28 proposed is in the 550 range so…
29 MR. WILLIAMSON: That correct, so we’re going to park 80% of our residents. We’ll
30 park 70% of our residents with 10% set aside for the retail, handicapped accessible spaces, short
31 term parking and deliveries.
32 The last thing I’d like to talk about is the buffering that we’re doing to the south of the
33 garage…and, if we could just go back to the previous slide…what you can see is that our garage
34 is basically adjacent to Creekside Park, and we have worked with City staff to incorporate as
14
1 much planting in that area as possible. You can see two slightly different colors here…there’s a
2 more pale green which indicates the Creekside Park property, and there’s a little darker green
3 that indicates the plantings that will be on our property. There are a few challenges with
4 the…basically, there’s a variety of challenges with planting in this area. One is the FEMA
5 floodplain that comes through Creekside Park. A second is a utility corridor that runs on the
6 south property line. And that has kind of limited us to what we can provide both on site and in
7 adjacency. The adjacent landscaping is going to be provided by the City. The development is
8 paying for that in a cash-in-lieu fee and that’s going to be part of a larger City improvement to
9 the floodplain and the management of Creekside Park. On our site we have, to the greatest
10 extent possible, tried to anchor that building into the landscape by using a mix of low water use
11 and native plants that will grow to a size that, it’s not going to be comparable to the overall
12 height of the building, but with the constraints that we have we’ve pretty much tried to anchor
13 that building as much as possible.
14 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: So on those…on the landscape
15 improvements to the south…those will be installed following some improvements that are
16 contemplated or planned to the floodplain?
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: That’s correct. The City is going to undergo, and possibly City
18 staff might be able to speak to this a little bit more in depth, but the City is going to undergo a
19 CLOMR/LOMR, is my understanding, which is a letter of map revision changing the FEMA
20 floodplains and at that point they will be able to do that landscaping. As it stands now, the
21 floodplain comes right to the edge of our site, and that planning is not actually allowed to be in
22 the floodplain. So, until those improvements are accepted by FEMA, those plantings won’t be
23 able to be planted.
24 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And the utility corridor that you
25 mentioned…?
26 MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, there’s a 24…is it a 24-inch storm line? Twenty-one inch
27 storm line that runs through there, and that’s actually being relocated as part of this project. It
28 currently goes diagonal through where the parking garage is situated.
29 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, so whatever’s there is at
30 or below grade?
31 MR. WILLIAMSON: That’s correct. I believe there’s also some older, abandoned
32 utilities that are in there, some electric and phone from when this site was the trailer park before
33 this development.
34 MS. WHITE: Any other questions for Brian?
35 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: No.
15
1 MS. WHITE: Next, we’d like to talk about Section 3.2.3(e) of the Code, and that’s one of
2 the Chapter Three criteria that’s applicable to all development. And, this criterion is one that’s in
3 the Fort Collins City Code that is trying to encourage the ability for property owners throughout
4 the City to be able to install solar panels if they are so inclined, to be able to capture the
5 maximum, you know, beneficial time during which the sun would be shining on their roof. And
6 so this…this Code requirement requires each new development to provide a shadow study and
7 analyze the amount of shadow that the new development will cast upon adjacent properties, and
8 in particular adjacent structures. And we have provided in your packet, and in the application,
9 the complete fourteen-sheet shadow study. What we’re highlighting here for tonight’s
10 presentation is one sheet out of the fourteen that is the worst case scenario of all the possible
11 shadow possibilities analyzed within the framework of Section 3.2.3(e). And what this section in
12 particular requires is that new buildings…new development, to the maximum extent feasible, not
13 cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow of a hypothetical 25
foot tall wall on the property line, and this is to be analyzed on December 21
st
14 , the shortest day of
15 the year, between 9 AM and 3 PM when the longest shadows fall. So, what you see in this
diagram is…this is a shadow study representing 3 PM on December 21
st
16 . And you can see the
17 proposed parking structure sort of to the middle left of the graphic, and it’s a little bit fainter line,
18 you can see the closest adjacent building to the east a little bit smaller towards the right…yeah
19 there you go, that’s the closest adjacent structure, so that’s the measure against which the shadow
20 study is measured. And, you might see there’s also some little numbers…3 PM, 7:12,
21 7:08…that’s part of what’s in the program. You can ignore those, that’s sunrise and sunset on
this day. The relevant analysis is 3 PM on December 21
st
22 , which is what this graphic depicts.
23 And the little dotted line in between the two properties right there…that represents where the
24 shadow would be of the hypothetical 25 foot wall that is part of the analysis. So, as you can see,
25 worst case scenario on the day of the year when the longest shadows fall at the time within the
26 timeframe that’s required in the Code when it is measured, there are no shadows cast by this
27 parking structure on the adjacent structures. I suspect we’ll be getting into this in a little more
28 detail as some of the members of the public perhaps, representatives of the adjacent property
29 owner are here. So I’ll probably stop with that overview other than to mention, you know, one
30 of the critical things, and I suspect the reason why the City put in its Code this issue of
31 addressing this to the maximum extent feasible, is that particularly in the TOD overlay zone, you
32 have a place where the Code is attempting to balance equally valid competing public policy
33 goals of encouraging greater density, you know, closer to transit, while at the same time trying to
34 maximize the opportunity for people to be able to install solar panels. And so, that maximum
35 extent feasible I suspect is intended to provide an opportunity to balance those two things. And
36 we might be talking about that in more detail if there were in fact a shadow cast on the adjacent
37 structure, but that’s not the case here, and as the staff report notes, based on the shadow study,
38 this project is clearly in compliance with Section 3.2.3(e) of the Code. So, if you have any
39 questions about that we can talk about them or else we’ll move on to the next Code provision.
16
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: No, I don’t think so…there’s no
2 solar in the project now, right? Or proposed on the parking structure?
3 MS. WHITE: There’s…at present there’s not a solar panel on the parking structure, no.
4 And I think the question that this criterion is seeking to analyze is whether our neighbor can have
5 a solar panel.
6 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Right. And what’s the small
7 building there to the east?
8 MS. WHITE: That is 1801 South College.
9 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay.
10 MS. WHITE: One other point I’ll make about this relative to the location of the
11 garage…of the parking structure…and that is that, as you heard from some of the design team
12 and you’ll hear again in a moment, the question of where on this site a parking structure could be
13 located was one that a great deal of analysis went into before landing on this site as being the
14 optimal one, given the various constraints that were applicable…the constraints of the floodplain
15 to the west and to the south, the park to the south, the need to avoid casting shadows on adjacent
16 structures to the east, and also a general need to try to keep the parking garage as far away as
17 possible from the adjacent property owners to the east. And there’s also an existing gas line,
18 sewer line?
19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sanitary sewer.
20 MS. WHITE: Sorry, sanitary sewer line that runs north-south that’s just immediately east
21 of the proposed location for the parking structure. So, down to six inches of analysis of where
22 this thing was going to be, this is really the optimal site in terms of shadows and all of those
23 other constraints I mentioned.
24 Now I’d like to move on to the request for modification of standards and I’m going to
25 just give you a brief summary of the legal standard and then ask Hoshi Engineer to come up and
26 talk to you about the technical…how this technically meets those criteria and what kind of
27 analysis went in to making the determination that that modification was going to be requested.
28 As you know, in the Fort Collins Land Use Code, if you are requesting a modification of
29 standards, there are five applicable criteria. One that you have to meet and then you also meet
30 one of the other four. So, the one you have to meet is it’s not detrimental to the public good.
31 Every modification of standards has to meet that one, and then you also must meet one of the
32 other four that are in the Code. It’s arguable probably that it meets more than one, but the one
33 that it most clearly meets is the one that was identified by staff in the staff report and by the
34 applicant in its application, and that is that the proposed modification meets the intent of why the
35 standard’s in the Code in the first place equally well or better than the actual standard itself, and
17
1 that’s what’s happening here. The request is to reduce the width of the drive aisle from 20 feet to
2 15 feet only for that bay of parking within the parking structure which includes angled parking.
3 And now, if I may, I’d like to introduce Hoshi Engineer who’s going to explain why that is
4 meeting the standard equally well.
5 MR. HOSHI ENGINEER: Thank you Mr. McAskin, Hoshi Engineer with Desman
6 Associates, 7900 East Union Avenue, Denver, Colorado. Before we just go to the modification,
7 I just want to give a little background regarding the functionality of this garage…how it
8 functions. You come off The Summit street and the entrance and exit to the garage are located in
9 the western most bay of this parking structure, which is a three bay parking structure. And that
10 bay, along with the bay right next to it, the adjacent bay…they are both 60 feet wide with a 90
11 degree in parking and two-way traffic. The parking stalls are striped at eight foot six by eighteen
12 feet, which are completely compliant with the Land Use Code. We are not seeking any
13 modification to the standards for those two bays. And that is primarily…it’s considered as a
14 storage parking facility with long-term parking, and that’s the reason we have eight foot six by
15 eighteen foot parking stalls.
16 Now, if you go to the eastern most bay, that is a 53 foot wide bay with 60 degree angled
17 parking and one-way traffic. And you can see over here the modification that we have requested
18 is a 15 foot drive aisle, which is kind of a variation from the 20 foot that’s called out in the Land
19 Use Code. And you’ll see in our photo slides and templates that we have analyzed the situation
20 from 20 feet to 15 feet, and…could we go to the next slide? And this is the analysis that we have
21 done. Primarily, this is an analysis that shows how the cars will come into that narrower 15 foot
22 drive lane and how they exit out. …can see this is a vehicle that we have used as a standard
23 vehicle, which is really a full-size vehicle. It is not a compact car or anything, it’s a full
24 100%...it’s something like a Chevy…like a Ford Explorer, one of the bigger vehicles that you
25 see on the road. And, as you can see from the template…turning template…you turn into that 53
26 foot bay and you’ve still got more than three feet of clearance between the cars. So, really from
27 that standpoint, from the maneuverability of the car, we have not compromised the safety or the
28 integrity of this parking garage and we have maintained the level of service that a 20 foot drive
29 aisle would have maintained.
30 MR. HENRIKSEN: One thing…this is Jeff Henriksen again with Desman. One thing
31 Hoshi didn’t mention is that this is also based on National Parking Association standards. And
32 so this is a nationally recognized standard for an aisle width for this type of parking scenario.
33 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And I think I saw in the
34 materials where this was based on those national standards…this was level of service B.
35 MR. ENGINEER: This is…we are providing the level of service B. And the level of
36 service B is pretty compatible for this use group of the garage. Primarily this garage…for
18
1 residential parking, it’s just considered as a long-term parking with very little turnover.
2 Realistically speaking, we have done many garages nationally with level of service C.
3 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I think I’ve parked in some of
4 those, or maybe level of service F. The 60 foot drive aisles…
5 MR. ENGINEER: Sixty foot bays.
6 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Sixty foot bays, right, what’s
7 the level of service…
8 MR. ENGINEER: That’s a level of service B again. Okay, so realistically all three bays
9 have the same level of service, which would be classified as B. And the reduction from 20 feet
10 to 15 feet by no means cuts into the level of service B. We are maintaining the level of
11 service…the same level that it would have been if it was a 20 foot wide drive aisle…with one-
12 way traffic. This is one-way traffic in a 53 foot bay. A 60 foot bay would have had two-way
13 traffic, obviously 90 degree in parking.
14 This slide over here, or this template, just shows…on the pulling in and the backing out
15 operation of a standard car in that narrower drive aisle, and you can see that there’s enough room
16 for backing out and pulling in without, again, compromising the safety or the user comfort of the
17 parkers.
18 MS. WHITE: Is it correct that this…from a technical standpoint, is equal in terms of…
19 MR. ENGINEER: Definitely, it’s at least equal, yeah, yeah.
20 MS. WHITE: Alright, we are close to our conclusion, but before we conclude I want to
21 just briefly address two of the issues that were mentioned in your packet that you have from staff
22 and what’s on the website includes some letter submitted raising concerns about the project.
23 And so, before we conclude our presentation, we feel that we need to briefly address those
24 concerns that have been raised and explain why, not withstanding those concerns that have been
25 raised, the project still meets all of the applicable criteria in the Land Use Code.
26 And, probably the most relevant one is some concerns raised by the neighboring property
27 owners and tenants in 1801 talking about the concern that this parking structure would block
28 their views to the west, and perhaps their views of the mountains. A couple relevant things to
29 mention about that concern, one is that your Land Use Code does take into account addressing
30 views for adjacent properties. It does so at the 40 foot level…so for structures that are greater
31 than 40 feet, there’s a very specific view analysis that’s required and that does not apply here as
32 was noted in the staff report, because this structure is less than 40 feet. And that section of the
33 Code, by the way, is 3.5.1(g)(1)(a)(1). More importantly perhaps, from a functional
34 perspective…and, if we are going to talk about this some more, and I suspect we will after the
35 public has the opportunity to present their comments, we have some graphics that, you know,
19
1 depict what the views are today and what the views will be after this parking structure has been
2 constructed, and there really is not a significant view of the west, of the mountains, available to
3 the patio on the rear of the building at 1801 today.
4 The other concern that I want to briefly mention, and again it’s, we believe not directly
5 relevant to the determination of the Hearing Officer under the Land Use Code, and that is a
6 question that’s been asked…well, this project, when it was originally approved was one that
7 requested and received from the Urban Renewal Authority, support in the form of tax increment
8 financing for a portion of the eligible public improvements. And, given that in that situation, the
9 financials were closely examined and there wasn’t adequate financial capacity to build the
10 parking structure at that time, how is it that there’s one now? And, certainly that was addressed
11 by Jeff Jones at the beginning of this presentation and we can come back to it in greater detail,
12 but, in your packet is an analysis of the tax increment financing proposal as it was originally
13 submitted, compared to what the financials look like today. And the real answer to that question
14 is that, essentially what’s happening here is that the developers of this project are going to be
15 receiving less return than they had originally projected with or without the tax increment support
16 because of the need to construct this parking garage. But, the need to do that is to avoid an even
17 greater loss if there is not adequate parking and this project is not fully leased and the retail
18 tenants cannot be attracted to occupy this space, there will be an even greater loss to both the
19 developers and potentially to the City and the Urban Renewal Authority to the extent that that
20 investment that they made in the project is related to the potential future tax revenues to be
21 generated by this project. So, it’s extremely unfortunate and it was absolutely the last resort, and
22 really the inquiry into why the developer wants to build something isn’t normally part of a Land
23 Use Code review, but since it has been raised by those who have concerns about the project, we
24 felt it appropriate to address it to some degree in our presentation. And, if you have questions
25 about it and we need to talk about it some more, we will.
26 So those are the two main concerns we’ve heard about that we want to mention and
27 address in advance. But, in contrast to that, we’ll also mention that your packet includes…the
28 one that we submitted tonight and have copies of for the record, more than 75 letters of folks
29 who are very much and very strongly in support of this project. Many of those folks are
30 residents of The Summit today who have expressed concerns about the current parking…it’s
31 number three in the submittal, in that packet. And some of them are owners or residents of
32 nearby properties who have concerns about what they believe to be a parking problem in their
33 neighborhood that’s caused by this property being built and developed without, in their opinion,
34 adequate parking.
35 So, this really is a question of sort of trying to get it right in the Land Use Code. When
36 the TOD overlay was first adopted, it did not contain any minimum parking requirements for this
37 particular type of project; nonetheless, it was still built with some parking, about 23% of what
38 was felt to be the demand at the time, and it turns out that even though there is a very high
39 percentage of residents who use transit for their everyday back and forth, most of them still bring
20
1 a car when they come to school and they need a place to park it long term. And that’s really
2 what we’re talking about when we talk about storage parking and long term parking, which is a
3 defined term in the Code, Section 5.1 that is the type of parking that this is under that definition,
4 and that’s the standard against which this should be analyzed.
5 So, in conclusion we just would like to summarize that this project really was intended to
6 be the fulfillment of some of the goals of the Midtown Corridor Plan and City Plan, seeking a
7 catalyst project for this area, something that would stimulate development on nearby properties.
8 And at least according to a City staff report that was recently presented to the Urban Renewal
9 Authority, that has in fact been the case. There are four or five projects nearby and in the
10 surrounding area that City staff believes are attributable to this project having gone in and been
11 developed. So it has…its succeeded in that regard, but in order to succeed and realize the
12 projected outcomes, both for the developer and for the City, this parking structure needs to be
13 built. And so the relevant question for you as the Hearing Officer is of course, does it meet the
14 criteria in the Code, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and staff report concludes that it does. We strongly
15 believe that it does, and in addition, it also meets those sort of higher policy goals articulated in
16 the Midtown Plan and in City Plan. So, with that, we ask for your approval of the Major
17 Amendment to the approved PDP for this parking structure and we also…I know it’s part of the
18 process, but I want to formally request that we obviously have some opportunity to respond
19 following public comment.
20 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I will give you an opportunity
21 to respond or rebut any comments that come up during the public comment. I did have a
22 question, I think before we move on to the staff presentation. Criteria 3.3.3 of the
23 Code…because I know…some portion of the site abuts, I think, a floodplain, or is in the
24 floodplain. And I believe that one of the criteria…let me find this, hang on.
25 MS. WHITE: Three point three point three is water hazards.
26 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Correct. So…(a)(1)…the PDP
27 complies with the basin master drainage way plan as applicable. And I’m just wondering what
28 that…is there a master drainage way plan?
29 MS. WHITE: Is that a staff question or for our design team?
30 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Well I guess it’s a question for
31 whoever can answer it.
32 MS. WHITE: Let them tell you what the plan is, and we’ll tell you if it complies with it.
33 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: …3.3.3(a)(1).
34 CITY PLANNER SETH LORSON: Well, I can tell you that I probably didn’t necessarily
35 review that Section, but our Stormwater Department did, through a drainage study, and feels that
21
1 the project complies with all applicable standards. We do have our Floodplain Administrator
2 here to answer questions regarding floodplain, and all the conditions of the approval.
3 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, well maybe we can circle
4 back to that during the staff presentation, that’s fine.
5 MR. LORSON: Sure, I’d be happy to bring him up at the end of my presentation.
6 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, great.
7 MR. LORSON: Mine’s very brief anyway.
8 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Alright, perfect. So are you all
9 set right now, can we move on to the staff presentation.
10 MS. WHITE: If I may, just to conclude on that point, I’ll just mention one other thing and
11 that is that the staff report does recommend several conditions of approval related to floodplain
12 compliance, all of which the applicant agrees with and agrees to comply with. Most of them, as I
13 understand it, are applicable at the next stage of development so it would be at DCP when we
14 actually implement those things…so, all of those relate in sort of tangentially to the issue you
15 mentioned, which is compliance with floodplain criteria.
16 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, thank you…okay.
17 MR. LORSON: Good evening Mr. McAskin, members of the public, I’m Seth Lorson
18 with City Planning, I am the planner who has ushered this through the public process, this
19 request for and proposal for a parking structure. The project is a major amendment combined
20 with a final development plan. That combination has no bearing on this process whatsoever.
21 Pretty much, I don’t have much presentation. My presentation is that we have reviewed
22 this according to what the applicant has proposed through the Land Use Code. I have all the
23 details in the staff report that has been made available to the Hearing Officer as well as to the
24 public. These are the details of things that you have already seen and heard from the applicant.
25 The staff finds that the modification request does in fact meet the standards in Section 2.8, that it
26 is not detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of the standard for
27 which a modification is requested equally well or better than a plan that would have met the
28 exact standard. We find that it complies with Article 4, Division 4.21, which is the General
29 Commercial zone district. It complies with Article 3, except for the modification of standard
30 which is processed through Section 2.8, and complies with Article 2, which are the procedures
31 that we’re going through today.
32 I just wanted to address a couple things. You were correct in your question and your
33 response about why this is a Type I Administrative Hearing. The Summit residential and mixed-
34 use project went through an Administrative Hearing back in 2011, as that is what was…what was
22
1 warranted and permitted by the Land Use Code. Subsequent to then, in October 2012, we
2 created a new Ordinance that had a threshold of 50 dwelling units, or 75 bedrooms…anything
3 larger than that is required to go to the Planning and Zoning Board. Being that this is a major
4 amendment to an existing approval, it is processed according to how that approval was approved
5 in the first place. So that’s why we’re here at this Administrative Hearing instead of in front of
6 the Planning and Zoning Board.
7 I just wanted to mention that the documents that were given to you today by the
8 applicant, I have not had an opportunity to review them, so I have no comments on those. I did
9 also provide you with additional documents that were some revised documents as well as public
10 comments and then one attachment that you didn’t receive in your packet. Also wanted to say
11 that none of the information in those has changed my review or recommendation. And staff,
12 after reviewing the project, recommends approval with the conditions that are addressing
13 floodplain compliance…as a matter of fact, this might be an opportune time to bring up our
14 Floodplain Administrator to talk about those conditions of approval and maybe answer some of
15 the questions you had earlier.
16 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Sure, that’d be great.
17 MR. LORSON: Okay.
18 MR. BRIAN VARELLA: Good evening, my name is Brian Varella, I’m the Floodplain
19 Administrator for the City of Fort Collins and the Spring Creek Basin. Specifically as to the
20 conditions of approval, I don’t have them in front of me. They are fairly general in nature, and
21 the nature of those comments is effectively to require the applicant to complete the work that has
22 already been started, work that both proves what they are proposing, the parking garage, does not
23 cause undue hardship on others, that is does not jeopardize others, nor does it jeopardize public
24 safety or create a hazardous nuisance, within the confines of Chapter 10 of the Fort Collins
25 Municipal Code.
26 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, and I think I heard, I
27 forget who mentioned it, but the park that’s immediately to the south, there’s going to be a
28 CLOMR/LOMR process…has that been initiated?
29 MR. VARELLA: It has not been initiated nor has it been budgeted by our department.
30 The City of Fort Collins Floodplain Division includes both floodplain administration and master
31 planning. The master planning group is committed to doing a stream restoration project in there,
32 and the CLOMR and LOMR would be part of that restoration project. The timing of that project
33 is dependent both upon budget and upon prioritization which is also informed by the budget as
34 we understand it right now. It is the hope of the master planning manager to complete the
35 CLOMR/LOMR process and complete the stream rehabilitation hopefully by 2016, but there’s
36 no guarantee of it actually being completed. Part of the reason that we as staff recommend
37 collecting a fee-in-lieu for landscaping is we did not want to see the development team put
23
1 landscaping in that we would consequently tear out in one, two, or three years. We thought it
2 would be more effective for us to collect that, put it in escrow, and apply that toward the
3 landscaping standards when we go in and disturb it as a Stormwater Department.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And the fee-in-lieu for the
5 landscaping, is that…I guess what I’m hearing is that that landscaping will eventually go in, but
6 it’s going to be dependent on when the CLOMR and LOMR is actually completed. It could be
7 2016, it could be 2017, but at some point in the future. I mean in your experience, what’s
8 the…from the date you file a CLOMR to when you get that conditional…I mean what do you
9 guys normally experience, is it a twelve month process, eighteen month process?
10 MR. VARELLA: Eighteen to twenty-four months, generally.
11 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, and I will…I don’t
12 believe I have any questions on the conditions that were recommended by staff, and I think
13 you’ve said that the applicant has agreed with those conditions, but if I…I will review those, if I
14 do have any subsequent questions, I may ask you to come back up or I’ll direct the questions to
15 you all. Okay, thank you. Seth, before we…I would like…I know that there’s a 3.2.2(c)(4), the
16 bicycle parking space requirement, and in reviewing the staff report, it seemed like there was a
17 request for a…kind of an alternate compliance with that standard. If you could maybe just spend
18 a couple minutes walking me through that, I’d appreciated it.
19 MR. LORSON: Happy to. So, another part of the Land Use Code that has changed since
20 their original approval for this project is for bicycle parking. The standard now reads that 100%
21 of bedrooms, each bedroom requires at least one bicycle parking space, and 60% of those have to
22 be within structures, secured and covered from the elements, and 40% can be your traditional
23 bike rack, we call them fixed. What we’re seeing right now for development as they come in
24 with this standard in place, is they construct their buildings accordingly. The hallways have
25 sometimes bike storage within them, maybe they have an entranceway in the lobby that has bike
26 storage to accommodate for that…that enclosed bike element, which is for multi-family, 60% of
27 those, which is significant.
28 In this case, the building was constructed prior to that standard, and thus not
29 accommodating those internal enclosed spaces. What the applicant has proposed to do was bring
30 their bike parking count up to the 100% level of bedrooms…or bike parking spaces to bedrooms,
31 but do it throughout with exterior spaces, a large amount of interior within the parking garage
32 that are secured, as well as offering bike stands to their tenants to be able to bring them into the
33 unit. And staff feels that because of that, they are actually meeting this standard through the
34 alternative compliance element as outlined in the staff report, which is really…has been an
35 intention of this standard as we brought it out, is that…we’re going to roll it out and then ask
36 developers to kind of come up with some ideas on how they can meet it. That’s why the
37 alternative compliance was created.
24
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, I’m assuming you have a
2 bike given your lapel pin there.
3 MR. LORSON: My bike is outside right now.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: So I may end up having, like I
5 said, I may end up having some follow-up questions, but what I’d like to do, since there are so
6 many folks in attendance tonight, is I would like to open it up to public comment. And as I
7 mentioned before, there is a sign-up sheet. So if you are going to come up and give comment,
8 make sure that you’re signed in so that we have your information, we can get you a copy of the
9 decision ultimately in this matter. With that, I’ll go ahead and open it up to public comment.
10 And if you would like to come up, just state your name for the record and we’ll go ahead and
11 proceed and listen to the comments here.
12 MR. ERIC SUTHERLAND: Thanks a lot Mr. McAskin. My name is Eric Sutherland
13 and I’m just kind of do a little rearrangement here. I really don’t want to be up here talking
14 about such an important issue with my back completely to my fellow town folk, and so I’m just
15 going to make a little arrangement if it’s alright with everybody. I do appreciate you being here
16 tonight, but I also have to, you know, register a certain amount of my condolences. Our
17 development review process in Fort Collins leaves a lot to be desired and I think you’re stuck in
18 a very unfavorable position here. Right of the bat, I can tell you that this will have to be
19 appealed because this should not be a Type I hearing, it should be a Type II hearing. We talked
20 about…or there has been discussion before about the changes that have occurred in the Land Use
21 Code over the years. I was actually an appellant, one of the appellants, in an appeal to
22 coincidentally another student housing project that led to that change in the LUC. Also,
23 coincidentally, the Type I Hearing Officer that heard that, he was fired after that particular
24 situation because it did not go very well. And, towards that end, I just want to make sure that
25 we’re recording this now, because that was part of the whole problem is there was a recording
26 failure at the previous hearing and the Type I Hearing Officer went ahead and made a
27 determination without the benefit of a review tape, even though it’s a requirement of the Code,
28 the transcript be completed, et cetera.
29 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Well, I’ll look to City staff in
30 the back, but it’s my understanding that we’re recording this. Yeah.
31 MR. SUTHERLAND: Yeah, okay, that’s great…it never hurts to check in that regard.
32 But then the other…the very unfortunate situation that we’re faced here, is this is probably one
33 of the biggest screw-ups of any city government along the Front Range in recent years. We’re
34 undergoing a very noble experiment in Fort Collins, trying to transition exurb and suburban type
35 community into one which has urban characteristics, so that the growth that its inevitable, that’s
36 anticipated here, can occur in such a way as to not hamper those qualities of life that we really
37 enjoy in Fort Collins, that I’m proud of, that I’m really happy to live here and I’m sure I’m
25
1 speaking for everybody else in the room. It’s really a great place to live, and because of that, to
2 have the rural environment surrounding us, not overcome by sprawl but still to see an urban core
3 with all of the amenities and culture develop in that regard. And this project was supposed to be
4 part of that experiment, part of that experiment funded with $5 million of tax increment
5 financing. And I’m sure you’re probably just aware of the general concept. This is a process
6 by…whereby property taxes that would otherwise go to our schools, County social services were
7 diverted to provide a subsidy to this developer with certain expectations. Even tax money that
8 was allocated specifically by the generous people of Fort Collins so that we would have high
9 quality schools, with no other intention but to create better schools, was diverted for the purpose
10 of this project, in the tune of a $5 million cash payment which has been made at this point in
11 time.
12 And just to give you the nature of how unthoughtful the entire process has been, that $5
13 million, when you add in the principal, is actually more property tax than this project will
14 actually generate over its lifetime. In other words, our City staff was unable to do the math,
15 unable to recognize the fact that property taxes are actually collected in arrears, et cetera, so they
16 come up with some reasonable approximation, therefore, basically what it ended up to at the end
17 of the day is that the tax payers of the City of Fort Collins are also chipping in by virtue of
18 making a subsidized loan…low interest loan to the Urban Renewal Authority to do that.
19 But I bring all that forward because it was specifically stated, and it was part of the whole
20 idea, we’re going to do this transit oriented development. Now what is that? I mean
21 that…that’s…that’s out of the box thinking, at least for Northern Colorado. But it means, this is
22 going to have to be a project that cannot be dependent upon personal passenger automobiles by
23 all of its tenants. There’s ways to do that, there’s ways it’s being done elsewhere. There are
24 programs like car sharing, which this particular developer has never looked at seriously, that can
25 significantly minimize the number of automobiles that are necessary to service those people that
26 live at the residence, because not everybody needs a car 24-7, or needs one at their beck and call
27 all day. And so there’s things that could be done to make the parking that is here available. And
28 part and parcel to that whole thing was just the clear eyes wide open understanding that they’re
29 going into this, that they’re receiving the subsidies, that they’re getting benefit here because we
30 want this to work as a transit oriented development project, and it should work. And the failure
31 here, the failure here that occurred is not due to those people who have been impinged upon who
32 I feel for. My neighbors that suffer cars being parked on their streets, access to parking in their
33 own neighborhoods because of this project. The failure here was because the developer failed to
34 pursue a transit oriented methodology when it went out to seek customers, residents, to live in
35 that property. That’s the problem here. And so…we’re saying that oh, this solution is an
36 absolute necessity because of the problems that we are seeing, and they are real and I do
37 sympathize, but also understanding that this failure occurred because of a lack of understanding
38 to make this happen. And so, you know, there’s a number of things in there, and I’ll just hit right
39 from that to the…
26
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Well, actually, I’ve let you go a
2 bit beyond the three minutes…
3 MR. SUTHERLAND: Listen, there was no time limit for these folks in presenting their
4 case.
5 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Well, you know what though,
6 that’s…it’s my time limit, it’s what I do with any hearing that I’m at. I set a time limit for public
7 comment, especially when there’s a lot of people that want to speak…I mean a lot of folks…
8 MR. SUTHERLAND: Okay, okay, you make that clear to me up front…
9 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I did…
10 MR. SUTHERLAND: I’m used to living my life three minutes at a time down there at
11 City Hall as I try to make a better community for my neighbors. I’m happy to work with
12 whatever time limit you want to impose, but I came up here with the understanding that…that
13 just like the staff, just like the applicant, you’re here to listen in this particular case.
14 So, I’ll just close it out here with three very…or four actually, very simple criteria of the
15 Land Use Code that are not being complied with by this project. I’ve already mentioned one,
16 this should be a Type II hearing instead of a Type I. Second is that this whole bike parking
17 paradigm where we’re fulfilling some of the Code requirements…also very familiar with the
18 process that led up to the change in that Code…for the birds, does not comport with the
19 legislative intent of that change to the Code. We’re talking about height restrictions…not
20 necessarily that we’re looking at maximum heights, but at certain heights over 40 feet…trigger
21 different pieces of the Land Use Code to come into effect…talking about a building that is going
22 to have cars parked on top of it, a lot of that building already measure right up to 39 feet. With a
23 car parked on top of it, a great majority of that building is going to exceed 40 feet in height. And
24 the last one is the parking spaces as defined in that one parking bay. It’s not just the 15 feet I
25 don’t think, perhaps someone else will have some more information about that, but if you look at
26 the rest of the standards, how the numbers work, we’re apples and oranges, not just...15 feet…
27 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you…if I can get your,
28 just your address…
29 MR. SUTHERLAND: It’s 3520 Golden Currant, Fort Collins, Colorado.
30 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, thank you.
31 MR. CHRIS HAVEKOST: Hello, I’m Chris Havekost, I bought The Zone Health and
32 Fitness…it’s a gym just east of their structure.
33 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, Chris, what’s your
34 address?
27
1 MR. HAVEKOST: It’s 1739 South College Avenue.
2 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, thanks.
3 MR. HAVEKOST: After hearing him speak, I feel that this organization, from the very
4 beginning has had blatant disregard for everyone involved. The gentleman that owned the gym
5 before me, they shut down his entire…he had nowhere for his tenants to park for almost a year. I
6 bought this business…I guess I’m thankful that you people did do that to him because he almost
7 went out of business, I saw his tax return, so it presented the opportunity for me to buy this gym.
8 But, I’ve urged Greg to file a lawsuit against The Summit because you shut his business down
9 completely. And now you’re working on mine. I have to fight those kids…every day of my life
10 I spend at least four hours a day running kids off from parking in my 18 car spaces that I have for
11 400 members. So, what these guys have done is come in and taken that ability away from me,
12 which is going to end up…my members are going to end up parking in the upstairs tenants’ and
13 we’re going to end up in a war with them. They’re going to be upset at me, when really the only
14 people that we should be upset at is The Summit.
15 In sitting here, I was really hoping to hear some regard for the tenants and for me, as a
16 gym owner, but I still haven’t heard it. The fact that you people have borrowed all this money
17 from tax payers and you come in here today and you don’t even offer…well, you know what,
18 we want to give 25 spaces, 25 spaces out of, what did you say, 365, would have made me feel a
19 little bit better. But, you come in and you still don’t care about my business. Well, we’re going
20 to build this parking structure, and guess what? We’re not going to give any to you again. So,
21 now…you guys propose it as a solution. See, it’s actually not a solution. It’s a solution for you;
22 it’s not a solution for me. What’s going to happen is, is because it’s more convenient for your
23 tenants that live right here center, right in front of my gym, I’m going to continue to have to fight
24 them. They are going to continue to park there because it’s a longer walk from your parking
25 garage. I’m just completely frustrated that…I feel like that you guys have not considered any of
26 the tenants in any way, and that’s just my frustration. I feel like it’s just going to make things
27 worse for me, and I’m surprised that you guys didn’t offer some sort of solution for your tenants
28 that live right next door to you. I heard her mention harmony and all these words, and there’s no
29 harmony. Everyone in that entire building is upset, and we’re going to continue to be upset
30 because we get less and less and less as time goes on. So, that’s it.
31 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you.
32 MS. NATALIE PARSON: Hi, my name is Natalie Parson and I live at 1707 Remington,
33 which is just on the opposite side of the Starbucks that’s across the street from your building
34 there. Obviously, the 16, 17, and 1800 blocks of Remington Street have seen a major change in
35 dynamic in our neighborhood, which is not for the better. Beside the fact that I can’t take down
36 those buildings and take it all back, I have to deal with it now? Some of my concerns with this
37 parking garage is, if you’re taking away 100 spots to build on top of that lot, where are those kids
28
1 going to park while you’re building this structure? Because I personally don’t want them
2 blocking my driveway every morning. Ironically enough, I’m in safety training this week and I
3 have some huge, huge general safety concerns regarding the changes to the neighborhood. Most
4 of this is concerning the City. Nobody’s cared to repaint bike lanes or crosswalks where
5 everybody parks on top of those or, concerning the fire station on Spring Creek, I’ve watched
6 that fire truck make two-point turns around cars parked out to the crosswalk which is in front of a
7 daycare...that’s…fun to watch when they’re trying to respond to an emergency, can’t make a
8 corner.
9 I’m wondering when the City is going to adapt to all that new population in the
10 surrounding neighborhood. Speed on Remington Street has changed, traffic flow has changed,
11 parking has changed. I really truly believe that your tenants need some education on parking
12 and…I called over there one time to see if they had been given the Fort Collins parking laws and
13 procedures…because I’ve called the non-emergency police line so I could get out of my
14 driveway in the morning because it was blocked, or had my trash can moved and never returned
15 so that somebody could park there. The response was, let them get ticketed, that’s how they’ll
16 learn. I said, could you please just send out a blast email with City parking laws or something.
17 She said, we’ll let the Police take care of it. Well, nobody wants to spend the tax payer
18 money…tax payer money to police and ticket citations. And I know my neighborhood’s not the
19 only one affected. South of the structure has been congested and residential parking has been
20 clogged up there too. So, I’m just wondering what the City plans on doing in regards to updating
21 signage, street painting, speed limit changes…we have the busiest bike lanes probably in town
22 on Remington, but yet those kids park right in the bike lane, blocking the bike lane, and nobody
23 cares to come and police the area to ticket those cars. And even if they do, what is a $15 fine to
24 somebody whose parents are paying for them to live in student housing. They don’t care.
25 I’ve gotten in contact with Jamie Moyer with the City to try to get help with the parking
26 issues, and I got 30 people on my street who were home one day, wrote down their name and
27 address, and I collected information for her so she could give me an update as to these and I’ve
28 never heard back. I provided a list via email to her, never heard back on what the repercussions
29 were from the increase in traffic flow, parking issues from The Summit project. Those are
30 basically my concerns, and what’s going to go on during the constructuion process when all of
31 that tenant parking is pushed out into the residential parking and everything is plugged up for us.
32 It’s kind of important, I think we should know. Also, those kids crossing College look like
33 they’re playing Frogger. I don’t know if such a busy city street should be…I know it’s going to
34 cost more money, but maybe a walking bridge or something for them to get across if these
35 parking problems continue. I do expect that they’ll continue to park after this garage is built if
36 the tenants are going to have to pay for the parking in that garage, because not everybody wants
37 to pay for a parking spot. They’ll come park in front of my house for a week instead, because
38 until I call, their car sits there. So, those are some of my concerns. Thanks for listening and I
39 know that they’re pretty general concerns, but I don’t know…when I watch a mother with a
29
1 stroller walking her child down to the daycare and see cars that have continually parked, because
2 I write down the license plate numbers, run the stop sign while pedestrians are in the crosswalks,
3 I think there’s some changes that need to be made.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, and again, I think the
5 purpose of the applicant and the staff rebuttal is so these questions, like the emergency concerns
6 and the issue of what’s going to happen during the construction of the parking garage, is
7 hopefully something that they can address during rebuttal.
8 MR. ANDY SMITH: Hello Mr. McAskin, I’ll be brief. My name is Andy Smith and this
9 past December I completed eight years on the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, the last
10 two as the Board Chair. I am very familiar with the challenges and opportunities that we face in
11 the TOD and believe that we must be very careful in our analysis of the project there in order to
12 ensure that the vision of the TOD is realized. After careful analysis of this proposal, I believe the
13 applicant’s request for modification to a standard for the drive aisle width should be denied, as
14 should the overall major amendment itself. First of all, a few comments on the request for a
15 modification to the standard. Because the drive aisle width standard is being asked to be
16 modified by approximately 33%, clearly the proposal is not equal to or better than a plan that
17 does meet the standard. The standard that is under consideration is quantifiable, it’s a number,
18 it’s a measure, and modifying that strict standard should only be done for good cause when
19 meeting the standard is not feasible beyond what appears to be a self-imposed hardship. There is
20 no cause for the applicant to request a modification of a standard that, in and of itself is not
21 ambiguous and left for interpretation. Second, the applicant asserts that the parking structure
22 user familiarity will be low turnover, that’s how it’s characterized, and that is not accurate. CSU
23 students normally make more frequent short haul daily trips than the applicants suggest, and
24 even if that was not the case, any structure, parking structure, in the TOD should be built with a
25 longer term view of a user who turns over their space more often.
26 On the overall major amendment, the project does nothing to acknowledge and promote
27 the unique character of the TOD as required by the Land Use Code. Projects in the TOD should
28 promote high-quality urban design simply because the built environment is much closer to
29 people. Projects should also acknowledge their adjacency with other project uses and amenities,
30 and therefore strive to provide some measure of public benefit beyond the property line. For
31 instance, to not attempt to activate the southern façade with liner retail shops is a lost
32 opportunity. Imagine the enhanced pedestrian experience that would come with liner shops in
33 terms of safety, through what is known as eyes on the street, not to mention the revenue that
34 could help pay the public and private debt on this project. The Land Use Code requires liner
35 shops on any side that fronts a street, and while the trail and park may not be streets technically,
36 they are certainly public spaces on a human scale that will be incompatible with the sterile south
37 elevation that is proposed.
30
1 Additionally, this project will far exceed the minimum amount of parking required, which
2 harms the intent of the TOD. What if every project in the TOD built at that 80% bed to space
3 ratio? While I fully understand the parking challenges in this part of town, this project simply
4 does not comply with the Land Use Code, specifically a failure to prove that the request to
5 modify the drive aisle width standard will be equal to or greater than a plan that does meet the
6 standard. And second of all, failure to achieve a design and character that complies with Land
7 Use Code Section 3.10 regarding the TOD. Finally, I do believe that I would have voted for
8 denial if this proposal had come to the Planning and Zoning Board during my tenure. Thank you
9 for your time.
10 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you. And, Mr. Smith,
11 what was your address again, just for my notes?
12 MR. SMITH: 2012 Sheffield Court.
13 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you.
14 MS. LAUREN STADEKER: Hello, my name is Lauren Stadeker, my address is 1721
15 Choice Center Drive, and I am a current resident at The Summit on College. I know that there’s
16 a lot of negativity in this room right now regarding the parking structure, but I am actually
17 completely for it, just on the basis of…there are a lot of residents that I can speak for that…we
18 know that there is not a lot of parking right now, and we do park over on Remington Street as
19 another lady was saying. We do park over in a lot of different retail areas, and that’s just
20 because there’s limited parking here and we have no other place to go. For instance, I actually
21 do have a car but I did not for the first semester, and it was easier not having a parking space, not
22 having to worry about that parking space. But as time went on, I was involved in a lot of
23 organizations and I had to stay late so, therefore, I could not just walk back and forth to campus
24 being a young lady at night. So, I definitely needed to purchase a car and I believe it was a good
25 decision, even though I still do not have parking at The Summit right now. The only option that
26 was given to me was as Lot 240 pass, which was actually on the CSU campus. And even then,
27 it’s still a bit of an issue for me to just go back and forth because it is still on campus, I still have
28 to make that walk trying to go back late at night. So, therefore at night sometimes I will have to
29 end up parking in different areas that will not be an issue where I will end up getting towed or
30 someone else will ticket my car. Because I do pay for my housing, and it’s not easy being a
31 college student having to pay a $200 towing ticket, or even just a $15 ticket when you’re making
32 an income that’s not as steady as most people I would say. I believe that the parking structure is
33 going to be very helpful for the residents at The Summit on College as well, just because there is
34 going to be more availability. And I believe that that $15 or $30 more extra, we will be willing
35 to pay for, just because there will be that access for us to park there. And as for retail, I believe
36 that it’s going to be a little easier for retail so that we don’t have to park in their spaces when that
37 parking structure is built. And, I believe that a lot of residents…I know that I utilize a lot of the
38 retail spaces around here just because they are different options for us, like…I know one person
31
1 works at the gym and a lot of residents go there, we work out. A lot of people will go to Burger
2 Works because it’s right down the street. But if we don’t have a parking space to go there, we’re
3 going to end up going to different areas, we might not end up going there, we might end up
4 having to park on campus and utilizing a different retail area, and I just feel as though…I’m all
5 for it.
6 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, thank you.
7 MR. DAVID ROSE: Good evening, my name is David Rose and our business location is
8 1801 South College. We are the nearest neighbors to The Summit and I oppose the parking
9 structure based on Fort Collins TOD Land Use Code 3.10.3, Section C, Outdoor Spaces. It
10 mentions balconies and decks for residents and workers to use and interaction and to integrate
11 the development with the adjacent physical context. To me, that means our view. Our view
12 from The Laboratory, it’s a bar restaurant in the basement of 1801 South College which faces
13 west. We have a very large patio and for sure from inside of our restaurant you can look out
14 over The Summit parking lot and you can see the train tracks, and you can see the mountains in
15 the background, and you can 100% watch the sun set on the mountains. It is the reason that we
16 decided to move in, because the view is amazing. We would love to have more parking for the
17 students because the students aren’t our intended clientele. But, to take away our view and give
18 us nothing but a parking structure to look at is detrimental, as well as, we have invested over $1
19 million personally locally following the Code, 3.10.3, so that we developed this so that we can
20 see and have a nice view. And then to have the City say, oh, well we’re going to let somebody
21 build a parking structure after you’ve spent all this money and block your view, which we did on
22 purpose with intent according to the Code, does not seem quite right to me. This was the big
23 thing. Also…I have a couple of questions personally just to have addressed in a little bit.
24 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: If you have questions, I think
25 now is the time to ask them and then I may just ask that the, you know, applicant, you know, not
26 answer them right away but will take it during the rebuttal.
27 MR. ROSE: Absolutely, thank you. I question if this is actually a painful decision if the
28 people that have built Summit have done this many hundreds of times throughout the country,
29 how can they think that people in the United States won’t have cars and they won’t need
30 parking? To me, this seems an interesting choice to make and I would like to hear an answer.
31 As well as, to speak to my friend with the gym, we were offered earlier today by Mr. Jones the
32 use of several of their parking spaces during the day. And then have the residents be able to park
33 there at night and I question how they figure that this is storage parking, or long-term parking, if
34 they are going to rotate parking spots out during the day for our use at retail and then have the
35 students park there in the evening. Thank you very much.
36 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, thank you.
32
1 MR. JEFFREY LEEF: Hello, my name is Jeffrey Leef, I live here in Fort Collins
2 for…thirteen, fourteen years. I also am a tenant at 1801 South College, you just heard from
3 my…one of my partners. One of the questions I have for the City is, if this is going to be a Type
4 I review and Capstone is held to the original standard of review, why are they not being required
5 for FEMA approval as they were originally. This has not been brought up by anyone at this
6 point. I think it’s incumbent upon the City to hold them to the original standard if that is the line
7 that they’re going to tow. The other question I have is, has anybody looked at this parking lot
8 lately? I know I’ve sent a number of pictures to Seth Lorson showing just how empty that
9 parking lot is at various hours. Ever since the Christmas break, the winter break, there’s been a
10 significant reduction in cars that are parked in that lot. And it’s anywhere from 30 to 50% empty
11 at any given time. I’m there every day…and including the evenings, it’s still not full. Why do
12 we need to build a parking garage if they can’t fill the lot they have? Why isn’t it full? If
13 students aren’t willing to pay for parking now, why would they tomorrow?
14 I also question Capstone…who at CSU did they originally try to make arrangements
15 with? I have yet to hear from anyone from CSU; I’ve tried to contact people and no one there
16 seems to have spoken to Capstone about the arrangement of parking…off-site parking with them
17 that was supposedly taken away at the last minute. So, I question their…yes, and you know, I
18 think that they have been deceitful. In fact, if you go on their website right now, it says parking
19 structure for August, will be there. And in fact I called the Capstone…or The Summit rentals
20 today and they assured me that there would be a parking structure built by August and that I
21 would be able to have access to it with ample parking if I was to lease from them. Well, they
22 haven’t even been approved, why are they telling people that? They never told…out of all the
23 people I spoke with that live at The Summit, I have yet to find a single one that was told ahead of
24 time that this was a transit oriented development and that they should have bicycles and try not
25 to bring a car, this type of thing. None of those people were ever told…they’re deceitful and
26 they’re continuing to be deceitful. Go on their website, right now, you’ll see it.
27 I would like to pull up the photo simulation that they presented of the parking structure,
28 can I have that done? The very first one, is that a possibility?
29 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I think that we have it in the
30 materials…I mean…
31 MR. LEEF: Well, I would like to point some stuff out on it. They were allowed to, can I?
32 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Well, I think that was their
33 presentation. This is your…
34 MR. LEEF: Okay, not a problem. Their representative here said that the view west is not
35 substantial…not substantially blocked at all, and I call into question why she thinks that, why a
36 view of the mountains is not substantial. And I guess that’s pretty subjective, but I think that
37 is…the view is definitely part of transit oriented development, and that is in the Code and is not
33
1 being brought up. I think the shadow study…I would like to know who did the shadow study.
2 They only show the longest shadow, but that’s a winter depiction, that’s December, where the
3 shadow goes from the south to the north. If you see a summer depiction, you’ll see a longer
4 shadow straight west to east, and that will directly block my…my place that I’ve leased. And I
5 negotiated this lease based on the transit oriented development, based on the approval, and now
6 we’re going to change it. And, I have a lot of money sunk into this and I would’ve negotiated a
7 different lease, or maybe not at all. And I’m a local resident investing in the Mason Street
8 Corridor. I believed in that project, I believed in the City’s devotion to the Mason Street
9 Corridor with MAX and a bike path, and I wanted to be a proud business owner to be the first to
10 build in that direction, towards that. And I believe in it, and I think that it’s incumbent upon the
11 City to continue with that, because I think it’s a wonderful thing for us, and to allow this parking
12 structure is totally against what the City is trying to do.
13 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, and I just…if you can
14 wrap it up for me because I know we do have some other folks…
15 MR. LEEF: Certainly. Last thing I’d like to say is that the 15 foot lane being equal to a
16 20 foot lane…they do not show the way a car can pull in from the west and make that first spot.
17 It looks near impossible in a 15 foot lane. They don’t show it, they said it fit, but they don’t even
18 show that. And I agree with the previous gentleman that this building will be over 40 feet with
19 cars parked on top, and certainly with the towers. I’d like to thank you for your time.
20 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you, and I’m assuming
21 that because you said you’re a partner with Mr. Rose that you’re also in The Laboratory…that’s
22 the name?
23 MR. LEEF: Correct, unit D, 1801 South College Unit D. Thank you.
24 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you.
25 MR. TRAVIS NEIDER: My name is Travis Neider…
26 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: So you found it?
27 MR. NEIDER: I am principle franchisee of the Subway restaurant at 1801 South
28 College…since June. And since day one, parking problems have been a millstone around my
29 neck…it pains me every day to see people pull in, see no parking, and pull out. Also, I’d like to
30 state that I am a fan of The Summit, I think you have a great staff over there and my interactions
31 with Jason and the rest of the staff have been fantastic. And, at the bottom level…you and I have
32 the same goal. I want you guys to be 100% leased out to hungry college students. So, it is a bit
33 ironic in some ways that I’m opposed to a parking structure, but, for one I don’t think it’s going
34 to solve the parking problems for local businesses as…reasons that have been stated. And also,
35 to address the view problem, from the top paragraph of The Summit on College website, first
34
1 thing you see on the website…this is student housing in Fort Collins the way we dreamed it
2 could be…hang out at the pool, of course, hang out in one of three courtyards with a backdrop of
3 the mountains, now we’re talking. It’s the number two selling point on their website is the
4 backdrop of the mountains. This parking garage is conveniently located that it won’t affect your
5 backdrop of the mountains, and no matter what you guys say, it will absolutely affect our 12-seat
6 patio out back, which…like the previous two gentleman was a big selling point to my lease to
7 have the patio that we can see the mountains. And, for anybody who doesn’t think it’s
8 substantial, blocking the view, I’d like you to come over for lunch tomorrow, it’s supposed to be
9 70 degrees. I’ll buy you lunch and you can sit out on my patio and look out over where this
10 parking lot is supposed to be and tell me it’s not going to affect my view; it will.
11 Conversely, a view obstruction goes two ways; the MAX project is supposed to be the
12 future of this city, and I chose this location partly because of the visibility from the MAX bus
13 line. I think there will be a lot of people up there and I want them to be able to see my
14 business…the view going west to east…you see my restaurant, it’ll be gone if this project moves
15 forward, so, for those reasons I would like to voice my opposition to this parking garage.
16 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you. I do have one
17 question…my wife is always telling me not to order the Italian BMT…
18 MR. NEIDER: That’s the best one.
19 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I know, but there’s better
20 options though for me, right, for…?
21 MR. NEIDER: Meatball is my favorite.
22 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Alright, thank you.
23 MR. NEIDER: Stop in tomorrow and I’ll get you a meatball.
24 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, thanks.
25 MR. LES KAPLAN: My name is Les Kaplan, 140 Palmer Drive, Fort Collins, 80525. I
26 am the owner of the 1801 South College; I’m the landlord. I’m the people who…I’m the person
27 who interfaced with these excited tenants to have that wonderful view to the west, which would
28 be destroyed. I also own the property which is immediately north of this, which is the Chuck-E-
29 Cheese building. I’ve been very active in redeveloping properties in Midtown; I’m a big believer
30 in Midtown. I also own the Toys ‘r Us building, which I’m planning on remodeling. I’ve
31 remodeled the Full Cycle building, I will be remodeling the Chuck-E-Cheese building, and I also
32 own the Carmike movie theater that will be another project. So, in total, I control about 550
33 parking spaces in Midtown and, other than about three days ago, I’d never talked to The Summit
34 at all about their utilizing any of my parking for storage parking.
35
1 I’d like to address first this request for modification from 20 feet to 15 feet. If I read the
2 City Code correctly…this is 3.2.2…there are requirements for parking stalls that go beyond just
3 what the driving lane is. Those requirements deal with width, length, and depth as well. And, if
4 I have the correct information in the Code, which I pulled up and which I discussed with Seth
5 Lorson the other day, the requirement for a single aisle at the 60 degree angle regarding width is
6 9 feet. And what we see in the diagram that was submitted by the applicant in the modification
7 request is 8 feet 6 inches. The length requirement, according to the Code, is 19 feet. And what I
8 see on the exhibit that was submitted by the applicant, is 17 feet 1 inch. And for depth, it’s 21
9 feet, and what I see in the diagram is 19 feet. So, either I’m reading something wrong here or, if
10 I am, I would sure like an explanation as to why all four measurements that are required by Code
11 for a parking stall are all different than what the applicant is proposing, and the only one for
12 which there is a request for modification has to do with the aisle width.
13 So, I’d like to talk with you about the aisle width for a second. And the request for
14 modification and the aisle width comes through a letter from Desman and Associates. And they
15 cite some traffic information which is from the National Parking Association. The conclusion is
16 that, if they were to modify this from 20 feet to 15 feet, the best they’re going to wind up with is
17 something that’s between good and acceptable. I don’t think Fort Collins wants to think of itself
18 as either good or acceptable. The…however, if you were to go to…oh, and the description of
19 what they’re doing in their letter is to say that the modification is going to lead to a comfortable
20 accommodation, not a good or acceptable one. If you were to go to the traffic information
21 source that the City most commonly uses, and which is used by Delich and Associates and most
22 traffic engineers that submit information to the City as a basis for their traffic reports and
modifications, that’s the Traffic Engineers Handbook 6
th
23 Edition. You’ll see that for a single
24 lane, 60 degree parking, comfortable…a comfortable aisle is 19 and a half feet. So, the City’s
25 requirement for 20 feet has a basis. And it just isn’t something to be picked at and to be
26 amended at the whim of an applicant who finds a traffic engineer that says that it’s not necessary.
27 The modification request that was submitted really doesn’t give a basis for the
28 modification. It doesn’t say that it can’t meet it for some hardship reason, it doesn’t say that
29 there’s any special condition as to why it has to reduce it; it simply says that we want to change
30 it…parentheses…because it doesn’t work for us…end of parentheses. That really shouldn’t be
31 the way in which modifications are requested. If you use the equal to or better standard, it’s
32 elementary to say that 20 feet…15 feet doesn’t equal 20 feet. It’s an absolute requirement…15
33 feet will never equal 20 feet, so it’s not equal. Okay, is it better…well, the applicant points out
34 the situation where they did reduce the parking width and the client actually liked it and said that
35 it was better. They used that as an example. So, if you have an example of where it’s
36 better…and this is why it’s better…it’s better because in order to preserve a view corridor, the
37 Anschutz Medical Campus review board requested that the width of the parking structure be
38 reduced in order to preserve the view corridor. So, what I submit is that, if the applicant has a
39 basis for this modification, and it’s not equal, then you need to show some way that it’s better.
36
1 Now there is an example of how it could be better, and that would be that by reducing the
2 parking width, you have a smaller parking structure and you preserve the view corridor. That’s
3 absolutely what this applicant is not doing. It’s not equal and it’s not better, and it doesn’t meet
4 the major parameter that the Traffic Engineers Handbook has for 19 and a half feet. What it is, is
5 convenient for the applicant to fit more parking spaces in and to give us a continuation of this
6 project in the area of mediocrity. So…
7 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Mr. Kaplan, I appreciate your
8 comments very much, I would just ask that you try to wrap it up here pretty soon, because I do
9 want to have adequate time for rebuttal…
10 MR. KAPLAN: Okay, I will…okay, so I’d like to know why these other requirements are
11 not addressed. The other thing is that…is that the parking requirement that the City has goes
12 beyond simply what the size of the bay is…or what the size of a back-up lane is. It also…it also
13 refers to other requirements for a parking structure…3.2.2…and it says that a parking lot should
14 reduce the conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. It calls for pedestrian-vehicular
15 separation. There’s none of that in this parking lot. And just because it’s enclosed doesn’t mean
16 that safety is not a concern. It is forcing students to walk in parking aisles and it’s making those
17 parking aisles extremely narrow.
18 The other concerns I have is the traffic impact study actually indicates that failure will
19 occur unless Stuart Street without improvements. The Land Use Code states that parking
20 structures should not block the view from other properties. The Land Use Code requires
21 compatibility between land uses. There are height differences here, going from three and a half
22 stories to one story. There will be lighting spillovers, there will be the blocking of sun light, and
23 there will be noise and other compatibilities [sic]. It’s important to recognize that this is the first
24 ever privately developed parking structure in Fort Collins, so we shouldn’t just…other than the
25 hospital…this is the first one. So this needs to be done the right way. There’s no safety plan that
26 was submitted, there’s no emergency access plan that was submitted, and there’s no management
27 plan that was submitted for this.
28 In addition…I just need two more minutes on this…
29 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Well I can give you about 30
30 more seconds, how’s that?
31 MR. KAPLAN: Why don’t you give me 45 seconds? Why don’t you give me 45
32 seconds?
33 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Your letter that’s dated January
8
th
34 is already part of the record and I will be reviewing all…
35 MR. KAPLAN: Okay, give me 45 seconds for each building that I own?
37
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I’m asking you to wrap it up
2 here…
3 MR. KAPLAN: And then I’ll give you my opinion on the Subway sandwiches too. The
4 other thing I’d like to add to this, just to get this on the record, is that considering that the City
5 Council has corrected the Code to now require that the Planning and Zoning Board review high
6 impact residential project, such as The Summit, is it really in the best interest for the community
7 to again circumvent the Planning and Zoning Board on this? Does the nearby tripling of the
8 number of cars disqualify this project as a transit oriented overlay zoning, and if so, might this
9 amendment in fact be a de facto zoning change? Is there a planning basis for all the additional
10 parking and building mass? Where is the study that quantifies the problem? How might the
11 problem be reduced if the applicant were required to comply with his initial planning objectives
12 and to provide the promised off-site parking storage and the bike trail connections to Propsect?
13 Why are the benefits of MAX transit, which was lauded by the applicant for the initial project
14 and grant approval, being completely ignored? To what extent should the applicant’s main
15 justification for the parking structure, that is improving and ensuring his economic success, serve
16 as the City’s criteria for public review? The applicant received $5 million from the Urban
17 Renewal Authority for this project to promote City policy objectives. These included
18 discouraging cars and promoting alternative modes of transportation such as MAX. When
19 adding this structure jeopardize the integrity, if not the legality, of the URA’s $5 million grant.
20 One more minute…30 seconds…
21 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I’ll tell you what, if that’s a
22 supplemental written…if you’re going to read that into the record, just give it to me. I’ll read it,
23 I really want….no, no…I think I’ve been very liberal…it’s been well beyond the three minutes.
24 MR. KAPLAN: I’m not reading this, I have one more comment and that’s it…would this
25 project, had it originally been proposed this way, been approved? And I think that that needs to
26 be, logically, that needs to be…the ultimate test. Would this project, had it been submitted this
27 way, been ultimately approved, and would it have gotten $5 million? And the answer is no.
28 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, thank you for your time.
29 MR. KAPLAN: I like the toasted tuna.
30 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Is there anybody else that
31 signed up that…great.
32 MR. CHRIS RAY: My name is Chris Ray, 1113 West Plum Street in Fort Collins. And,
33 I think to what Les just said about the fact that…would it have gotten approved, I mean, the
34 whole idea I think was, why don’t they just use the MAX? You know, MAX isn’t even open,
35 how do you know that won’t work, you know, how do you know kids won’t get on there and use
36 that. I know it’s dangerous to walk across the street, I know it’s probably even dangerous to get
38
1 in your car and drive across Prospect and College. So, you know, I’m opposing it for that simple
2 reason that really it was intended to be in a transportation overlay area and it’s not running yet,
3 it’s not open. So, maybe give it a chance. The other thing is I would like to say is, is if it does
4 for some reason get approved, I would hope it’s subject to the plan of where everybody is going
5 to park while it’s being done, because that just seems to be…just a…it’s going to be a real pain.
6 I don’t know how they’re going to do it…besides just spilling them out all onto Remington and
7 other places. So, those are the only two things I had. Thank you.
8 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you. Is there anybody
9 else that would like to make comment? Going once…okay. I’ll go ahead and close the public
10 comment portion of the hearing at 8:09 PM and, at this point, we can…why don’t we take about
11 a five minute break and we’ll reconvene no later than 8:15, okay?
12 (**Secretary’s note: There was a brief break in the meeting at this point.)
13 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: So, we’ll go…we’ll go back on
14 the record here at 8:23 PM. We’ve got two…two portions of the hearing to get through tonight.
15 We have an opportunity for the applicant response…the applicant can respond to questions or
16 concerns that were raised during the public comment portion of the hearing. Following the
17 applicant response, there will be an opportunity for Seth or any members of the City staff that
18 have responses to the issues or questions that were raised either during the public comment
19 portion of the hearing or during the applicant response, to also go on the record with staff’s
20 position on any of the issues. At this point, I would like to just note, for purposes of the record
21 here, that I was provided with a staff report for the purposes of tonight’s hearing. The staff
22 report will be a part of the record of the proceeding together with the nine attachments that are
23 referenced in the staff report. Also the applicant did provide me with a copy of the PowerPoint
24 and other supporting materials. That’s marked tabs one, two, two A through I, and tab three and
25 tab four. Those will be entered into the record of the hearing. I do have a copy of the staff’s
26 PowerPoint presentation that will be a part of the hearing. Mr. Lorson did provide me with the
27 memorandum dated today with additional documents to be submitted as part of the record.
28 There are five additional documents there that will be part of the record of the hearing. Notice of
29 the public hearing was published in the Coloradoan; I have a copy of the notice of the public
30 hearing, and that that was mailed to adjacent property owners in accordance with the Code, and
31 also the fact that the hearing was published in the Coloradoan. So, that will be part of the record.
32 And, with that, I will turn it back over to the applicant and your opportunity to answer any
33 questions or issues that came up during public comment.
34 MS. WHITE: Thank you, once again for the record, Carolyn White, land use counsel for
35 the applicant. And, what we’d like to do with this time is…during the break we were able to
36 regroup and try to group together the questions and concerns that were raised so that we can try
37 to proceed in an orderly fashion to address them with the right expert on our team. And so, we’ll
38 do that and then if there are specific things that you wanted us to focus on that we skipped over,
39
1 feel free to call back any of them and ask whatever questions you would like to ask. Everyone
2 on the team is available for you.
3 As a broad overview, I would say that, you know, obviously the folks that are here
4 tonight have very strong feelings about this project and a lot of concerns that were raised. But, I
5 think there’s one thing that everybody in this room, applicant and the public are in agreement on,
6 and that is there is currently a parking problem. Of the ten people who testified tonight, the 80
7 letters that were submitted, 75 in support, a couple against, no one said everything is working
8 just fine, everything should stay the way it is, we don’t need to address the parking problem.
9 What we have a difference of opinion about is what is the best way to address the parking
10 problem and is the developer’s proposal in fact the best way or are there other better ways that
11 we would rather they try to address the parking problem.
12 Mr. Kaplan raised the question of, well what are the criteria for public review. And, I’m
13 glad that question was raised because, in fact, the Land Use Code doesn’t ask, do we agree with
14 why somebody wants to build something, or is it a good idea that this should be built. There are
15 certain times when that public policy question gets asked, but in this context, major amendment
16 to a PDP for an existing project in a Type I review, the criteria is, does the proposed project meet
17 the applicable criteria in the Land Use Code, and that’s the criteria we’ve been talking about in
18 Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 10 on floodplains, TOD overlay, et cetera. So, with our time, we
19 propose to focus principally on those issues that were raised during public comment that address
20 those criteria in the Land Use Code, not the ones that say we disagree that this is the right choice
21 for how to solve the parking problem.
22 So, in that regard, we’d like to start with talking about the question of the view and the
23 concerns raised by the owners and the tenants of 1801 South College, immediately to the east of
24 that building. I don’t want to say that what they have today is not a fantastic view, and I
25 certainly wouldn’t suggest that that wasn’t a motivating factor for them in selecting that location;
26 but, what the Code says about view, and the Code in trying to balance competing interests such
27 as preserving the view, preserving solar access, and trying to encourage density near transit
28 stations and related public policy goals, in this particular case, the Code actually makes a choice.
29 The Code says that when buildings are taller than 40 feet, you engage in an analysis of how it
30 impacts the views on adjacent properties. When buildings are shorter than 40 feet, you do not
31 engage in that analysis. That’s the trigger, that’s the object of trigger for when the Code asks
32 you to engage in that view analysis. Nonetheless, in considering where to put this parking
33 structure, some analysis of how it would impact the views was in fact conducted, and that was
34 one of the factors in determining its shape, its size, its location, and certainly it wasn’t optimal
35 for those who are immediately to the east, but we’d like to show if we could that one graphic that
36 we do have that depicts the view from the outdoor patio today.
37 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And I may have a question for
38 staff on that, because I know that the…the majority of the parking structure is below that 40 foot
40
1 threshold, but there are elements…the towers…that are above the 40 foot threshold. So I’m
2 wondering if perhaps staff can point me to…I’m assuming there is an averaging type calculation
3 or…how is the height of the building calculated for purposes of whether or not that 40 foot
4 threshold is triggered.
5 MR. LORSON: Building height is determined through the definition in Section 3.8.17
6 and there are exemptions specifically called out are stairway enclosures and towers and
7 spires…and that’s Section (c)3…3.8.17.
8 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, go ahead.
9 MS. WHITE: So, we just want to briefly show the photograph and really not to dwell on
10 this issue of the view, but it transitions to the next Code related issue that was raised…
11 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: That’s on our patio on your knees…I’m sorry
12 but I refuse to accept that as a representation of the view out of our restaurant. Please come by
13 and take a look.
14 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: I’ll be glad to send you another picture.
15 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: From inside, all the way inside, and I
16 apologize for…
17 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, I’m just going to…I do
18 ask that you allow them to rebut and then we’ll have staff’s input as well…I don’t want to get
19 into a situation here where we have comments that are just spontaneously coming through…but I
20 can understand your position. Thank you.
21 MS. WHITE: Related to that, there was a comment made regarding one of the criteria in
22 Section 3.10, which is the TOD overlay zone, talking about outdoor spaces as it relates to site
23 planning. And the specific Code reference is 3.10.3(c), Outdoor Spaces. And because this issue
24 was raised, I want to read the two sentences in that requirement specifically into the record. That
25 requirement says, to the extent reasonability feasible, buildings and extensions of buildings shall
26 be designed to form outdoor spaces such as courtyards, plazas, arcades, terraces, balconies and
27 decks, for residents and workers use and interaction, and to integrate the development with the
28 adjacent physical context. To the extent reasonably feasible, a continuous walkway system
29 linking such outdoor spaces shall be developed and shall include coordinated linkages between
30 separate developments.
31 Could we have the slide that shows the buffer zone and the park to the south? That
32 criterion as applied to this proposal relates to what the developer is proposing on their property
33 and how they design it to attempt to create outdoor spaces and how they integrate with adjacent
34 properties. I believe, and I may be wrong, but I think that the member of the public who testified
35 as to that was stating that they were required to comply with that and created outdoor spaces for
41
1 their project and that if this structure is built, it would negatively impact those outdoor spaces.
2 But perhaps they were suggesting that this project does not comply with the requirement to
3 create outdoor spaces of its own on its own property, which is not the case. As was testified to
4 by Brian Williamson, there are two specific outdoor gathering places that are specific Code
5 requirements, and a separate Code provision relates to those, but then there’s also quite a bit of
6 treatment given to the connectivity and the corridors as it relates to the green space to the south,
7 the connectivity to the Mason Street Corridor to the west, and the connectivity to the north to the
8 bike lane on Prospect, and in and throughout the development while it was already existing. So,
9 there’s no question that that criteria is complied with, and I think staff notes that in its report…in
10 the staff report.
11 So with that, I’d like to move into those comments that were made relative to the parking
12 structure itself, the modification of standards, traffic impacts, and in particular the size of the
13 parking stalls. And for that, I’d like to ask our expert on that topic, Hoshi Engineer to come up
14 and elaborate, and while he’s doing that, there are two specific items relative to the legal
15 standard that I want to mention. There’s been…we have referred to some of the parking spaces
16 in our garage as storage parking. The term in your Code is long-term parking, and the definition
17 which is in Section 5.1, which I will also read in to the record, is…long-term parking shall mean
18 parking which has limited turn-over during a normal working weekday. Long-term parking
19 includes employee type parking or residential type parking. And in Chapter 3 in the dimensional
20 standards that were read by Mr. Kaplan towards the end of his presentation, he refers to
21 dimensions that he alleges these parking stall shapes and sizes do not comply with, but the
22 applicable measurement for this project is in fact the shapes and sizes required for long-term
23 parking. So, Hoshi, would you mind coming up and addressing that?
24 MR. ENGINEER: Yeah, again, Hoshi Engineer with Desman Associates. And when we
25 laid out this garage, we laid it out with the concept that it was meant for long-term parking and
26 for the storage facility. And primarily, I want to reiterate what has been said here, that for the
27 two 60 foot bays, we meet the Land Use Code of 8 foot 6 by 18 feet for the long-term parking
28 storage over here. The 9 feet by 18 foot, or 9 feet by 19 foot stall dimensions that were quoted
29 by Mr. Kaplan are really like…for the short-term parking with high turn-over. They are really
30 not meant for this type of facility and this type of use group…which is…long-term parking with
31 little change over. So I just want to reiterate those dimensions that we have complied with are
32 meant for long-term storage parking. Now, coming back to that 53 foot bay with the 15 foot
33 drive aisle, we have…done enough analysis. It’s based on the National Parking Association and
34 we have done thousands of these garages all over the country. It’s not like this is something that
35 does not meet the recognized standards which are tried and true over the last 40 years. It’s a
36 nationally recognized standard that we have used in laying out this garage. And as such, the 15
37 foot drive aisle meets the level of service B, which is considered as a good level of service for
38 this type of parking facility. I want to reiterate again what I said earlier, that garages of this type
39 are for long-term parking have had level of service C, but that’s not what our goal is. We want
42
1 to maintain a level of service that is good and compatible for the user group and occupancy. So,
2 I believe that 15 foot drive aisle meets the definition of a good serviceable parking structure
3 without compromising the safety and integrity of the patrons who are going to use this facility.
4 There is no doubt…we have done lots of these facilities and it’s based on the National Parking
5 Association standards which are tried and true and recognized all over the country.
6 MS. WHITE: Could you address the Traffic Engineers Manual, Version number 6, versus
7 the traffic standard that you’re referring to that we used?
8 MR. ENGINEER: Well, the traffic…like I said, okay, the traffic standards that we have
9 used are based on the NPA. We normally in parking don’t use the Traffic Engineering standards,
10 they are more for traffic engineering related to parking lots, okay, not related to parking garages.
11 MS. WHITE: And one last point that I’d like to ask you to address, and I’m going to set it
12 up by just explaining the…one more time that we talked about a little bit the constraints imposed
13 on how big this garage could be and where it was located. The comment was made that the
14 developer shouldn’t be entitled to ask for a modification of standards just because they want to,
15 that they have to have some sort of hardship. There is in fact a hardship provision in the Code,
16 but we’re not requesting the modification pursuant to the hardship provision. But, to elaborate
17 and demonstrate how it is that the developer’s team reached the conclusion that this modification
18 was necessary, I would point out that the garage as originally designed, and Mr. Engineer can
19 elaborate, included full 20 foot width and 90 degree parking in all three bays, but because of the
20 external constraints on this particular site, the floodplain, the park to the south, the existing utility
21 corridor, the existing sewer…sanitary sewer line, and the desire to try to push it as far to the west
22 as possible in order to minimize, to the extent feasible, the impact on the adjacent properties to
23 the east, that did limit to some degree, the width that the structure could be. And that’s how this
24 decision was reached and maybe you can explain a little bit more…
25 MR. ENGINEER: Yeah, that’s primarily…that was the goal, I mean we started out with
26 three bays of 60 foot 90 degree parking, and that really kind of put us well into the flood channel,
27 so…and I think that was one of the issues that we encountered that we were kind of asked to pull
28 back on the size of the structure, and that’s when we kind of came up with the 53 foot bay,
29 angled parking, one-way traffic, in compliance with the National Parking Association standards.
30 Yeah, the drainage…the flood channel was definitely a constraint that we were up against and
31 fighting all the time.
32 MS. WHITE: That’s all we intended to present on traffic and parking stall and parking
33 structure…but, while Mr. Engineer is here, if you want to ask him any questions.
34 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: No, I think I have a lot of the
35 materials in the record and I’ll be reviewing those. Thank you.
43
1 MS. WHITE: Thank you. Another question that was raised, although it doesn’t pertain to
2 a specific Code criterion, but it is a relevant consideration, and that is, sort of, what’s going to
3 happen during construction. If there is a parking problem today, which everyone clearly agrees
4 on, during construction of this parking structure, which is going to replace the existing hundred
5 spaces of surface parking to the south with the five hundred…with the four hundred and some
6 that it’s going to have after it’s built, what provisions are being made during the time of
7 construction to try to minimize impact on the neighbors. So, to address that point, I’d like to ask
8 Jeff Jones who spoke to you initially, who once again for the record is the Executive Vice-
9 President of Capstone, to talk about what their plan is to address parking situations during
10 construction.
11 MR. JONES: Yes, one of the things that we’ve tried to do to minimize impacts during the
12 construction of the parking structure, which we think will take about three to three and a half
13 months, is to try to time the construction activity, to the extent possible, during the summer
14 months when there are fewer students in town, fewer students likely to be in our Summit
15 apartment community as many of them will go home or go to other locations to work for the
16 summer. So, the timeframe…the timeframe within which we will build the garage will be the
17 timeframe where there will be less students and less parking demand and less likelihood of
18 impact. We have, however, continued our leases at the Foothills Assembly Church, and we will
19 continue to have the availability of 150 parking spaces at Lot 240, the Pitkin lot, on the CSU
20 campus. We have invested in a shuttle vehicle to shuttle students back and forth who need help
21 with transportation. By May, when the MAX BRT opens, that will be a very convenient way for
22 students to get to the Foothills Assembly lot. And then we are in communication with Colorado
23 State University’s parking and transportation staff…we’ve explained to them our situation and
24 when we’re going to be building and the fact that we may need their additional help during
25 summer or early fall with short-term parking until we can get the garage completed, and they’ve
26 pledged to work with us as that is a timeframe when parking demand is lower on the campus.
27 MS. WHITE: Two more legal Code criteria issues and then I’m going to ask Mr. Jones to
28 speak again on one other point that was raised. The two other Code criteria issues, and I
29 apologize, I don’t have the shadow study Code section right in front of me, but I’ll get it for you
30 in a moment. One comment was made that the shadow study that was performed may not have
31 been adequate or proper because it did not address shadows cast during the summer months, or
32 that the applicant was being disingenuous by presenting only one sheet out of the fourteen that
33 are in the record…all fourteen are in the record and none of them depict any shadows being cast
34 on the adjacent structure; so that’s a factual statement, that’s not my opinion. And I think the
35 staff report concluded the same. But, to clarify the question of whether or not it’s acceptable to
36 present a shadow study that addresses only the winter months, that’s exactly what the Code calls
37 for, because that is the months during which the longest shadow is cast on either direction, east
38 and west from the property. So, the Code was complied with precisely, no modifications or
44
1 alternative compliance is being requested with respect to the shadow study, and this project
2 meets the shadow study requirement of the Code.
3 A related question was asked about the alternative compliance on the bicycles and
4 whether or not it’s appropriate or proper or fair to allow alternative compliance. To elaborate on
5 that from a legal perspective, it would be our view that the current requirement in the current
6 Code that projects such as this with multi-residential included, have a one per one ratio of bike
7 parking, of which 60% must be enclosed and 40% must be fixed, is actually technically not
8 applicable because we are amending it to add the parking structure and we’re not doing anything
9 to the existing building. Had that been in place when the existing building was built, it would
10 have been required, no question. Nonetheless, the developer, applicant, acknowledges that it is
11 an important and valid goal and they still want to maintain and encourage their users and
12 residents to adopt the pedestrian-friendly mass transit lifestyle that this is seeking to have. And
13 so, working with staff, they developed this proposed alternative compliance in order to bring the
14 existing project into compliance with the current Code. So, the alternative compliance that’s
15 being requested isn’t how many spaces of bicycle parking is being provided, it is providing one
16 to one…it is providing enough spaces. The alternative compliance is whether all of them have to
17 be…what percentage of them have to be within the same building structure and covered and
18 enclosed, and where they’re located. And indeed, they’ll be within the structure, most of them,
19 many of them, but they will be not by means of a separate bike storage area but my means of
20 providing an ability for the residents to store the bikes within their units. So, that is the
21 alternative compliance and, for the reasons articulated in the staff report, it…we believe it is
22 eminently fair and it is not a self-imposed hardship, it’s the result of a Code change that
23 happened after this project was built.
24 Then, finally, and in conclusion, we want to briefly address some of the questions that
25 were raised about the developer’s motivation, why are you building this parking garage now, if
26 you had proposed it this way before, it wouldn’t have been approved, and arguments of the like.
27 As mentioned at the beginning of this presentation, certainly we understand that not everyone in
28 this room agrees that the way we’re proposing to solve the parking problem is the way they
29 would have chosen, or the optimal way, or maybe even the best public policy way, but the
30 question is really, does it meet the Code or not. And those…the developer’s motivation is
31 actually not even a relevant question in a land use hearing, but because it’s been asked and
32 because the developer is here and really, you know, feels it appropriate to address some of those
33 issues, we’d like to conclude by having Mr. Jones briefly mention…elaborate a little bit, on some
34 of the points that were raised regarding that.
35 MR. JONES: Thank you. There were a number of speakers who mentioned that they did
36 not feel like the development team was concerned about the impact either on spill-over parking
37 into residential areas or spill-over parking into neighboring commercial zones. And I can tell
38 you that we are very much concerned about that, and that is why we have made the difficult
39 decision to pursue this solution. We looked at every alternative that we could think of that would
45
1 provide a long-term, truly permanent solution to the parking need, and substantially eliminate, if
2 not completely eliminate, any of the spillover parking issues, and we concluded, after
3 consultation with City officials, after consultation with University officials, that there were no
4 other viable long-term alternatives to our parking situation. And that’s why we have made the
5 decision to just go ahead, bite the bullet, and build this parking structure. We believe it’s
6 allowed under our zoning code and we believe we’ve come forward with a structure that meets
7 the Code.
8 We’re also mindful that the City and the University and other interested parties are
9 counting on projects like this in these transit oriented zones along the Mason Corridor to be
10 successful and to fulfill their promise to increase density and put more people within walking
11 and biking and transit distance of destinations. So, we feel an obligation to try to make sure that
12 this project can be a successful and a viable project long-term. We obviously have a very strong
13 economic interest in seeing it succeed, but we also feel an obligation to make sure that the City is
14 repaid the $5 million in TIF financing that was provided. So, those are the…those are the key
15 issues that have motivated us to go ahead and try to get this done. We’re not being arrogant by
16 any means about our belief that we will be approved for this garage, and we are…on our website,
17 we are indeed predicting that we will have our garage by August of this coming year. We feel
18 like it’s important to let people know that that’s what we’re doing, that we believe we will get
19 there. We fully recognize that you have a decision to make and that there are other factors here,
20 but we feel like, based upon the…our efforts to come forward with a Code-compliant plan, that
21 we will be approved and we hope that we will be.
22 I’d like to just mention one other thing, we are not only concerned about neighbors, but
23 we’re willing to take steps to demonstrate that concern. And we’ve had dialogue over the past
24 couple of days at least with Mr. Kaplan, who we’ve known for some time and had, you know, a
25 fair amount of dialogue over several years, and with the owners of the Laboratory restaurant and
26 bar that’s under construction now. And we are very much interested in what Mr. Kaplan
27 outlined to me yesterday, would be a potential win-win shared parking solution. It was presented
28 to us that if in fact some of our on-site parking spaces could be made available as public spaces
29 to support the 1801 retail tenants and other retail tenants in the area, that that would be
30 beneficial, that that would be seen by, at least some, as a good resolution of the issues here. And
31 so we have expressed a sincere willingness to work with Mr. Kaplan and the tenants that we’ve
32 heard from tonight from the Laboratory and Subway, and Mr. Rose asked the question, if we had
33 a shared parking situation in our garage or on our site, how would that work. And one of the
34 ideas that we had had was that some of the spaces…they have a deficiency on their site during
35 retail hours, some of our spaces could be made available to their retail customers during retail
36 business hours, and then when their retail customers are gone after hours, we could use those for
37 visitor and guest parking for The Summit, so we’re willing to work with them on that.
38 We’re also willing to work with them on some, maybe, creative solutions to the fact that
39 they are not happy with the blocking of view to their signs on the back of the building from the
46
1 BRT. And we’ve expressed that we would be willing to allow their signage on the west side of
2 our garage facing the BRT to give them additional visibility and proximity to the BRT, obviously
3 subject to City review and a decision as to whether that was compliant with City signage codes.
4 So, we really do want to work with our residential neighbors, we want to work with our
5 commercial neighbors, we want to try to make this project fulfill its promise as a great infill
6 transit-oriented development we believe it can.
7 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And, I guess on that point, with
8 the discussion with the tenants, you said…it could be in the garage, it could be in the
9 surface…existing surface parking. Is there a…what works best, I mean what’s closest to the
10 existing retail?
11 MR. JONES: There are…do we have a site plan that we could go back to and I can kind
12 of direct you, and if you can hand me the…
13 There’s a couple of options I think that are potentially workable. We have a little over
14 four per parking spaces in this lot right here…
15 MS. WHITE: Four per thousand square feet he means, relative to the retail.
16 MR. JONES: Four per thousand square feet for our retail tenants, which is a little more
17 than is typically provided. You know, typically it seems, retail parking is three and a half to four
18 spaces per thousand. It’s our understanding that in the 1801 building, there’s about 13,000
19 square feet of retail space and about 19 parking spaces in the front and back, which is I think a
20 little under two per thousand. So, we were willing to look at some shared parking in our retail
21 lot, which would be immediately across the street. We have some spaces in front of our building
22 one that we could potentially look at, we have spaces that are outside of our garage along the
23 southern face of our building one…about, is it 12 spaces there that we could potentially look at.
24 And then we’re also willing to look at spaces on the lower level of the garage. And I think, I’m
25 not sure exactly what the needs are for the tenants, if it’s more customer parking needs, or
26 employee parking needs, but employee parking I think would work particularly well in the
27 garage where…you know…most of our residents are going to be long-term parking. And an
28 employee that maybe comes in in the morning and leaves in the afternoon or the evening could
29 park there without much, you know, disruption, so…
30 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: And the employee parking fits within the
31 standards within the Land Use Code that also allow that to be viewed as long-term storage
32 parking.
33 MR. JONES: So, we’re…we’re just trying to communicate…we did this today to the
34 owners of the Laboratory and did it yesterday and today with Mr. Kaplan. We’re willing to be
35 creative and try to find win-win solutions that make this parking work better for everyone
36 involved.
47
1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And has there been a minimum
2 number of spaces discussed in terms of what would be designated for…employee or tenant
3 parking?
4 MR. JONES: No, we actually asked for…Mr. Kaplan or his tenants to come forward with
5 a suggestion of number of spaces. I don’t know that we’re going to be able to do this with a
6 tremendous number because, again, we’re trying to balance the needs of our residents and retail
7 tenants for on-site parking. But I think, you know, something…if they have 19 spaces now and
8 they could get another, you know, 10 or 12 spaces that would be shared spaces on our site,
9 that…I think that could be a material improvement for them and something that we could
10 probably make due. We did ask about their hours of operation and the Laboratory is apparently
11 planning…they told us today they’re planning to open at seven in the morning for breakfast and
12 they actually won’t close the bar until two in the morning, so my hope for, you know, kind of
13 shared parking over a 24-hour cycle probably doesn’t work very well with the Laboratory. So,
14 anything we might do for the Laboratory would probably be, you know, not contemplating a
15 shared scenario. But for the Subway, who’s hours are, you know, I think a little more, you
16 know, kind of nine to nine or so, ten to ten, or whatever, I think that could work, and with T-
17 Mobile, which is their other tenant. What are they?
18 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Seven to midnight.
19 MR. JONES: Okay, well, that stretches…stretches the shared parking option a little bit.
20 Again, we’re just trying to communicate our willingness to work with the neighbors to find
21 common ground.
22 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Great, thank you Mr. Jones.
23 Anything else that you’d like to address?
24 MS. WHITE: Yeah, just in conclusion I want to just briefly mention…the comment was
25 made that perhaps the parking problem is caused by failure to communicate with perspective
26 tenants that this is a TOD site and that they should be relying principally on transit instead of
27 bringing a car. And I want to direct you to Exhibit F in our packet, which is copies of the leasing
28 and promotional materials that are provided to prospective tenants, and excerpts from the website
29 that show you exactly how the parking and transit situation is…is currently and has in the past
30 been represented to prospective tenants. So that…there’s no question that it’s been marketed as
31 a TOD site and emphasis placed on the limited parking, and that information is contained in all
32 the leasing materials.
33 And then finally, back to the Land Use Code and the criteria…one of the criteria that we
34 spent a lot of time focusing on in our presentation and that the design team spent a lot of time
35 focusing on in designing this project, is the criterion related to compatibility, which is 3.5.1.
36 And, Mr. Kaplan stated at the conclusion of his presentation, and I’m probably misstating it, but
37 the transcript will state it precisely…something to the effect of, this can’t be compatible because
48
1 it’s three and a half stories or three stories and the building next to it is one story. But, the Land
2 Use Code, in compatibility, doesn’t mean the same as. And it doesn’t mean the same height as;
3 in fact the Code specifically talks about how you measure compatibility relative to the existing
4 structures around it. And what it says is, buildings shall be similar in size and height or, if larger,
5 be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other
6 structures. And you heard some presentations from the architect and the site designer talking
7 about how the parking structure itself had been designed to provide the required articulation and
8 massing and human level…human scale level design features. In addition…
9 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Let me just ask a question. So,
10 on 1801, you’re saying that’s a single story building?
11 MS. WHITE: There’s a below grade sort of garden level just like there is on building
12 two…
13 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: What’s the height of the
14 building?
15 MS. WHITE: I do not know; I need someone who knows to tell me.
16 MR. JONES: Here it is right here, you can see it. This is the actual building right here.
17 One level in the front and then the basement level that has, you know, an entrance, an exit, in the
18 rear; and this is the depiction of our parking structure.
19 MS. WHITE: But this is the perfect graphic to illustrate the point I was going to make,
20 which is…which is twofold. One, similar in size and massing relates not just to the absolute
21 height, but also the relative height, and there is a fairly significant grade change between these
22 two properties that results in the visual impact that you see depicted here between the one story
23 building and the three story building, which is not all that significant. Additionally, the other
24 context we have to measure the compatibility of this building is the existing portion of The
25 Summit that’s already built to the north, which is in fact significantly taller. So, when you look
26 at this from the…from the perspective of compatibility and massing. It actually provides an
27 intermediate transition between the 1801 building and The Summit building which is
28 considerably larger, and that’s what our architect was referring to when he talked about the
29 compatibility standards in Section 3.5.1.
30 So, that’s the conclusion of our formal presentation. Of course, we’d be happy to answer
31 any additional questions that may arise or that you may have and we appreciate your time and
32 attention and consideration of what I know is a lengthy and detailed presentation for a Type I
33 hearing.
34 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Thank you. At this point I will
35 turn it back over to Mr. Lorson and staff…and I think we did hear some important questions and
49
1 issues that were raised during public comment, so if there’s any additional input that you have on
2 these issues, or if you’d like to clarify anything that was offered during the applicant’s rebuttal,
3 this would be the opportunity to do so.
4 MR. LORSON: Thank you Mr. McAskin. My initial comment was going to be to
5 address the woman who lives on Remington and her concerns with safety from spill over
6 parking, speed limit, signage, those things that we think are very important elements to having a
7 walkable, bike-able community, to make things like transit oriented development happen. She
8 left, but I was going to defer to my traffic engineer as far as striping goes, and how we deal with
9 those impacts of the spill over parking. Another way that we deal with the spill over parking is
10 what we’re calling the RP3, the Residential Parking Permit Program that for all intents and
11 purposes allows parking permits for the street…basically privatizes the public street in front of
12 private residences for parking permits. You see this in Denver and some other denser urban
13 communities. She had mentioned that there was a woman that she had reached out to, and we
14 got her phone number on her way out the door and we’ll make sure that she gets in touch…that
15 our staff gets in touch with her regarding those things.
16 The applicant did mention how they do meet the letters of the Land Use Code, and they
17 do meet the letters of the Land Use Code. I don’t think there’s anything real specific that I have
18 to actually address that they didn’t. I gave you the building height section; they are using long-
19 term stalls which are a different size between the compact and the standard stall, for which they
20 meet the definition.
21 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Yeah, and let me ask you a
22 question there because I see the definition in Section 5.1, but where are the specs?
23 MR. LORSON: It’s…it’s in Section 3.2.2(l)(3).
24 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay…and I’m assuming
25 you’re looking at your notes because you don’t have it memorized yet?
26 MR. LORSON: Some people do…it’s sad. That said, I feel like I’m compelled to make
27 the comment that the Land Use Code is the only tool that I have to review this proposal. I do
28 believe there are salient points being made by community members as far as the intent of transit
29 oriented development, the intent of public financing being used for this, other ways to offset that
30 with public parking within the structure…all very good, well received, although I don’t have the
31 tool to be able to require any of that with the Land Use Code unfortunately. There is a body that
32 does have the ability to deal with those. So, they meet the Land Use Code…I feel also
33 compelled to say that the use of the image of the neighboring property was unfair and possibly a
34 mischaracterization of their…of their property. We have to assume impact. You look at the
35 image here, you have to assume there’s going to be an impact on the existing property. They still
36 meet the letters of the Land Use Code, nevertheless. And that’s all I have; I’m going ask Ward
37 to address some of the traffic questions.
50
1 MR. WARD STANFORD: Ward Stanford, City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations, I’m
2 one of the Traffic Engineers in town…in the City. Go to addressing the young lady’s comment
3 about Remington speed, striping, and so on and so forth…one, we have a neighborhood traffic
4 management program that she can contact to deal with…will work with her on speed problems.
5 We work with a number of neighborhoods in town on speed problems. And, if anybody does
6 know here, get in touch with me afterwards and I’ll give you the number to contact. But we can
7 certainly work on those. Striping on most of our streets is done every year…all lane striping is
8 refreshed every year. We may do some supplemental refreshing if it’s completely obliterated,
9 but typically to get around the whole city and stay within our budget, one restriping of the entire
10 city per year.
11 There is a…there is discussions going on about Remington, about…I think…I’m not
12 involved in it, but this is the pieces I’ve heard…is that they’re looking to try and make it more of
13 a pedestrian friendly area and less of an automobile area. I don’t know what that’s entailing…I
14 have heard things like roundabouts. I know we desire to get rid of those signals on Remington
15 because…but they don’t serve a proper purpose. But with that, there is discussions starting. I
16 don’t know the depth of them, I don’t know where they’ve gone at this point or anything really
17 about them, but I know we’re looking at Remington because it is a corridor we would prefer to
18 see more bike and ped activity on…serving that area and around the college and that higher
19 density urban area, than the vehicular traffic.
20 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: And, let me ask you a question
21 about the NTMP program…I’m assuming that it’s a program where there’s limited funds that are
22 budgeted or allocated to that program each year, and then does staff accept applications and then
23 rank certain neighborhoods or areas for funding on an annual basis, or how does that….?
24 MR. STANFORD: Yes, yes, partly is getting the buy-in of the neighborhood. You know,
25 we have the neighborhood work with us on this because one person’s complaint is another
26 person’s problem down the street. They may not like the solution that the folks want. We have
27 plenty of…plenty of speed humps and things like that that we have pulled back out because the
28 neighborhoods got angry about them, got angry about the noise, got angry about people driving
29 up in their yards to miss them and stuff, so we look for better ways. One of the better ways that
30 we have certainly found is that speed sign that we use. We get more compliance out of that sign
31 than we have all of our hardscaping stuff that we’ve been able to do, and they’re a lot more
32 affordable than roadway work is. And as such, as things move around, because we all know
33 traffic moves, traffic changes…issues happen here, we might be able to mitigate it, but it just
34 pushes it someplace else many times. So those kind of solutions are also flexible, they can move
35 with problems. But yes, our budget is limited, we do require the buy-in of the majority of the
36 neighborhood and then work forward on what techniques will be installed.
37 One issue that shouldn’t be overlooked out there…and I know you guys are definitely
38 dealing with a parking problem from this site, there’s no doubt about it. But you’re also dealing
51
1 with some parking problems in a densely urban area and also with CSU taking away their off-site
2 parking areas. For the past number of years, they’ve been closing their lots out there…that
3 parking has gone elsewhere, there’s been nothing provided for them. We are dealing with it in
4 some…as much as manners as can be done, but it’s not a singular problem; it’s a bigger problem
5 than that. It’s a typical urban problem. Not to say that the City is not trying to work on it and
6 doesn’t want to do it, but just recognize it’s not a one development issue. This one right here has
7 certainly got its focal point…it’s large and what not. But, if this parking garage goes in, we feel
8 that’s one of the best solutions, is to provide some storage space. If you’re having people out in
9 other areas, how do you corral them and bring them back in? Give them some storage space.
10 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, and I think I would…I’m
11 interested, given your position as a Traffic Engineer for the City, what…what would your
12 professional engineering opinion be on the request for modification of standard on the drive aisle
13 from twenty to fifteen feet?
14 MR. STANFORD: The drive aisle…the aspect about the ITE manual, the statement about
15 it being comfortable at nineteen and a half feet, that is not a standard. That is not a mandate, that
16 is a guidance…nineteen and a half feet is probably more comfortable than fifteen. We have
17 places all over town that have less than twenty, less than eighteen feet of drive aisle space, they
18 work. My opinion is, if it allows more parking in there or keeps some of the accessible parking
19 in there, it’d probably be fine with me. I drive a couple different size vehicles from a VW little
20 diesel Jetta to a one-ton Dodge long bed truck…would I put my one ton in there? Probably not,
21 but I don’t expect a lot of college students driving that. So my big…my input would be it’s
22 probably fine with me.
23 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, thank you. And I
24 guess…Seth do you have anything else from the staff for the hearing today?
25 MR. LORSON: No.
26 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay.
27 MS. WHITE: Mr. McAskin?
28 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Yeah?
29 MS. WHITE: Just on behalf of the applicant in response to staff’s comments, we would
30 be pleased to strike from the record the photo that staff is concerned about and any of our
31 references to whether or not the adjacent property currently has a view that would be negative
32 today.
33 MR. SUTHERLAND: And the public would request that that stay in the record because it
34 does show a certain level of insincerity, and I think that’s part of the whole process here.
52
1 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: I noticed there were four files labeled view
2 and you showed view one…are we able to see two, three and four?
3 MS. WHITE: Do you want me to address that?
4 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I’m assuming that they’re all in
5 the material, right?
6 MS. WHITE: Two, three and four have not been entered into the record.
7 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, so they’re not in here.
8 MS. WHITE: They are not.
9 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: But the picture that was shown
10 is in…
11 MS. WHITE: Is that in the packet? It’s not.
12 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Not in the packet?
13 MS. WHITE: No.
14 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, okay.
15 MR. LORSON: Anything up here needs to be entered into the record.
16 MS. WHITE: Exactly, we’ll give you a paper copy of everything that we showed.
17 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, so I can get a copy of the
18 photo that was shown?
19 MS. WHITE: Yes.
20 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: …any photos from the main floor level as it
21 faces west from the deck of Subway? What’s view two, three and four? Can you show us those?
22 MS. WHITE: They’re all the same.
23 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: So if I can just get those…if I
24 don’t have those now, if I can have them emailed to me?
25 MS. WHITE: We’ll get paper copies, or email copies, to you and staff.
26 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: I think email would be probably
27 better.
53
1 MR. JONES: We can put them on the flash drive that we’re going to leave with you with
2 the electronic…
3 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Oh, I get a flash drive, okay,
4 perfect, that’d be great.
5 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: …there are no photographs from Subway’s
6 deck?
7 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay…alright, I’m going to go
8 ahead…so I’ll accept those four photos as part of the record. And with that, nothing else from
9 staff? Any final…?
10 MR. STANFORD: I had one last item on traffic. There was a statement made about
11 Stuart failing in the traffic study…not in any of the traffic studies that I reviewed or the traffic
12 reviews that I did on our own model.
13 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER MCASKIN: Okay, with that I will close the
14 hearing on this matter at 9:12 PM. My understanding is that I have ten business days from
15 today’s date to make a written decision, which always sounds like a lot of time…and then on day
16 seven, eight, and nine it starts to feel like not a lot of time. Okay, so I’m required to make a
written decision on this matter by Wednesday, March 19
th
17 . And again, if you did provide public
18 comment and you have signed up on the sheet, the Community Development staff, once they’re
19 in receipt…or the Planning Department staff, once they are in receipt of the written findings, will
20 distribute that to you via mail. And I’d like to thank all of you for coming tonight and staying
21 until a quarter after nine…it’s great to see a lot of public participation in an issue like this. And
22 again, thank you all for being here and I’ll be making my decision…
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
54
1
2
3
4
5