HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOLARIUM - PDP190016 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - PROJECT NARRATIVEThe Solarium
Project Development Plan (PDP) with Requested
Additional Permitted Uses(APUs)
Project Narrative
Table of Contents
Part 1) General Project Description . . . . . . . . . 2
(A) The Current Situation . . . 2
(B) The History of Land Use on the Property . . . . 2
(C) Moving Forward . . . . . . 3
Part 2) Neighborhood Context . . . . . . . . . 5
Part 3) Project Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Part 4) Design Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
(A) “The Request” Narrative . . . . 10
(B) Vehicle, Pedestrian Circulation and Parking Narrative . . . 10
(C) Landscaping & Proposed Open Space Narrative . . . . 13
(D) Natural Features Narrative . . . .13
(E) Buffering & Conflicts Between Adjacent Land Uses Narrative . . . 13
(F) Architectural Narrative . . . 14
(G) Narrative on Applicability of 3.8.27 (Small Scale Reception Standards in UE) . . . 14
Part 5) APU Justification Narrative . . . . . . . . . 19
(A) Proposed APUs . . . .19
(B) APU Process . . . 19
(C) Our Justification for APUs . . . . 20
Appendices
Appendix A – PDP Complete Submittal Checklist checked and acknowledged as complete by the
applicant
Appendix B - Signed paper copy of Development Application Form
Appendix C – signed paper copy of Transportation Development Review (TDR) Application
Appendix D – A comment response letter from the project’s Conceptual Review
Appendix E – Examples of Other Wedding Venues and Their Level of Impacts
Appendix F – Proposed Operating Conditions for Solarium Events
Appendix G – Potential Economic Impact of an Individual Wedding in Fort Collins
Appendix G – Transportation Impact Study (TIS)
Appendix H - Parking Study
Appendix I – Letter(s) of Intent for Off-Site Parking
Appendix J – Ecological Characterization Study (ECS)
Appendix K – Tree Inventory and Mitigation Plan
Appendix L – City Staff’s Summary of Neighborhood Meeting
Appendix M – Solarium’s Response to Issues Discussed at Neighborhood Meeting
1
Part 1) General Project Description
(A) The Current Situation.
When the current owners of the Solarium purchased the building in 2013, it was the
understanding of the purchaser that the property was allowed (by the city) to host
weddings on the property. In the months following the purchase, it came to light that the
weddings were not an approved activity on the property (by the city), and the new owner
coordinated with the city to discontinue weddings. At the time, there were several
weddings that had already been booked by the previous owner for that first summer, that
the new owner wished to honor, and the city allowed these several weddings to continue
for that season. Since then, no weddings have occurred on the property. Additionally,
upon initial purchase of the property, it was the understanding of the owner that lodging
(30 days or less in duration) was an allowed use in the property. It has come to light
recently that the lodging use was also never approved for the site. This application is
intended to request approval to allow both weddings and lodging on the property.
Upon detailed coordination with the building department it was discovered recently that
the city considers the building occupancy, for both buildings on the property, in
accordance with the International Building Code, to be R-2, which is defined in the 2018
IBC as “occupancies containing sleeping units or more than two dwelling units where the
occupants are primarily permanent in nature including: apartment houses; congregate
living facilities (nontransient) with more than 16 occupants; boarding houses
(nontransient); convents; dormitories; fraternities and sororities, monasteries; hotels
(nontransient); live/work units; motels (nontransient); and vacation time share
properties. According to the city’s building department records, this R-2 designation was
assigned to both buildings on this property in 1992.
(B) The History of Land Use on the Property.
John and Lolly Clarke built the main building originally in 1979 as a home based
photography studio, where they also raised their 5 children. The building was
necessarily larger to accommodate both the successful photography business and to
accommodate a large family. The building was operated as such from 1979 to 1992.
John Clarke was a local politician, and as he describes it, he wanted to run for a certain
political office that would require him to live within the district of that office. This property
was not in that district, so he and his wife Lolly decided they needed to move off the
property accordingly, to a different part of town, so he could run for the political office.
They decided to go through the city’s approval process in 1992 to convert the property
from what it had been, to a new concept called the “Springwood Institute.” The
description on the approved Springwood PUD plans (approved by the P&Z board on
3/23/1992) describes the intent of the PUD at the time as follows:
“Springwood Institute will be established as an avocational instructional facility for
a select group of artists and photographers. The capacity of the institute will be
approximately 20 individuals . . . . . Students will come from all over the world for
4-day courses and be taught by internationally famous experts in the fields of art
and photography. The teachers and students will be housed and fed on site, with
turnover occurring once each week . . . . A live in property manager will maintain
the facility, cook the meals, clean the rooms and otherwise provide for the
students and teachers . . . . The facility will contain 8-10 bedrooms and have 8
parking spaces.”
2
The property sold in June 1993 to Michele and Kyle Richard and Donald Taranto, and
thus a few months after the initial PUD approval, the following “administrative change”
was approved for the Springwood Institute PUD: “6/24/1993 – Change of ownership,
class type changed to American culture and English classes. Approved with condition
“completed plat/site plan filed.” (condition satisfied on 6/25/1993)”
A couple years later, under the same ownership, another “administrative change” was
approved for the for the Springwood Institute PUD: “11/13/1995 – Expanding hair and
body (salon) services guests and clients. Approved with the condition that expansion be
limited to “one chair” salon.”
The property changed ownership on 10/30/2002 to “Mariposa on Spring Creek LLC,”
and again on 9/26/2003 to “UCLW LLC” and remained under that ownership until the
current owners bought the property on 10/17/2013.
The current owner (Atrium LLC with Chelsea Gressman as the operating partner) bought
it with the hope of using it for lodging and events, thinking at the time those uses were
already allowed, and understanding at the time that the building had been used in these
ways previously.
The main building is ideal in it’s design and configuration for lodging and events. It is a
rather large building (7,900 sq. ft.), which has always had a business operation present
within it. It’s large central atrium was ideal for a background as a photo studio, and since
then has been an ideal setting for a lounge setting for lodging users, and an ideal setting
for events. The building is so large and unique, it really wouldn’t be economically viable
(or marketable) as just an exclusively residential building.
(C) Moving Forward.
With this application, the owners of the Solarium would like to propose the land use
approvals to allow both the existing buildings to operate with the “lodging
establishment” land use:
• The term “hotel/motel/lodging establishment” is defined in the Fort Collins Land
Use Code as “a building intended and used for occupancy as a temporary abode
for individuals who are lodged with or without meals, in which there are five or
more guest rooms . . . . not to include homeless shelters, seasonal overflow
shelters, and short term primary and non-primary rentals.”
Additionally this application proposes that the atrium space within the larger building,
and portions of the back yard be approved to operate with the “small scale reception
center” land use:
• which is defined in the Fort Collins Land Use Code as “a place of assembly that
may include a building or structure containing a hall, auditorium or ballroom used
for celebrations or gatherings (such as weddings, graduations or anniversaries).
The building or structure may also include meeting rooms and facilities for
serving food. Outdoor spaces such as lawns, plazas, gazebos and/or terraces
used for social gatherings or ceremonies are a common component of the
center. A small scale reception center shall not include sporting events or
concerts.”
Note that both lodging establishments and small scale reception centers are not
permitted in the LMN zone. See part 3 of this document for the Additional Permitted Use
(APU) request and justification.
3
To accomplish these proposed land uses, it is intended that we follow up the planning
approval with a building permit application to change the occupancy of the buildings from
the currently designated status of R-2. The entire smaller building and all of the lodging
portions of the larger building are proposed to be Residential Occupancy Group R-1,
defined in the 2018 IBC as “occupancies containing sleeping units where the occupants
are primarily transient in nature, including: boarding houses (transient) with more than 10
occupants; congregate living facilities (transient) with more than 10 occupants; hotels
(transient); motels (transient).” For clarification, the term “transient” is defined in the 2018
IBC as “occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days.” The
atrium space within the larger building is proposed to be Assembly Occupancy Group A-
3, defined in the 2018 IBC as “assembly uses intended for worship, recreation, or
amusement and other assembly uses not classified elsewhere in group A.” It is intended
that the atrium space be used for weddings, as well as portions of the back yard.
The Solarium is an extremely unique property and an asset to the community. It has
and will continue to bring visitors to the Fort Collins area as a destination in Northern
Colorado (and the whole state for that matter. It will provide additional income to local
businesses and the city in general. A wedding has a substantial economic benefit for
the community within which the event takes place, and the Solarium, as a wedding
venue, will make a substantial contribution to the economy of Fort Collins. See
Appendix G for a summary of the potential economic impacts of an individual wedding in
Fort Collins.
4
Part 2) Neighborhood Context
(A) Neighborhood Character and Zoning Context.
This particular neighborhood is pretty unique within the context of Fort Collins. Over the years it
has been a patchwork of various housing subdivisions from different decades, some originally
developed in the county before the area was annexed into the city, and some originally
developed within the city after being annexed. The diverse housing stock has traditionally
mixed in with schools and churches, together with large undeveloped parcels. See the attached
diagram of the various subdivisions within the neighborhood with the corresponding dates of the
subdivisions approval.
Note that the properties not shaded lighter with a corresponding date have never been part of a
subdivision.
5
It also may be helpful to note the patchwork of the timing of annexations within the
neighborhood. Some of the residential subdivisions happened prior to annexation, with their
approvals given by the county, and some of the residential subdivisions happened after
annexation under the city’s jurisdiction.
The original zoning of the Solarium property upon annexation in 1963 was a combination of
“Residence District A,” “Residence District B” and “Residence District C,” When the adjacent
“Second Spring Creek Annexation” occurred in 1977, the adjacent 47.3 acres to the east and
northeast of the Solarium property was zoned RP (Planned Residential), by 1992 when the
Springwood Institute was approved, the zoning was RM zoning. Then back in 1997 when the
entire zoning designations throughout the entire city were re-evaluated, and re-categorized, it
6
was deemed appropriate that the site be zoned LMN. In an effort to understand exactly what
the thinking was by the city at the time when they decided to designate this little area of town as
LMN, we had an informal conversation with Clark Mapes, a Fort Collins Senior Planner, who
was involved in the city-wide rezoning back in 1997. We asked Clark why was it zoned LMN in
particular, and why not one of the historical conservation zones (such as NCL, NCM, or NCB),
or why not the lower density residential RL zone? Clark explained that the thinking was that this
area was a mixture of existing development spanning decades of styles and development
characters, but also had a large amount of vacant or rural developable parcels, which were left
over still from when this area was outside city limits. Clark went on to explain that much of the
existing housing stock in this area was developed in the 1950s and 1960’s and much of it was
thought to be of marginal quality, with a high likelihood of redevelopment. The thought was that
much of the existing 50s and 60s existing development south of Prospect, east of Remington,
north of Stuart, and west of Stover didn’t warrant a “conservation” status because it wasn’t of
the quality where the city particularly wanted to encourage conservation zone. Additionally,
Clark explained the RL zone was typically used for more homogeneous areas that had been
fully developed with primarily single family detached residential years or decades in the past,
with a substantially low average density. Thus, they considered that this area had a lot of
developable and re-developable areas, wasn’t homogeneous, and would be an appropriate
neighborhood to expect a little higher density than say RL. As you can see however, directly
across the street to the south from the Solarium, the portion of the neighborhood that is
homogeneous (Indian Hills), did get the RL zone designation. The context is indeed diverse,
certainly not exclusively residential.. Note this neighborhood, and in particular this portion of
LMN zoned area is not fully developed. It has been developed as a patchwork over decades,
and still some parcels remain undeveloped, some underdeveloped, and some ripe for
redevelopment. It is significant to note that City Plan’s Principal LIV 2 is “Promote Infill and
Redevelopment.” This neighborhood has a history of infill and redevelopment, and has many
areas susceptible to short term and long term change. This neighborhood has never been
static, and it’s not likely be every become static, because of the way it has come to be. It’s was
never a large suburban development with one character, created by a single developer over a
few years. It’s diverse, and ever changing.
The point about zoning that we would like the staff and the decision makers to consider is that
the zoning had to be assigned something, however a one-size-fits-all blanket designation of a
zone district is somewhat awkward to apply to this property. It had to be zoned something, so
LMN was what the city thought would be the most appropriate of the potential zoning districts to
choose from, however our point is that LMN isn’t really a perfect fit either. We would argue it
wasn’t a perfect zone for the neighborhood, but specifically not a perfectly applicable zone
district for the property in particular. LMN comes close to being appropriate, but the LMN zoning
still does not adequately capture the diversity of the neighborhood nor permit the logical highest
and best use of existing properties. Fortunately the Addition of Permitted Use (APU) process is
available to allow uses outside the typical zoning permitted uses, and we suggest our proposed
APU uses are in fact appropriate, as this full narriative document spells out.
Another attribute of the neighborhood that is important to note is that intermixed with the smaller
housing subdivisions that occurred over the decades, and together with the large undeveloped
and rural properties in the vicinity, there are large quantity of churches, schools, and institutions
intermixed within the neighborhood. This is important to note because they are an integral part
of the neighborhood, and they coexist, and have coexisted with the existing residential uses in
this neighborhood all along. They are as much a part of the neighborhood as the residential
uses.
7
Legend for the “Schools, Churches, Institutions” Diagram (with distance from Streets along streets, door to door)
1 – Trinity Lutheran Church (0.4 miles)
2 – Mountain Kids (0.2 miles)
3 - Former Nursing Home, Current Safe House (0.3 miles)
4 – PSD Global Acadamy (0.3 miles) / Barton Early Childhood Center (0.3 miles) / Partnership Center (0.2 miles)
5 – Lesher Middle School (0.4 miles)
6 – Life Pointe Church (0.6 miles)
7 – Riversong Waldorf School (0.2 miles)
8 – Spring Creek Health Center (0.6 miles)
9 – Ridgeview Classical Schools (0.6 miles)
10 – Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church (0.7 miles)
11 – Emmaus Road Church (0.8 miles)
12 – Saint Luke’s Episcopal Church (0.2 miles)
Furthermore, City Plan’s Policy LIV 2.1 is titled “Revitalization of Underutilized Properties”
encourages supporting the use of creative strategies to revitalize and/or promote the adaptive
reuse of underutilized structures and buildings. The Solarium is a very unique structure, not
necessarily the shape and size and use of a building you would really ever be able to build from
scratch in the LMN zone. The building and property is a remnant of the PUD process that
allowed any use anywhere so long as it could be shown to fit appropriately within its context.
The APU process seems to be the next generation of that concept wherein an underutilized
property (as currently zoned) has the opportunity to realize its appropriate highest and best use.
8
Part 3) Project Information
(A) Project title: “The Solarium“
The property was formerly known as the Springwood Institute P.U.D.
(B) Past Meeting Dates:
Conceptual Review. We received conceptual review comments from the city dated
February 7, 2019. A Neighborhood Meeting was conducted on Monday June 24, 2019.
(C) General Information:
Project location: 706 East Stuart Street
Overall size of the development: 69,475 sq. ft. (1.59 acres)
Existing zoning: LMN
Proposed zoning: LMN (no change)
Number of dwellings: 0
Amount and type of commercial space: “Lodging establishment” with up to 16
Sleeping Rooms
Number of off-street parking spaces provided: 11
Number of building stories proposed: 2 (no change to existing building height)
Description of any Land Use Code Modifications proposed: None.
a. Proposed Owners: Same as existing owners, the Atrium LLC:
Elly Raisi and Chelsea Gressman (both member / managers)
(E) Existing Owners: The Atrium LLC, 219 Shields Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521
(F) Transportation Improvements: Sidewalk improvements, improvements to existing
driveway aprons, improvements to existing parking lot. Also see the Traffic Study in
Appendix G of this document.
(G) Written narrative addressing each concern/issue raised at the neighborhood
meeting: See Appendix L of this document “Summary of Neighborhood Meeting.”
(H) Development Phasing Schedule (if applicable). A single construction phase is
intended.
9
Part 4) Design Narrative
(A) “The Request” Narrative.
With this application, we propose the Solarium property be approved for two land uses,
namely “lodging establishment” with up to 16 sleeping rooms, and “small scale reception
center” with up to 150 guests, limited to no more than one event per week during
wedding season. Wedding season is typically May through September. It is proposed
that the land use approval have a conditional use restriction for events, that the entire
facility, including the lodging and the event space, will be rented to the same customer.
When there is no event taking place, we propose that no such restriction be required for
the lodging.
(B) Vehicle, Pedestrian Circulation, and Parking Narrative.
a. Stuart Street. An additional 15 feet of street right-of-way was dedicated for
Stuart Street in 2016. That makes 45’ of right-of-way from the centerline of
Stuart Street. Stuart is designated as a two lane collector on the master street
plan. It has a unique cross section in that there is parking on one side, and no
parking on the other. Both sides have bike lanes. The LCUASS standards for a
collector with parking is 76’ total ROW width (which is a 38’half width), or it calls
out a collector without parking is 66’ total ROW width (which is a 33’ half width).
The parking is on our side of the street, and thus we can assume that the 38’ half
width is needed. So for some reason, in 2016, the property owner was asked to
dedicate 7 more feet of ROW than is actually needed. We suggest that rather
than a 9 foot utility easement be dedicated behind the existing ROW, that we
only be required to dedicate an additional 2 feet of utility easement in this
location, because the right of way is 7 feet wider than necessary in this location.
We propose to dedicate this additional easement through separate instrument,
but want to wait until we get comments back on this issue, so we know exactly
how much easement to dedicate in this case.
b. Parking.
(1) Non-Event Parking. When there are no-events taking place, we have
sufficient parking on-site to accommodate the demands of the lodging with
the 11 parking spaces we are providing. Lodging Establishments only require
a minimum of 0.5 parking space per sleeping room, and with up to 16
sleeping rooms proposed, the minimum required parking is 8 spaces.
(2) Event Parking. When events are taking place. When there are events
(weddings) taking place, we would like to utilize shared off-site parking. In
fact, section 3.2.2(G) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code is titled “Shared
Parking” and it states “Where a mix of uses creates staggered peak periods
of parking demand, shared parking calculations shall be made to reduce the
total amount of required parking. Retail, office, institutional and entertainment
uses may share parking areas.”
(3) Shared Parking. It has been suggested by City staff that in order for a land
use to rely on off-site shared parking, said shared off-site parking must be
available as to that proposed land use in perpetuity. We suggest that in this
case, there are so many off-site shared parking options available, both
10
nearby as pedestrians, and further away that are accessible with shuttle
and/or public transportation services, that it can be virtually assured that there
will always be a viable option for off-site shared parking for Solarium events
in any scenario in the future. We argue that agreements for parking
arrangements in perpetuity is overkill, and thus “Letter’s of Intent” for parking
agreements should be considered to be unnecessary.
It is important to note that City Plan’s Policy T 3.1 titled “Emerging
Transportation” calls for supporting and managing newly emerging
transportation options.” We suggest that the notion of having shuttles to and
from public parking garages and/or to and from Max stations, combined with
the availability of Uber and Lyft type services would qualify as embracing
“emerging transportation technologies”, providing a solution for attendees
multiple options for timing and modes to get to and from, parking available in
perpetuity. At very least, there is public parking available for free and for a
fee to the user, but available nonetheless, in perpetuity, at multiple station
locations of the Max transit line. The Solarium is 0.9 miles away from the
Spring Creek Station of the Max, which is a 4 minute vehicle ride away (either
shuttle bus, taxi, Uber or Lyft). The Solarium already owns a 10-passenger
shuttle bus, with will be available to shuttle event guests back and forth to the
Spring Creek Max Station, in the event that becomes necessary. We suggest
this opportunity should negate the need for solid parking agreements in
perpetuity.
The reality is that there are a multitude of parking lots available for rent
nearby, and the shuttle option to the Max station will most likely never need to
happen. Most of the nearby parking lots have confirmed that they would rent
us parking spaces on a case by case basis, and it is typical that they would
rent us spaces, however we are getting push back from them at entering into
a parking agreement making the spaces available in perpetuity.
Global Academy walking distance from its parking lot to Solarium is 850 feet,
along the public sidewalks. Saint Luke’s Church is approximately 730 feet
from its northern parking lot driveway to the Solarium, along the public
sidewalk, including a crossing of Stewart Street, at a crosswalk. Trinity
Lutheran Church’s parking lot is approximately 2,000 feet to Solarium along
the Spring Creek bike path and public sidewalks, and wouldn’t require any
street crossings. Any guests that would have trouble with the walk can be
dropped off and picked up at the building as needed, and again, the Solarium
has a shuttle bus that will be used if and when needed to assist and
supplement pedestrian transportation to and from wherever the parking lot
being used for the event parking happens to be.
Note in Appendix E we conducted case studies of 7 other wedding venues in
the area, that have a good track record of co-existing in neighborhoods and
within their context, and 6 out 7 of the venues serve their parking needs with
off-site shared parking.
Planning values (as reflected in the City’s comprehensive plan “City Plan”)
and also reflected in the codified refection of City Plan, the Fort Collins Land
11
Use Code, emphasize the desire to utilize shared parking where possible and
appropriate, to minimize the amount of the City that is developed as parking
lots.
Weddings are typically conducted on Saturday afternoons, and their
receptions will typically last into the evening on those Saturdays. They do
sometimes, although rarely, occur on other days. When weddings occur on
Sundays, it is typically not at the same time that churches are in session, but
rather in the early to mid-afternoons. When weddings occur on weekdays,
they are typically not at the same time that school is in session those days,
but typically in the early evenings. Schools and churches usually have empty
parking lots during all of these times. There are three separate large parking
lots at schools or churches within three-tenths of a mile of the Solarium, and
another six parking lots within six-tenths of a mile of the Solarium. (See the
Schools, Churches, Institutions” diagram in section part 2, section (A) of this
document). There are so many off-site shared parking options available, both
nearby as pedestrians, and further away that are accessible with shuttle
and/or public transportation services, that it can be virtually assured that there
will always be a viable option for off-site shared parking for Solarium events
in any scenario in the future.
The Solarium intends to keep an ongoing season by season contracts or
written agreements with multiple available parking lots, both within walking
distance, and within a short shuttle distance, with the express agreement for
parking availability on a season by season basis. There are three separate
large parking lots at schools or churches within three-tenths of a mile of the
Solarium. Any one of these three may not be available on any given
Saturday for the Solarium to rent for their wedding customers, but unlikely
that all three wouldn’t be available on the same Saturday.
In fact there are numerous Principals and Policies in the City’s Comprehensive
Plan (City Plan) that promote and encourage scenarios such as our proposed off-
site shared parking scenario as follows:
• Policy SC 4.1 titled “Active Transportation” calls for supporting means of
active transportation such as bicycling and walking. We are providing two
bicycle racks, each with capacity for 8 bikes, for a total of 16 bike spaces
in racks.
• Policy SC 4.2 titled “Design for Active Living” calls for supporting
neighborhood design “that encourages physical activity” . . . . “so that
active modes of transportation are a desirable and convenient choice.”
• Policy T1.3 titled “Design for Active Living” states “Promote neighborhood
and community design that encourages physical activity.” Allowing a
parking lot to serve the Solarium that necessitates walking a couple of
blocks does in fact encourage physical activity.
• Policy T 3.1 titled “Emerging Transportation” calls for supporting and
managing newly emerging transportation options.” We would suggest
that the notion of having shuttles to and from public parking
garages and/or to and from Max stations, combined with the
availability of Uber and Lyft type services would qualify as
embracing “emerging transportation technologies”, providing a
12
solution for attendees multiple options for timing and modes to get
to and from, parking available in perpetuity. At very least, there is
public parking available for free and for a fee to the user, but
available nonetheless, in perpetuity, at multiple station locations of
the Max transit line. The Solarium is 0.9 miles away from the Spring
Creek Station of the Max, which is a 4 minute vehicle ride away
(either shuttle bus, taxi, Uber or Lyft).
• City Plan’s Policy T 3.3 is titled “Development and Sharing of
Infrastructure” and it encourages “the sharing of both public and private
infrastructure, including parking, by devising public-private partnerships
and agreements that provide shared access. . . . “
• City Plan’s Principle T7 states “support walking as a safe, easy and
convenient travel option for all ages and abilities by building a connected
network of sidewalks, paths and trails.” The Solarium is ideally located to
accomplish this goal already because it is within a well-established
neighborhood that is already part of a network of interconnected streets
with sidewalks, and the Spring Creek Trail actually traverses through the
Solarium site as well.
• City Plan’s Policy T 9.4 is titled “Healthy Transportation Choices” and it
suggest the city should “support and promote active transportation
choices.” Then as a follow-up, Policy T 9.6 is titled “Active
Transportation” which states that the city should “support physically active
transportation (e.g. bicycling, walking, using wheelchairs, etc.) . . . “
(C) Landscaping and Proposed Open Space Narrative
The Landscape Plan identifies additional proposed landscaping around the portion of the
yard to be used for events. Additionally landscape beds will be identified and mulched
around the parking lot in the front of the building.
(D) Natural Features Narrative
The Solarium is home to several unique natural features and is an ecological oasis in the
middle of Fort Collins. For more discussion, please refer to the Ecological
Characterization Study in Appendix J of this document.”
(E) Buffering and Conflicts between adjacent Land Uses Narrative
Regarding buffering, although there are already existing buffers on many sides: Stuart
Street, Spring Creek, a regional trail, city open space, and Alpert Court, we are
proposing some additional buffering. Please see the Landscape Plan which identifies the
portion of the yard that is intended to be used for outdoor events, and also it shows
proposed additional landscaping adding a visual and physical separation from the rest of
the property (and views off property). Additionally, we are proposing a “zen garden” as
a buffer between the event area of the back yard and the neighbors to the east. The
intent on the zen garden is for it to be a place of quiet relaxation for lodging guests,
however will be closed and inaccessible during events, to act as a buffer for the
neighbors during an event. Another intent of the zen zone is to create a beautiful garden
on the elevated ridge that restricts access to our guests, allowing over 150 feet from the
neighbors fence line. The property owner has negotiated fencing with both neighbors to
the east, and per their conclusion they split the cost of a cattle fence as not to disrupt the
13
view. The placement of the zen garden shall maintain this view for both neighbors to the
west, but also serve as the buffer zone.
Regarding the impacts outdoor events would have to three direct neighbors (with the
consideration that the Solarium would only hold weddings on Saturdays or
Sundays): Other than building the fence together, the owner has not received any
feedback directly from the neighbor at 720 East Stuart, although we have made multiple
attempts to engage this neighbor for feedback. The Solarium owner has a verbal
agreement from the direct neighbor to the east at 708 East Stuart that they do not have
any objections to having events as part of the Solarium business plan. Verbal
conversations between the Solarium owner and the owner of the property directly next
door to the west, at 702 East Stuart Street, indicate that that neighbor supports what he
has heard thus far.
Regarding the impacts of noise generated from outdoor events, this will be addressed by
stopping the event at a designated time set in the operating conditions (see Appendix F),
and keeping all event attendees contained with a specific limited area of the yard, well
away from the neighbors.
Regarding the impacts caused by people, all areas will be designated as event and non
event space/private property with a zen garden barrier to the East.
(F) Architectural Narrative
The two buildings and two tee-pees on site are existing. We are not proposing any new
buildings. If we successfully gain approval for the proposed uses, we will proceed with a
building permit to change the occupancy of the lodging portion of the building from R-2
occupancy (long term residential) to R1 (short term lodging), and will coordinate with the
building department on what occupancy to change the portions of the building used by
events to, if necessary.
(G) Narrative on the Potential Applicability of the Performance Standards from 3.8.27 for
Small Scale Reception Centers in the UE Zone District.
1. A Small Scale Reception Center is defined in the Code as follows:
“Small scale reception center” shall mean “a place of assembly that
may include a building or structure containing a hall, auditorium or
ballroom used for celebrations or gatherings (such as weddings,
graduations or anniversaries). The building or structure may also
include meeting rooms and facilities for serving food. Outdoor spaces
such as lawns, plazas, gazebos and/or terraces used for social
gatherings or ceremonies are a common component of the center. A
small scale reception center shall not include sporting events or
concerts.”
2. Small Scale Reception Centers are permitted in the following districts, subject to
variant levels of review:
14
• Downtown (D)District, except in the River Corridor subdistrict,
where such use is not permitted (subject to Type 1 “administrative”
Review);
• Community Commercial (CC) District (subject to Type 1
“administrative” Review);
• Community Commercial North College (CCN) District (subject to
Type 1 “administrative” Review);
• Community Commercial – Poudre River (CCR) District (subject to
Type 2 “Planning and Zoning Board” Review);
• General Commercial (CG)District (subject to Type 1
“administrative” Review or Type 2 “Planning and Zoning Board”
Review depending on subdistrict);
o Note: the table in 4.21 appears to refer to Small Scale
Reception Centers as “Small Scale Recreational Event
Centers.”
• Service Commercial (CS) District subject to Type 1
“administrative” Review); and
• Limited Commercial (CL) District except in the Riverside Area
subdistrict, where such use is not permitted (subject to Type 1
“administrative” Review);
• Urban Estate (UE) District (subject to Type 1 “administrative”
Review)
3. The Code only provides separate performance standards for Small Scale Reception
Centers with respect to the Urban Estate District. Pursuant to Section 3.8.27 of the
Code, those standards are as follows:
(a) Lot Size. Minimum lot size shall be seven (7) acres.
(b) Building Size. The total floor area of any new building shall not exceed seven
thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet and the total aggregate floor area of
new and existing buildings shall not exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square
feet.
(c) Building Location and Separation From Residential Areas. All buildings shall be
located a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from the nearest dwelling on any
abutting property, except that in cases where there are no dwellings on such
abutting property, all buildings shall be located a minimum of two hundred fifty
(250) feet from the nearest property line of such abutting property.
(d) Outdoor Spaces, Location and Separation From Residential Areas. All outdoor
spaces such as lawns, plazas, gazebos and/or terraces used for social
gatherings or ceremonies associated with the reception center shall be located
within one hundred (100) feet of the primary building and shall be located a
minimum of three hundred (300) feet from the nearest dwelling on any abutting
property, except that in cases where there are no dwellings on such abutting
property, all outdoor spaces, as described above, shall be located a minimum of
15
two hundred fifty (250) feet from the nearest property line of such abutting
property.
(e) Nonresidential Abutment. At least one-sixth ( 1 / 6 ) of the reception center's
property boundary must be contiguous to property which is zoned in one (1) or
more of the following nonresidential zone districts within the City:
D, Downtown;
R-D-R, River Downtown Redevelopment;
C-C, Community Commercial;
C-C-N, Community Commercial - North College;
C-C-R, Community Commercial - Poudre River;
C-G, General Commercial;
C-S, Service Commercial;
N-C, Neighborhood Commercial;
C-L, Limited Commercial;
H-C, Harmony Commercial;
E, Employment;
I, Industrial.
(f) Access. Vehicular access to the reception center shall be only directly from an
arterial street so as to not add traffic to existing local neighborhood streets.
(g) Buffering. If the reception center abuts a single-family dwelling or property zoned
for such activity, buffering shall be established between the two (2) land uses
sufficient to screen the building, parking, outdoor lighting and associated outdoor
activity from view. A combination of setbacks, landscaping, building placement,
fences or walls and elevation changes and/or berming shall be utilized to achieve
appropriate buffering.
(h) Hours of Operation. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Sunday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
(i) Noise. No noise will be permitted in violation of Chapter 20, Article II of the City
Code, and the following limitations will also apply:
(1) Music that is not amplified (such as stringed quartets or acoustic
guitars) will be allowed out of doors, but shall end no later than 8:00 p.m.
Sunday through Thursday, and 9:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday.
(2) Except during wedding ceremonies, sound-amplifying equipment
used out of doors shall be limited to speakers with a maximum power
rating of fifty (50) watts permanently installed as part of the design of
outdoor spaces such as lawns, plazas, gazebos and/or terraces.
(j) On-Site Caretaker. There shall be a manager or owner on site during all hours of
operation.
16
(k) Parking Lot Lighting. Parking lot lighting, if used at all, shall conform to the
requirements contained in Section 3.2.4, and shall be further restricted such that
(a) the lighting is of high pressure sodium only and does not exceed seventy (70)
watts and one hundred twenty (120) volts; and (b) the fixture does not exceed a
height of fourteen (14) feet above ground level.
4. Extent of the Applicability of the UE Performance Standards
Given that Section 3.8.27 of the Code expressly limits its applicability to Small Scale
Reception Centers in the Urban Estate District, we find it reasonable to conclude such
performance standards will not be applied to the Solarium Property in its pursuit of the
Small Scale Reception Center APU, especially where such performance standards have
not been applied in the other Districts in which Small Scale Reception Centers may be
permitted upon variant levels of review.
To be sure, and for reference, Appendix E sets forth several venues hosting events
similar to those proposed by the Solarium with respect to the Small Scale Reception
Center APU, which are located outside of the Urban Estate District and do not meet the
one or more of the performance standards for Small Scale Reception Centers. We note
that one such venue is in Loveland and is therefore inapplicable with regard to the Fort
Collins zoning conversation here.
In any event, and to the extent the City uses the performance standards in 3.8.27 as
guidance in assessing the Solarium’s proposed Small Scale Reception Center APU, we
provide a discussion of each of the performance standards below.
The Solarium Property (like every single one of the case study event venues on
Appendix E) does not satisfy the minimum lot size of seven (7) acres set forth in the
performance standard (a) above. In seeking to understand the City’s purpose for this
performance standard, we imagine it is in anticipation of outdoor events on the property
and the need for sufficient buffer zones to mitigate the impacts of increased activity.
However, the Solarium’s lot size (1.59 acres), its unique location between a street and
Spring Creek, and the landscaping buffers it intends to install on the property serve to
mitigate any shortcoming with regard to its lot size. Even so, the Solarium’s lot size
exceeds several other venues, which host outdoor events, including weddings, on their
respective properties. This includes the Avery House (.54 acres), which has
successfully mitigated any impact of its outdoor events despite its smaller lot size. We
also note that the Solarium will not be permitting amplified music outside and does not
need to accommodate on-site parking for events, which significantly reduces the need
for additional acreage.
With regard to Performance standard (b) above, the existing building on the Solarium
Property is 6,052 square feet based on Larimer County Assessor Website and no new
building is being proposed, such the Solarium Property satisfies this standard.
The Solarium Property, again like many of the properties on Appendix E does not satisfy
performance standards (c) and (d) above. We imagine these performance standards
17
also address special mitigation of increased activity at the site of a Small Scale
Reception Center. However, and referencing Appendix E, we have found that several
venues have successfully mitigated the impacts of increased activity without meeting
these requirements. Some of these venues, such as the Avery House and Block One
Events (in the River Corridor of the Downtown District, where Small Scale Reception
Centers are not permitted), even host events outside. What is more, the aforementioned
venues do not have the same buffers between them and adjacent buildings as the
Solarium Property. Namely, the Solarium Property has or will have natural or existing
manmade buffers between its building and outdoor spaces and several of the adjacent
dwellings, including Spring Creek, Stuart Street, and the to-be-constructed zen garden.
The Solarium Property does not satisfy performance standard (e) above. However, we
believe this performance standard should not serve as guidance in the discussion
regarding the Small Scale Reception Center APU at the Solarium. Namely, and given
the process by which the Solarium Property and the rather diverse area surrounding the
property was zoned LMN (as previously discussed), it is expected that many of the
highest and best uses for properties in this LMN zone are not permitted uses, and
further, that the zoning and surrounding zoning is not compatible with many of the
properties in existence at the time such zoning was promulgated. Thus, to use the
performance standard (e) as a compass in this instance would simply exacerbate this
reality. Even so, we note that certain venues listed on Appendix E do not satisfy this
standard. For instance, The Lodge at Mackenzie Place (“Lodge”) hosts weddings up to
200 people, and in addition to the small scale reception center use not being a permitted
use in the Harmony Corridor District Zone (HC), the Lodge property does not abut any of
the zoning districts set forth in performance standard (e).
Given the Solarium Property will not provide on-site parking for events, but will utilize
shared off-site parking facilities, performance standard (f) appears largely inapplicable,
as the vehicular traffic from events will be accessing parking elsewhere. It is worth noting
that several churches in the area cannot satisfy this requirement.
With regard to performance standard (g), and as previously discussed, the Solarium
Property is already buffered by Spring Creek, a parking lot, Stuart Street, and an open
parcel. With respect to areas where these already existing buffers do not exist, the
Solarium has proposed sufficient setbacks, a zen garden, and Operating Conditions to
satisfy any concerns with regard to this requirement.
The Solarium Property will satisfy performance standards (h), (i), and (j), and has
proposed even more stringent conditions with respect to these factors per the Operating
Conditions in Appendix F.
Again, and given that the Solarium will host its event parking off-site, this performance
standard appears largely inapplicable. In any event, with respect to the small on-site
parking lot at the Solarium Property, said lot will satisfy performance standard (k).
18
Part 5) Additional Permitted Use (APU) Narrative
(A) Proposed Additional Permitted Use (APU) Land Uses.
(1) Note that City Plan’s Policy LIV 2.1 is titled “Revitalization of Underutilized
Properties” encourages supporting the use of creative strategies to revitalize and/or
promote the adaptive reuse of underutilized structures and buildings. The Solarium
is a very unique structure, not necessarily the shape and size and use of a building
you would really ever be able to build from scratch in the LMN zone today. The
building and property is a remnant of the PUD process that allowed any use
anywhere so long as it could be shown to fit appropriately within its context. The APU
process seems to be the next generation of that concept wherein an underutilized
property (as currently zoned) has the opportunity to realize its appropriate highest
and best use, where compatibility can be achieved. Fortunately the Addition of
Permitted Use (APU) process is available to allow uses outside the typical zoning
permitted uses, and we suggest our proposed APU uses are in fact appropriate, as
this full narriative document spells out.
(2) Proposed “Lodging Establishment” Use (APU request #1) – The land use “lodging
establishment” is not permitted in the LMN Zone district. The LMN zone comes close
to being appropriate, but the LMN zoning still does not adequately capture the
diversity of the neighborhood nor permit the “lodging” use, which has historically
been deemed to be appropriate for this property. The building and property is a
remnant of the PUD process that allowed any use anywhere so long as it could be
shown to fit appropriately within its context. See part 1 section (B) of this document
for a discussion on the history of the uses on the property. Sort term lodging was
deemed appropriate several times throughout the years with various approvals that
have since expired. We content that “lodging establishment” use continues to be
appropriate on this property, in this case.
(3) “Small Scale Reception Center” Use – The intent is that the primary type of event
that will be hosted here will be weddings. This building and property are uniquely
suited to be an amazing place to host weddings. The building has an interior
landscaped atrium with quaint space for indoor gatherings to occur. The back yard is
huge and interplays wonderfully with the Spring Creek, which runs right through the
property. The yard is big enough to isolate weddings into a specific area within easy
access from the indoor gathering space, but buffered by distance and landscaping
enhancements from the closest neighbors. It is significant and important to note that
during events (usually weddings), only parties of the event will be allowed to rent the
lodging rooms. This is significant with regard to the limited parking on –site. There
will not be conflicting users between the event and the lodging accordingly. When
event’s occur, the lodging customers will also be the event customers, and thus they
the key players for the event, and will not be competing for parking with unfamiliar
lodging customers. The intent is that during events, the on-site parking will be used
for the event hosts and their key event personnel. Otherwise it is intended that event
attendees will park off-site through one or more of the following off-site parking
options (see “Off-Site Parking Opportunities” map below):
(B) APU Process.
(1) Overall Purpose of Allowing APUs.
Additional Permitted Uses (APUs) are allowed per section 1.3.4 of the Land Use
Code. As clarified in 1.3.4(A) which is the “purpose statement” for the APU process,
an applicant may submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the
19
understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level of review, with
close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is
intended to allow for consideration of unforeseen uses and unique circumstances on
specific parcels with evaluation based on the context of the surrounding area.
(2) Applicable Criteria to Allow APUs.
As clarified in 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code, the decision maker(s) may add
allowed land uses to a particular zone district if such additional uses can be shown to
conform to all of the following criteria:
(a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added.
(b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the
other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added.
(c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has
minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties.
(d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat,
smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards,
traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts
on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public
health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development,
than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the
zone district to which it is added.
(e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding
area.
(f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone
district to which it is added.
(g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential
neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the
Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review
process, that the development proposal would not have any significant
neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to
the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take
place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed
the first round of staff review.
(h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452
of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603
of the City Code.
(C) Our Justification for the Proposed APUs, (Overall Justification and Specifically
Addressing the Criteria).
(1) A conversation about “context of the surrounding area."
We contend that the proposed APUs are appropriate within the LMN zone, and in
particular, within this neighborhood which is made up of several zone districts. The
context and history of both this site and the entire surrounding area is complex, such
that there are several additional considerations to take into account when assessing
20
the character and context of the same other than simply considering the current
zoning. A “diverse patchwork” might describe the context of the surrounding area of
the project site most accurately. The context is far from homogeneous. As described
in more detail in part 2(A) “Neighborhood Character and Zoning Context” of this
document, this particular neighborhood is pretty unique within the context of Fort
Collins. Over the years it has been a patchwork of various housing subdivisions from
different decades, some originally developed in the county before the area was
incrementally annexed into the city, and some originally developed within the city
after being annexed. The diverse housing stock has traditionally mixed in with
schools and churches, together with large undeveloped parcels. The property was
previously approved for a hostel with 10 rooms, such that it is clear the Lodging
Establishment is a use compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding area.
While the current LMN zoning permits a bed and breakfast use up to 6 beds, and the
Solarium Property would, if approved for the Lodging Establishment use would have
16 rooms, the Lodging Establishment use contemplates any lodging that has over 5
rooms, including large-scale hotels with upwards of 200 rooms, which is much
different than the proposed lodging at the Solarium. As such, we propose the lodging
use at the Solarium Property is much more akin to the permitted bed and breakfast
use and the hostel use for which it was previously approved, which are clearly
compatible with the surrounding area. With respect to the Small Scale Reception
Center, there are several assembly-related and large-scale institutions in the LMN
zone and surrounding area, which generate large amounts of concentrated activity,
much like what is being proposed with respect to the Small Scale Reception Center
at the Solarium Property. These include, community facilities, places of worship or
assembly, public and private schools, and child care centers.
(2) A conversation about “compatibility” and “impact mitigation.”
We have done our research regarding what other wedding venues have done to
minimize and mitigate the impacts to neighbors of events. See Appendix E
“Examples of Other Wedding Venues and Their Level of Impacts.” We have
taken a close look at 7 other event/wedding venues and analyzed each by with
regard to 12 specific impact criterion, namely:
1. Zoning of the event venue;
2. Types of events hosted at the venue;
3. Maximum number of attendees of weddings / events;
4. Frequency of events (estimated);
5. Events outside (y or n);
6. Distance from residential property;
7. Distance from other commercial buildings;
8. Character of neighborhood;
9. How they handle increased noise / activities;
10. Onsite parking vs. off-site parking;
11. Traffic hazards / traffic generation;
12. General comments (summary of observation) on each venue.
In looking at these 7 case study venues in terms of these 12 criterion, several
important and relevant conclusions have presented themselves. The following
bullets summarizes how the case study event venues compare with our proposed
event venue in terms of associated impacts on the community:
21
• All of the comparison wedding venues are in an urban setting (within the city,
not rural). It is not uncommon for weddings and events to coexist within
neighborhoods in the city successfully, with minimal negative impacts.
• All of the comparison wedding venues are under 1 acre in land. The Solarium
is an acre and half of space to have these events, with one side of the
property abutting Spring Creek.
• Of the seven wedding venues we compared, only one (Lodge at Makenzie
Place) has onsite parking and the amount of spaces would compare to The
Solarium’s. One other location (Drake Center) has shared parking within a
commercial area. All others do not have on site parking.
• Two of the wedding venues are historic residential homes within a residential
setting (Avery House & the McCeery House). One wedding venue is a
clubhouse right in the middle of a residential area (Lodge at Makenzie Place).
Five others have residential areas within 100 feet.
• Three of the wedding venues conduct the wedding ceremonies outside on the
property. Two of them (Avery House & Block One Events) have to follow City
Noise Ordinance to shut the music and event down by 10 pm to comply with
City Noise Ordinance. The third is located in Loveland (the McCeery House)
and requires that the event be shut down by 9pm, as they are in a historical
residential area. The Solarium has stated in our Operating Conditions (see
Appendix E of this document) that they will shut the events down by 9pm on
Fridays/Saturdays or 8pm on weekdays.
• Three of the wedding venues would be considered directly within a residential
neighborhood. While the others are in the Old Town District with residential
either attached or within 100 feet.
• The Solarium falls in the middle of the maximum number of occupants
allowed for an event/wedding on site. Yet has more than double the space
outside.
• All of the comparison wedding venues hold events daily, in that there are
events other than Weddings held during the week (corporate parties,
anniversaries, meetings, photo shoots, etc.).
Also see part 4 subsection (E) of this document for details on the efforts we are
taking to minimize impacts to the neighboring properties most directly impacted, and
ensure compatibility. Namely, there is sufficient buffering between the Solarium
Property and other uses, especially residential, there is off-site parking as to mitigate
on-site traffic, and the Solarium is proposing operating conditions (as attached
hereto) to further mitigate any impacts of increased activity at the site.
(3) A conversation about “impacts normally resulting from other uses allowed in
the LMN Zone.”
The LMN zone district allows a variety of uses. Some of which is residential, some of
which is commercial neighborhood center uses, and some of which is institutional
uses. Many of these uses generate high volumes of activity at any given time, which
the neighborhood has been more than capable of sustaining. There are several
existing schools and churches within close proximity to the site (see the “Schools,
Churches & Institutions” diagram in part 2 of this document). In particular it is
important to note that both “schools” and “Places of Worship or Assembly” are
22
permitted in the LMN zone, and those uses do have a large number of cars and
people coming and going daily in the case of schools, and several times a week in
the case of places of worship. The impacts to the neighborhood of a single event in
our proposed APU uses is dwarfed multiple times a week by the activities of the
schools and churches already existing in the neighborhood. Again, the diversity of
the area, which does not fit within the LMN zone designation given to it in 1997 for
reasons previously discussed, makes these uses an enriching part of the community,
not a burden, and the impacts from these uses are easily absorbed into the diversity
of the area that was already in existence before the LMN zone designation was
applied. We propose the same will be true of the proposed uses at the Solarium
Property.
(4) In the case of the proposed “lodging establishment” use the APU criteria (from
the applicable criteria from 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code) can be met as follows:
• The “lodging establishment” use is appropriate within this portion of LMN
zone, and conforms to the basic characteristics of this portion of LMN zone
because it is a unique and special property that is part of the patchwork of sites
retroactively lumped into the LMN zone in 1997; namely, a similar lodging use
was previously permitted at the site based on the actual and special character of
the area (before LMN zone was a term) and this use is very close in nature to the
bed and breakfast use permitted in the LMN zone – much closer than a large-
scale hotel or a motel with more than the 16 rooms the Solarium is requesting to
use under the Lodging Establishment use. This zone, and particularly this portion
of the LMN zone is a patchwork of large-scale properties mixed with an in-fill of
residential, it is unique like the Solarium Property, and it can and has sustained
the activity of a 16-room lodging establishment, evidenced by the fact that
building itself was built for and was previously approved for such lodging.
Namely, the site is perfectly suited for the lodging establishment use and the site
has been a part of the character of this portion of the LMN zone long before it
was given that designation. We also note that the properties immediately
surrounding the Solarium are a series of eclectic, less densely dispersed parcels
not otherwise part of subdivisions or neighborhoods, further adding to the unique
character of the area immediately around the Solarium. (criterion a & b)
• The impacts of the size, location and design of the “lodging establishment”
use have minimal negative impacts on nearby properties because the site and
building size, location, and design is not being materially changed to
accommodate this proposed use. As such, any measured impacts of its current
size, location, and design have already been part and parcel to the site and to
the area from its inception and have been absorbed into the unique character of
the surrounding area. The site is located near other institutions, can be accessed
from several main streets, and is not tucked away in a strictly residential
neighborhood. The site is unique, designed by the original owners, a true relic in
the area, built with numerous rooms to accommodate the lodging establishment,
and well-suited to the neighborhood’s eclectic character. (criteria c)
• The “lodging establishment” use does not create any more impacts to the
neighborhood than would other uses allowed in the LMN zone district because
schools and churches, and the Mountain Kids center, far exceed the traffic
23
impacts, noise, and quantity of people coming and going and impacting the
neighborhood than would the “lodging establishment” use. In addition, the impact
of the Lodging Establishment use is commensurate with the following uses,
which are permitted in the LMN zone: group homes, care facilities, shelters for
victims of domestic violence, seasonal overflow shelters, and bed and breakfast
establishments. (criteria d)
• The “lodging establishment” use will not change the predominant character
of the surrounding area because the property is already suited for such use,
lodging use was one of the earliest approved uses of the property, the character
of the area is already diverse, highly active, and a patchwork of unique
properties. (criterial e)
• The “lodging establishment” use is compatible to other existing uses in this
particular portion of the LMN zone because the proposed lodging is small-scale,
on a large parcel, poses no additional builds or on-site parking needs, and has
previously been compatible with the other existing uses in this portion of the LMN
zone. (criteria f)
(5) In the case of the proposed “small scale reception center” use the APU criteria
(from the applicable criteria from 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code) can be met as
follows:
• The “small scale reception center” use is appropriate within this portion of
LMN zone, and conforms to the basic characteristics of this portion of LMN zone
because this is an active portion of the LMN zone sandwiched between (on the
east and west) two more commercialized areas with large-scale operations; this
portion of the LMN zone, as previously mentioned, is diverse, has special natural
and roadway buffers to separate the Solarium property from the more dense
residential neighborhoods, and conforms with other assembly-like institutions in
the nearby area that generate increased activities intermittently. (criterion a & b)
• The impacts of the size, location and design of the “small scale reception
center” use have minimal negative impacts on nearby properties because the site
is perfectly situated by the Spring Creek, abutted by a street, and surrounded by
less dense residential property or vacant property, its location is ideal for the
Small Scale Reception Center. In addition, the size of the property, the scale of
operations proposed thereon with respect to the Small-Scale Reception Center
(limited by the operating conditions attached hereto), and the use of shared off-
site parking rather than on-site parking render the impacts of the Small Scale
Reception Center use substantially below other assembly-related uses such as
churches and schools in this zone. With respect to design, and as previously
stated, the site is the unique design of its original owners perfectly equipped for
special events inside and outside. As no material changes are being proposed,
other than a zen garden to provide an additional buffer between the site and the
adjacent property, no material impacts of the size, location, and design of the site
are apparent. (criteria c)
• The “small scale reception center” use does not create any more impacts to
the neighborhood than would other uses allowed in the LMN zone district
24
because schools and churches exceed or are at least commensurate with the
traffic impacts, noise, and quantity of people coming and going and impacting the
neighborhood than would the “small scale reception center” use. In addition, the
Solarium will not have onsite parking for its events, such that the site will not
have additional parking activity as a result of the Small Scale Reception Center
use, as it will utilize other sites, already suited for large-scale parking. Much like
the churches and schools, activity would be intermittent and short-lived, and
generally at different times than those other institutions, such that the activity
from the Small Scale Reception Center is unlikely to overlap with or occur at the
same time as the activities of the churches and schools. With regard to other
allowable uses in the zone, irrespective of whether those uses are existing now,
the traffic, activity, noise, and overall impact associated with the Small Scale
Reception Center will be no greater than those associated with neighborhood
recreational facilities, child care centers, and other community facilities. All such
permitted and existing uses discussed above generate intermittent high-volume
activities that have an impact on the neighborhood but have been proven to exist
well within the context of the LMN zone, and particularly in this portion thereof.
(criteria d)
• The “small scale reception center” use will not change the predominate
character of the surrounding area because as previously discussed, the
character of the area is unique and diverse, with several institutional facilities
hosting large-scale activities intermittently throughout any given week (we note
that the baseball fields generate quite a bit of sanctioned activity on weekends
during baseball season). The surrounding area is well-equipped for and home to
cycles of high-volume activity and the Small Scale Reception Center would not
require a deviation from this character trait of the surrounding area. (criterial e)
• The “small scale reception center” use is compatible to other existing uses in
this particular portion of the LMN zone because, as previously discussed,
churches, schools, the Mountain Kids Center, Spring Park in during baseball
season, etc. all generate high-volume of people flowing into the area for an event
or occasion and subsequently flowing out of the area once said event or
occasion is complete. The Small Scale Reception Center use is compatible in
that it generates a flow of people to and from the area for short events (much like
a church service, and much shorter than a school day or school function) and
these people subsequently leave the area at the conclusion of the event. It is
prescribed, contained, and short-lived as are similar assembly uses in this
portion of the LMN zone. (criteria f)
25