HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT AND COLLEGE HOTEL - PDP190014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUESTAlternative Compliance Request - LUC 3.2.2 (C)(4)(c) -
Bike parking alternative compliance
Prospect and College Hotel
9/This 18/is 2019 a request that the decision maker approve an alternative compliance to allow a
total of a 50% parking reduction from the 38 required spaces to 19 spaces due to the
proposed hotel use. Hotel guests are not likely to be arriving at the hotel via bike, and
will be mostly using vehicular or transit oriented modes of transportation to move around
Fort Collins. The operator is proposing to provide MAX transit passes to guests due to
the proximity to the MAX stations and existing multi-modal pathway connection Prospect
Road. The developer and operator have taken inventory on existing hotels managed by
the operator in the front range and greater Denver area, have an average use of 6 bike
spaces. Anticipated FTE workers are between 20-30 staff people during the busy times,
with the expectation of 20-25% of those staff bike commuting.
Justification for alternative compliance
The proposed plan utilizes a 30% reduction for transit passes for each guest, for a
reduction total of 11 spaces, 10% reduction for proximity to MAX transit, and 10%
reduction for number of FTE staff.
The proposed plan accomplishes the purpose of this requirement equal to or better than
a plan that complies exactly with the standards of 3.2.2 (C)(4)(b) The proposed plan
accomplishes the purpose of this requirement in several ways:
• Providing offsite improvements to connect the existing multi-modal pathway
connection to Prospect Road.
• Providing MAX transit passes to guests.
• Proximity to MAX transit line and enhanced pedestrian facilities along Prospect
Road connection to the Mason corridor trail.
For the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests an alternative compliance of the
standard in LUC Section 3.2.2 (C)(4)(b) to allow a reduction of total bike spaces of 50%.
This is based on a combination of factors including the site’s adjacency to the MAX
transit facilities, the proposed hotel use, previous hotels within the region, and
anticipated number of employees. The combination of these factors provide a solution
that is equal to or better than a project that strictly meets the LUC criteria.
The Applicant proposes that the proposed alternative compliance is not detrimental to
the public good in that bike parking ratios are in line with median quantities provided by
similar projects in recent years.