HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE SUMMIT ON COLLEGE PARKING GARAGE - MJA/FDP ..... REMAND FROM CITY COUNCIL - FDP130056 - DECISION - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISIONCITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: September 4, 2014
PROJECT: Major Amendment to Summit on College Project Development Plan
CASE NUMBER: FDP #130056
APPLICANT: Walker May
Capstone Development Corp.
431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, Alabama 35223
OWNER: Fort Collins Associates, L.P.
431 Office Park Drive
Birmingham, Alabama 35223
HEARING OFFICER: Marcus A. McAskin
PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: By written decision dated March 19, 2014, this Hearing Officer
conditionally approved the Major Amendment to Summit on College Project Development Plan. The March
19th decision conditionally approved a three and one-half (3 1/2) story parking structure consisting of 440
parking spaces (the “Original Design”).
The March 19th decision of this Hearing Officer was appealed to City Council in accordance with City Code
Section 2-49. Three appeals were consolidated for purposes of a public hearing held before City Council,
which hearing was conducted on May 20, 2014.
Following the conclusion of the May 20, 2014, City Council remanded the Hearing Officer’s March 19
decision in accordance with City Code Section 2-55(f)(2), which provides that City Council shall uphold,
overturn, or modify the decision of the hearing officer provided that the City Council may also remand the
matter for rehearing in order for the Hearing Officer to receive and consider additional information with
regard to any issue raised on appeal, and that any such remand shall include direction from the City Council
to the Hearing Officer “as to the issues to be considered at the rehearing.” See City Code Section 2-55(f)(2).
Direction to the Hearing Officer has been provided in the form of City Council Resolution 2014-063 dated
July 22, 2014. Specifically, City Council has directed the Hearing Officer to consider the following issues
on remand:
(1) Whether Section 3.4.1(I)(2) of the Land Use Code was properly interpreted and applied; and
(2) Whether Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code was properly interpreted and applied.
The September 4, 2014 hearing was conducted for the limited purpose of securing additional evidence related
to the two Land Use Code sections cited above.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant proposes to construct the Original Design, which is discussed in
additional detail in the March 19, 2014 decision of this Hearing Officer. In response to direction from City
Council at the May 20, 2014 public hearing, the Applicant proceeded to prepare and submit an alternative
design for the parking garage to City Staff (the “Alternative Design”).
The Alternative Design reduces the number of parking spaces in the garage from 440 to 345.
1
Applicant is requesting approval of the Original Design as originally submitted. The Applicant is also
requesting approval of the Alternative Design. The Alternative Design includes the following key design
elements:
- Top level of garage removed;
- Overall height of two and one-half (2 1/2) stories;
- Reduction of average height along south elevation of 10’4”;
- Introduction of additional green screening (vertical trellis screening) along south elevation of
garage facing Creek Side Park; and
- Parking spaces in the garage reduced from 440 to 345; for a net total of 442 on site spaces.
The Alternative Design is proposed to be built over the top of an existing surface parking lot, and, if
constructed, will result in a net gain of 251 spaces over existing conditions.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Alternative Design APPROVED, with conditions.
ZONE DISTRICT: (C-G) General Commercial with Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Overlay Zone
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Choice Center Subdivision, recorded at Reception No. 20110065030,
consisting of 6.741 more or less.
REMAND HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the remand hearing at approximately 6:00 p.m. on
September 4, 2014, in Conference Room A, 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
EVIDENCE: During the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the written evidence summarized in
ATTACHMENT A, a copy of which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference as part of the
record of this proceeding. In addition to the materials summarized in ATTACHMENT A, all of the materials
summarized in ATTACHMENT 1 to the March 19, 2014 decision are also considered part of the record of
this proceeding.
TESTIMONY: The following individuals testified at the remand hearing:
From the City: Seth Lorson, AICP, City Planner
Mark Kempton, PE, Stormwater Master Planning Manager
Lindsay Ex, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner
From the Applicant: Jeff Jones, Executive Vice President, Capstone Development Corp.
Carolynne C. White, Attorney, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Hoshi J. Engineer PE. SE., Associate Vice President, DESMAN Associates
Brian Williamson, Landscape Architect, TST, Inc. Consulting Engineers
From the Public: Rick Zier, 322 E. Oak Street, Fort Collins
Jeffrey Leef, 1801 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins
Natalie Parson, 1707 Remington St., Fort Collins
Les Kaplan, Imago Enterprises, Inc., 140 Palmer Dr., Fort Collins
John Steffe, 1820 Remington St., Fort Collins
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant Fort Collins
*Travis Neider, 3364 Laredo Lane, Fort Collins
*Included in sign-in sheet, but did not offer testimony during the public comment portion of the hearing.
2
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that this matter was properly
remanded to the Hearing Officer by City Council, in accordance with City Code Section 2-55(f)(2).
2. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established the fact that the remand hearing was properly
noticed, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 2.2.6 of the LUC.
3. Spring Creek, which abuts the proposed project to the south, is a major watercourse that flows from
Spring Canyon Dam at Horsetooth Reservoir to the Poudre River.
4. The Spring Creek Corridor is identified as a natural habitat or feature on the City’s Natural Habitats
and Features Inventory Map.
5. The southern portion of the proposed project abuts the Spring Creek Corridor, and specifically Creek
Side Park. Creek Side Park is located west of South College Avenue and south of the East Spring Creek
Trail.
6. The purpose of Section 3.4.1 of the LUC (“Natural Habitats and Features”) is to ensure that when
property is developed consistent with its zoning designation, the way in which the proposed physical
elements of the development plan are designed and arranged on the site will protect the natural habitats and
features both on the site and in the vicinity of the site. See LUC Section 3.4.1(B).
7. Paragraph 4 of Resolution 2014-063 attached hereto as ATTACHMENT B states as follows:
That the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply Section 3.4.1(I)(2)
of the Land Use Code with regard to the impact of the major amendment upon
Spring Creek viewsheds; and Section 3.5.1(J) of the Land Use Code with regard
to the number of off-street parking spaces.
8. Paragraph 5 of Resolution 2014-063 states as follows:
That the Decision is hereby remanded to the Hearing Officer for further
consideration of the impact of major amendment on Spring Creek viewsheds and
for consideration of the possible reduction of the size of the parking structure
building and the reduction of the number of parking spaces in the structure to a
number closer to the minimum parking requirements as established by Ordinance
No. 121, 2013, and presently contained in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) for multi-
family development in the Transit-Oriented Design (TOD) Overlay Zone, with
a view toward compliance with the Land Use Code sections set out in paragraph
4 above.
9. Section 3.4.1(I) of the LUC (“Design and Aesthetics”) reads as follows:
(1) Project Design. Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or
natural habitat corridors, including, but not limited to, the Poudre River
Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor, shall be designed to
complement the visual context of the natural habitat. Techniques such
as architectural design, site design, the use of native landscaping and
choice of colors and building materials shall be utilized in such manner
that scenic views across or through the site are protected, and manmade
facilities are screened from off-site observers and blend with the natural
visual character of the area.
3
(2) Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to
minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural
features within the site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views
to and from the natural features within the site.
10. The Hearing Officer concludes that both the Original Design and the Alternative Design have an
impact on Spring Creek viewsheds. The Hearing Officer concludes the Alternative Design includes
additional green screening along the southern elevation of the proposed structure and removes the top level
of the parking structure, and therefore has a significantly reduced impact on the viewsheds to and from Spring
Creek. The Hearing Officer finds that the Alternative Design best achieves the purpose of Section 3.4.1 of
the LUC, in that the Alternative Design will best protect the Spring Creek viewsheds on the site and in the
vicinity of the site. The Hearing Officer finds that the character of the existing views to and from Spring
Creek are somewhat degraded by the existing development and surrounds Creek Side Park, including but not
limited to the mini-storage and auto repair located south of the Park. The Alternative Design will enhance
existing views to and from the Spring Creek Corridor by providing increased green screening, landscaping,
trees and other plantings (with some landscaping to be installed by the City utilizing the Applicant’s fee-in-
lieu contribution). The Hearing Officer further finds that the Alternative Design best complements the visual
context of the Spring Creek Corridor and that the Applicant’s architectural design, choice of colors, building
materials and other aspects of the project design that appear in the record as specifically pertains to the
Alternative Design, including but not limited to the reduced overall height and the additional green screening,
will sufficiently blend with the natural visual character of the area. The reduction in height of the garage and
the additional green screening on the southern elevation of the structure (facing Creek Side Park) minimizes
the scale of the parking structure and significantly minimizes the obstruction of scenic views to and from the
Spring Creek Corridor.
11. Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC reads as follows:
(J) Operational / Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be
imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new
development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such
conditions may include, but need not be limited to, restrictions on:
. . .
(7) location and number of off-street parking spaces.
12. The Hearing Officer concludes that City Council intended that the Hearing Officer interpret and
apply Section 3.5.1(J)(7) of the Land Use Code to analyze the potential reduction in the number of parking
spaces in the structure to a number closer to the minimum parking requirements codified at Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code. Applying the parking spaces per dwelling unit ratio set forth in
subparagraph 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) of the Land Use Code, the Hearing Officer concludes that a minimum of 358
parking spaces would be required for the 665 bedrooms (in 220 units) in the Summit on College
Development. The Original Design contains 440 parking spaces in the structure (for a total of 535 parking
spaces). The Alternative Design contains 345 parking spaces in the structure (for a total of 442 parking
spaces). The Hearing Officer concludes that the total of 442 parking spaces included in the Alternative
Design is closer to the minimum parking requirement set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a) of the LUC.
13. The Hearing Officer concludes that the conditional approval of the Alternative Design will
adequately address important community concerns including: (a) ensuring that students, visitors and other
Authorized Users have adequate on-site parking; and (b) relieving certain parking pressures on surrounding
residential neighborhoods. The testimony of Ms. Parson and Mr. Steffe was sufficient to conclude that there
is an existing parking problem in the vicinity of the subject property.
4
DECISION
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Hearing Officer hereby enters the following ruling:
A. The request for a modification of standard to permit a reduction in the drive aisle width (from 20’ to
15’) is not detrimental to the public good and will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well than would a plan which complies with the 20’ width because the
Applicant has submitted sufficient probative evidence to demonstrate that the requested modification will
not have a detrimental effect on users of the proposed parking structure. The modification of standard, as
approved, shall be limited to the easternmost bay of each level of the parking structure.
B. The Alternative Design satisfies the Article 3 General Development Standards set forth at Section
3.4.1(I) and 3.5.1(J). The Alternative Design satisfies all other applicable Article 3 and Article 4 standards,
as more fully analyzed and set forth in the March 19, 2014 decision, which is incorporated herein by
reference. To the extent of any conflict between this written decision and the March 19th decision, the
conditions of this September 9th decision shall control.
C. The Alternative Design as submitted to City Staff and reviewed at the September 4, 2014 remand
hearing is approved, subject to the following CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
(1) Lot 1 is partially located within the FEMA-regulated Spring Creek 100-year high risk
floodplain and floodway. The project shall comply with all applicable sections of Chapter 10 of the
Fort Collins Municipal Code.
(2) The Owner (Fort Collins Associates, L.P.) and its consultants and subconsultants shall
complete all components of the action plan for amendment of the Floodplain Use Permit (FPUP)
#11048 as outlined in the memorandum from Walker P. May dated February 14, 2014 and addressed
to Brian Varrella, the City’s Floodplain Administrator. Specifically, all of the following five (5)
items shall be completed and approved by the City’s Floodplain Administrator prior to the issuance
of an amended FPUP for any site work on Lot 1 related to the construction of the parking structure:
(a) The Owner shall work with its contractor to identify a maximum limit of disturbance
(“LOD”) in the floodplain during construction of the garage;
(b) The Owner shall work with its design team to prepare a new exhibit that overlays
the garage LOD over the existing exhibit outlining the respective responsibilities (repair,
reseeding, and establishment of growth) between the Owner, the Max Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) and its subcontractor, Powell Restoration (“Powell”).
(c) To the degree that work to be performed by the Owner or its consultants/contracting
team in connection with the garage will disturb or damage areas under the responsibility of
the BRT/Powell, the FPUP will be amended to reassign those areas and the applicable repair,
reseeding, and establishment of growth responsibilities, to the Owner.
(d) A silt fence will be placed along the proposed area of disturbance with the oversight
and assistance of the Owner’s surveying team to ensure that the Owner’s contractor(s) and
subcontractor(s) remain within the boundaries of the (to be) amended FPUP #11048.
(e) To the degree that actual work is performed by the Owner, its contractor(s) or
subcontractor(s) that disturbs or damages an area outside of the (to be) amended FPUP or
under the BRT’s separate existing FPUP that falls under the responsibility of BRT/Powell,
an additional amendment will be made to remove those areas from the FPUP.
5
(3) An approved FPUP and no-rise certification must precede any site work, building
construction, or building or grading permits. No development work, as defined in Section 10-16 of
Chapter 10 of the Code, shall commence until the FPUP and no-rise certification are approved by
the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration.
(4) The FPUP and no-rise documentation must clearly document compliance with the
Floodproofing or venting requirements of Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code if elevation
requirements of Section 10-37 cannot be satisfied. The Owner and its consultants and subconsultants
shall complete all applicable items included in the City of Fort Collins Floodproofing Guidelines,
provided previously to the Owner by City Staff and available online at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fp-floodproofing.pdf.
(5) A pre-construction FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be provided as part of the no-rise
certification materials, and must be approved prior to obtaining any grading or building permits.
(6) All no-rise certifications shall be re-certified by the professional engineer of record prior to
obtaining a certificate of occupancy on the site. The no-rise re- certification shall include a FEMA
Elevation Certificate of as-built conditions, and a certificate of occupancy shall not be issued until
the as-built Elevation Certificate is approved by City of Fort Collins Floodplain Administration.
(7) That the Owner / Applicant be required to deposit the $23,906.25 fee-in-lieu contribution
(as detailed in the TST estimate dated February 17, 2014) with the City prior to the Applicant
obtaining any grading or building permits related to the development of the Alternative Design.
(8) That the Applicant be required to install appropriate cautionary signage to alert pedestrians
to the presence of entering and existing vehicles from the Alternative Design and to inform drivers
that pedestrians have priority, in accordance with Section 3.10.4(D)(3)(f) of the LUC.
(9) All eighteen (18) handicapped accessible spaces on Lot 1, including the four (4) proposed
accessible spaces within the Alternative Design shall be marked and identified in accordance with
the requirements set forth in Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(c) of the LUC. The project shall maintain a
minimum of eighteen (18) handicapped spaces on Lot 1.
(10) That any and all curbcuts and ramps associated with the parking structure (Alternative
Design) shall be located at convenient, safe locations for the physically disabled, for bicyclists and
for people pushing strollers or carts, and that the location of such curbcuts and ramps shall meet all
applicable requirements of the International Building Code (IBC) and the City's Americans With
Disabilities Act ramp standards and shall avoid crossing or funneling traffic through loading areas,
drive-in lanes and outdoor trash storage/collection areas.
(11) That all 345 spaces within the proposed parking structure (the Alternative Design) be
reserved and dedicated for use by the student residents of The Summit, or their guests, or by the
retail tenants/customers of the retail located within Lot 1 (collectively, the “Authorized Users”). The
Applicant is seeking approval of the parking garage as an accessory use.
Section 5.1.2 of the LUC defines Accessory use as “a use of land or of a building or portion thereof
customarily used with, and clearly incidental and subordinate to, the principal use of the land or
building and ordinarily located on the same lot with such principal use” (emphasis added). Section
3.8.1 of the LUC identifies off-street parking areas as a permitted accessory use when the facts,
circumstances and context of such use is reasonably indicated. The principal use of Lot 1 is a mixed-
use project consisting primarily of multi-family residential.
6
In order for the proposed parking structure to be clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal
use of Lot 1, the parking structure shall be reserved and dedicated for use by the Authorized Users
only. The Hearing Officer specifically finds that this condition will ensure that the parking structure
is, and remains, an accessory use. The Applicant shall add a note to the FDP which clarifies that the
parking structure is an accessory structure, and that parking within the structure shall be available
only to the Authorized Users, as that term is defined in this condition (C)(11). The Applicant shall
also record a covenant against Lot 1, Choice Center Subdivision which shall set forth that all 345
parking spaces within the parking structure shall be reserved for the exclusive use of the Authorized
Users for so long as the parking garage remains operational and that no other individuals or parties
shall be authorized to park within the parking garage (the “Covenant”). The Covenant shall run with
the land and bind the Owner’s successor(s) or assign(s). The Covenant shall also set forth that no
portion of the parking structure may be rented or leased (whether on an hourly, daily, monthly,
annual or other basis) to any person or entity other than the Authorized Users.
The Covenant shall authorize the City to inspect and audit the Owner’s records concerning the use
and allocation of spaces within the parking structure at any time, upon reasonable advance notice, in
order to ensure that the terms of the Covenant are being met. If the terms of the Covenant are not
being met, the City shall have the authority to suspend the use of the parking structure until such
time as the Owner is in compliance with the terms of the Covenant. The Covenant shall be reviewed
and approved Director of Planning, Development & Transportation, or her designee, and by the City
Attorney’s Office prior to the date on which the Covenant is recorded against Lot 1. The Covenant
shall be recorded against Lot 1 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the parking
structure.
The Hearing Officer specifically finds that if the Applicant intends to make the parking structure
available to the general public (whether on an hourly, daily, monthly, annual or other basis) and not
exclusively to the Authorized Users, that the proposed parking structure does not qualify as an
accessory use under the LUC, and that a Type 2 review (Planning and Zoning Board review) of this
application is required, in accordance with the process required by the land use table set forth in
Section 4.21(B)(2) of the LUC. The condition set forth in this paragraph (C)(11) is imposed pursuant
to Section 3.5.1(J) of the LUC to ensure that the proposed parking structure will be compatible with
the existing neighborhood and uses. Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer was sufficient to
demonstrate that the construction of the Alternative Design will alleviate the parking issues in the
vicinity of the project caused primarily by the student residents of the project (and the fact that the
project currently does not have sufficient parking) if the use of the parking structure is limited to,
and reserved for the benefit of, the Authorized Users. Restricting the use of the parking structure to
the Authorized Users is designed to ensure that existing surface and street parking in the vicinity of
the project is available, to the extent possible, to the general public, including but not limited to the
employees, owners, tenants of the existing office and retail uses which are proximate to the project,
and their respective customers.
(12) That the Applicant complete the planned bicycle/pedestrian connection to Prospect Road
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the parking garage.
DATED this 9th day of September, 2014.
____________________________________
Marcus A. McAskin
Hearing Officer
7
ATTACHMENT A: Evidence accepted by Hearing Officer as part of the record of the September 4, 2014
hearing (remand hearing)
A. Planning Department Staff Report prepared for the September 4, 2014 hearing (the “Staff Report”),
together with attachments and other documents referenced in the Staff Report, including the
following:
1. Additional Information submitted by Applicant, including
(a) Summit Parking Garage – Site Plan (three sheets)
(b) Summit Parking Garage – Landscape Plan (sheets L100, L101 and L102)
(c) Levels 1 – 3 Striping & Signage Plan (sheets A801, A802 and A803)
(d) East and South Elevations (dated July 30, 2014)
(e) West and North Elevations (dated May 27, 2014)
(f) View 1 of Garage with Mature Landscaping (dated July 30, 2014)
(g) View 2 of Garage with Mature Landscaping (dated July 30, 2014)
2. Resolution 2014-063 of the Council of the City of Fort Collins Amending and Readopting
Resolution 2014-050
3. DVDs of May 20, 2014 appeal hearing (2 DVDs)
4. Staff report and attachments dated March 5, 2014
B. A copy of a letter from Carolynne C. White dated August 22, 2014 addressed to the Hearing Officer,
including the following attachments:
1. Parking Table
2. Site Plan (alternative design)
3. Architectural Floor Plans (alternative design)
4. Landscape Plan (alternative design)
5. Elevations of Parking Structure (alternative design)
6. Landscaping Visual (alternative design)
C. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation presented at the September 4, 2014 hearing prepared by Fort
Collins staff
D. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation presented at the September 4, 2014 hearing prepared by the
Applicant
E. Transcript of selected portion of May 20, 2014 City Council regular meeting (consideration of three
appeals of the Hearing Officer’s March 19, 2014 decision to approve the Summit on College Parking
Structure) (submitted to Hearing Officer by Les Kaplan).
8
F. Materials submitted to Hearing Officer by attorney Rick Zier during public comment:
1. Verbatim Transcript of the Administrative Hearing Officer Hearing March 5, 2014
2. Transcript of selected portion of May 20, 2014 City Council regular meeting (consideration
of three appeals of the Hearing Officer’s March 19, 2014 decision to approve the Summit on
College Parking Structure)
3. Transcript of selected portion of June 3, 2014 City Council regular meeting (items relating
to three appeals of the Summit on College PDP Major Amendment pertaining to a Parking
Structure)
4. Transcript of selected portion of July 22, 2014 City Council regular meeting (Resolution
2014-060 Amending and Readopting Resolution 2014-050)
5. Amended Verified Complaint Under CRCP 106(a)(4); Jeffrey Leef, Angela King, David
Rose and Lester M. Kaplan v. City of Fort Collins and Capstone Development Corp.**
(**This item was accepted by the Hearing Officer as part of the record, with the Applicant’s objection at the
September 4, 2014 noted). The Hearing Officer concludes that the Amended Verified Complaint shall be
considered as a part of the record of this proceeding, as it was tendered to the Hearing Officer by Mr. Zier,
but the Amended Verified Complaint is not probative on the issue of whether the two specific sections of the
Land Use Code identified by City Council in Resolution 2014-063 (3.4.1(I) and 3.5.1)(J)) were properly
interpreted and applied by the Hearing Officer).
G. Notice of Public Hearing (mailed notice) dated August 18, 2014
H. Affidavit of Publication dated August 28, 2014, confirming publication of the notice of public
hearing in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on August 28, 2014
In addition to the specific items listed above, the Hearing Officer also considers the following part of the
record of this remand hearing: all items specifically identified in ATTACHMENT 1 to the Hearing Officer’s
March 19, 2014 written decision, the City’s Land Use Code (“LUC”), the City’s Municipal Code (the
“Code”), and the Comprehensive Plan.
9