Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission - MINUTES - 02/25/20252/5/2025– MINUTES Page 1 Planning & Zoning Commission SPECIAL MEETING 5 February, 2025 – 6:00 PM Council Chambers, City Hall 300 Laporte Ave Also via Zoom CALL TO ORDER: Chair Stackhouse called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. ROLL CALL a.Commission Members Present – •Julie Stackhouse (Chair) •Adam Sass (Vice Chair) •Russell Connelly •David Katz •Shirley Peel •Ted Shepard •York b.Commission Members Absent – •None c.Staff Members Present – •Clay Frickey, Planning Manager •Heather Jarvis, Assistant City Attorney •Melissa Matsunaka, Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) Admin •Krista Kidwell, Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) Admin •Justine Vonkoepping, FCTV •Em Myler, Development Liaison •Arlo Schumann, Planner •Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations •Sophia Buckingham •Stephanie Boster d. Guest(s) – •Jorja White Chair Stackhouse provided background on the Commission’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the role of the Commission and noted that members are volunteers appointed by City Council. The Commission members review the analysis by staff, the applicants’ presentations, and input from the public and make a determination regarding whether each proposal meets the Land Use Code. She noted that this is a legal hearing, and that she will moderate for civility and fairness. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 2 AGENDA REVIEW Clay Frickey, Planning Manager, stated all items will be heard as originally advertised. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. DISCUSSION 1.Prospect Plaza Redevelopment, Site Plan Advisory Review SPA240003 This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) to develop a 5-story student oriented apartment building. The plan proposes the demolition of eleven 3-story apartment buildings and a multi-tenant commercial building. The new building proposed will provide 696 rentable bedrooms and 418 parking spaces. The SPAR process allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide a decision within 60 days of submittal of a Development Application. Arlo Schumann, City Planner The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System, Campus Delivery 6009, Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU STRATA, 2537 Research Blvd, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Staff Presentation Arlo Schumann, Planner, noted this item is a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR). He discussed the site location and showed slides of the site, which is zoned as High-Density Mixed-Use (HMN) and designated as Urban Mixed-Use District in the Structure Plan. Additionally, the site is located within the City’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay and is part of the West Central Neighborhoods Subarea Plan. Schumann outlined the requirements of the SPAR process and associated deadlines. He noted that should the Commission not approve the project, that decision can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of the CSU Board of Governors. Schumann noted SPAR reviews examine location, character, and extent. Schumann stated the site is approximately 4.5 acres with eleven 3-story residential buildings and a multi-tenant commercial building. The proposal is for a five-story apartment building with 696 bedrooms and a plan to rent by the bedroom. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 3 Applicant Presentation Tom Berry, Holland Basham Architects, showed slides of the existing site and noted the residential buildings are nearing the end of their useful life. He stated the redevelopment of the site and additional housing aligns with the joint CSU/City Student Housing Action Plan. He stated the proposal is for 225 apartment units consisting of 696 bedrooms, a structured parking garage containing 324 parking spaces, and 46 surface parking spaces. Berry discussed the site design which seeks to separate vehicles from pedestrian and bike areas. He showed renderings of the proposed project and discussed the intention to provide a more human scale along Prospect Road. Berry addressed questions from the Commission’s work session, with the first being how the project is incorporating the contextual heigh setback requirement of the HMN zone. Berry stated three of the four sides of the property are under the jurisdiction of CSU and therefore do not have the lower height requirement; however, along the south side of the property, the building has been limited to four stories. In terms of the requirement for articulation in walls greater than 40 feet in length in the HMN zone, Berry stated there have been efforts to vary materials and break up façades. Regarding the requirements for roof design, Berry stated the design includes sloped parapets, variation in parapet heights, and horizontal shade elements at most of the storefront windows. Regarding entrances and orientation, Berry stated the design is meant to draw users into the main entry corridor. Staff Response Schumann discussed some of the matters raised during the review process, including that the lighting be capped at 3,000 kelvin color temperature, which is in alignment with City standards. He noted the applicant has agreed to that. Additionally, Schumann noted that questions were raised regarding the human scale along Prospect Road. Those Planning concerns have been addressed in design changes, as have comments about landscaping at the southwest corner of the site. Schumann noted the project requested and received a variance from Engineering for the spacing of the site access in relation to the Centre and Prospect intersection, with the condition that the access be a right-in, right-out movement. Schumann stated Engineering requested an additional condition based on the traffic study for an extended drive before the parking starts on the site to provide for safer traffic flows. Schumann outlined comments that were made during the neighborhood meeting, including concerns about traffic impacts and potential conflicts with the site access along Prospect Road, concerns about general pedestrian safety, questions about the existing and planned bus stop, questions about affordability given the existing buildings provide some more affordable units for students, and questions about the displacement of existing student tenants during construction. Schumann showed renderings of the building’s primary access point on Lake Street and the articulation being provided on the long sides of the building. He stated staff is recommending the Commission approve the Prospect Plaza Redevelopment Site Plan Advisory Review with the findings of fact that the location of the development is consistent with the policies in City Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Plan, the character of the Prospect Plaza Redevelopment conforms with the City’s landscape and other design standards that are adopted by CSU, and the extent of the proposed development is integrated into the surrounding context through on-site and perimeter landscaping, accommodation of existing transit routes and utilities, public sidewalk improvements, ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 4 and access control to mitigate traffic operations. Schumann stated staff is also recommending a condition that the drive aisle on the Prospect entrance be extended to 75 feet. Commission Questions Commissioner Katz asked about the width of a section of the Lake Street frontage. Berry replied it is about 70 feet. Commissioner Katz asked if there is any articulation in that portion of the frontage. Berry replied it is fairly flat, though there is some depth change where the stone meets the wood paneling. Commissioner Katz asked about the width of the sections between the wood on the Prospect Road frontage. Berry replied they are about 75 feet. Commissioner Katz asked about the current building standards for width without articulation. Schumann replied it is 40 feet maximum. Berry read from the Code section discussing the way façade articulation can be accomplished. Commissioner Shepard asked about the ramp system. Berry showed the ramp location to the accessible waiting area for the bus stop, but noted some reevaluations of floodplain modeling are underway which may change the location a bit. Commissioner Shepard noted there is projected to be about two feet of water depth for the 100-year rain event in the plaza and asked if a floodplain use permit will be sought from the Stormwater Utility. Berry replied in the negative. Commissioner Shepard noted there is a great deal of water passing through the site and asked if the building entrances are flood proofed. Berry replied they are elevated above the floodplain and there are accessible exits to the east, west, and south that would not exit into the floodplain. Commissioner Shepard asked if the flooding diagram that was shown was FEMA or a City drainage basin. Fred Haberecht, applicant team, replied it is a CSU regulated floodplain which is modeled and maintained by CSU in consultation with the City. He noted CSU has an IGA with the City to maintain the floodplain and not exceed flows. Commissioner Shepard asked if there is on-site detention on the site. Megan Walter, Sunny Civil, replied the floodplain is regulated and by CSU and the floodplain map will be updated to show a no- rise in the flood elevation anywhere. Walter noted detention and water quality are City-regulated items and work has been done with City staff, but because the impervious area of the property is being reduced with this project, the requirement for traditional detention has been waived. Additionally, the water quality requirements of the City are being met by implementing water quality ponds throughout the site. Commissioner Shepard asked where the water goes. Walter replied it does flood, but then goes into an inlet, which will be improved with the project, that eventually leads to the Arthur Ditch. Commissioner York asked about the projected lifespan of the new building. Berry replied it is expected to be 30-50 years. Commissioner York noted that is less than the current buildings on the site. He asked about the location of the electrical boxes and whether they will be screened if they are external to the building. Berry replied they are working with City staff on transformer locations and stated one proposed location is along the east side of the site in a breezeway such that they are not visible. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 5 Commissioner York asked if the traffic study for the Prospect and Centre intersection included bike and pedestrian crossings made at-grade or via the tunnel. Steve Gilchrist, Traffic Operations, replied the numbers represent the crossings at-grade. He stated levels of service are not necessarily evaluated for grade-separated crossings as they do not impact the overall traffic. Commissioner Shepard asked about the enhancement of landscaping along Prospect Road. Berry replied it is not yet in final form, but stated elements such as seating walls, planting beds, and colored concrete or pavers are being considered for the entrance to the pedestrian walkway. He noted there is also a detached sidewalk with a tree lawn further down Prospect and there will be decorative security fencing in front of the courtyards with planting beds likely in front of that. Commissioner Shepard asked if there would be street trees in the tree lawn. Berry replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Shepard asked if the lighting in the exposed areas would be concealed. Berry replied the intention is for a soft glow, though they could look into shielding the light sources. Public Participation Jorja White urged CSU STRATA to consider the direct impact this project will have on students. She commended the focus on transit access and adding extra bedrooms in the redevelopment plan and urged the developers to prioritize rental affordability. Applicant Response Pete Meyer, CSU STRATA Vice President of Real Estate, stated the mission of CSU STRATA is to work on behalf of CSU for the benefit of the students. He noted STRATA is a non-profit and has a fiduciary responsibility that must be balanced with the commitment to CSU. He stated the goal of the project is to provide a continued affordable option for students while also creating an atmosphere that students will enjoy. He also noted they are working with multiple groups to potentially provide housing options for some of the students currently living in Prospect Plaza. Commission Questions and Deliberation Commissioner Shepard asked about the details of the Lake Street improvements. Gilchrist replied that the Lake Street project is a joint project between the City and CSU and is primarily an active modes capital project. Commissioner Shepard asked if CSU STRATA is anticipated to participate financially in the project. Gilchrist replied that is a potential. Commissioner Katz stated this is one of the most intriguing apartment buildings he has seen from a design perspective; however, he expressed concern about the massing of the façades, and noted that, while there are color and material changes, he would like to see more projections and recessions in the design elements to create more articulation. Vice Chair Sass echoed Commissioner Katz’ comments and commended the attention that has been paid to the other sides of the building. Commissioner Shepard also concurred with the comments about articulation and commented on the well-done, generous landscaping along Prospect at Aggie Village North. He suggested that needs to be replicated in this project and encouraged the placement of street trees on 30- or 35-foot centers ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 6 rather than the required 40-foot centers to help mitigate the building mass. Chair Stackhouse encouraged the developer to keep the project as affordable as possible and stated that may be more important than having additional articulation. Commissioner Katz stated he would like to condition an approval on adding articulation, or he would be voting to deny the project. Vice Chair Sass stated it is important to understand that the Code is quite clear about accomplishing façade articulation and stated this building does not meet that standard. He stated he would like to add a condition as well. Schumann stated his measurements of the plans showed a 40-foot section on the Lake Street façade, and 70-75 feet along the east side of the building. Berry confirmed those measurements. Vice Chair Sass clarified he would like to see the first bay of the east façade have additional articulation, even if that is minimal. Commissioner Shepard and Vice Chair Katz concurred. Commissioner Peel requested staff input regarding their reasoning for recommending approval given the lack of articulation. Schumann replied there is a change in materials and he didn’t know the exact dimensions of each section of material offhand. He noted there is articulation at the ground floor. Additionally, he stated as he was examining the project within the SPAR criteria of location, character, and extent, and the building overall works within the context of CSU’s buildings and CSU’s own building design criteria. Chair Stackhouse asked the applicant to weigh in on whether there is any flexibility to add articulation. Berry stated he believed the charge of the Commission was to either approve or deny the project and make suggestions, with which the applicant could agree; however, it cannot make a decision with a condition. Frickey stated Division 6.11 of the Land Use Code states that conditions of approval are not applicable in SPAR reviews. Chair Stackhouse asked the applicant whether the articulation and landscaping suggestions would be taken into consideration. Berry replied that the applicant team has worked collaboratively with staff on this project and hopes for that to continue; however, the suggestions will need to be evaluated in terms of cost impact. He stated the suggestions could be evaluated. Commissioner Peel stated that while she understands the concerns of her fellow Commissioners, she is fine with the building as is. Commissioner York concurred there is a concern with the amount of massing lacking articulation, and noted that is of particular concern for pedestrians and cyclists. He expressed concern about the entirety of the CSU campus feeling like a large wall. Vice Chair, Sass requested clarification on the 75-foot drive aisle issue and asked how that should be handled procedurally given conditions cannot be made. Assistant City Attorney Jarvis stated the issue is presented within the staff report and sample motions as a condition and suggested it could be stated as a suggestion rather than a condition should the Commission desire. Chair Stackhouse expressed support for moving forward with approval given the dialogue that has occurred regarding the east side of the building and the landscaping, particularly given Colorado statutes for the SPAR process and the need for affordability. She also encouraged good decision making as final plans are brought forward. ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1 2/5/2025– MINUTES Page 7 Commissioner Connelly also expressed support for moving forward with approval and commended the project. He stated he is confident the applicants will act in good faith to address the Commission’s concerns, but noted it is important the project is cost-effective. Commissioner Katz stated he would vote to deny the project as is, though he does want the project to move forward. Commissioner Shepard expressed sensitivity to the affordability issue but noted the project is not subject to City fees. He also commented on the positive change in CSU adding on-campus housing. Vice Chair Sass moved, seconded by Commissioner Connelly, that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the development plan submitted showing the location, character, and extent thereof of the Prospect Plaza Redevelopment, SPA240003. This approval is pursuant with the Colorado Revised Statutes 31-23-209, and is based on this Commission’s finding that the submitted site development plan meets the applicable Land Use Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 6.11.2(Q) with additional site development detail as described in the comment letter to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University system’s representative and the representative’s responses providing additional plan details satisfactory to support this approval. This decision is further based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during this hearing, and the Commission discussion with the applicant on this item. The Commission hereby adopts the information, analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions regarding this Site Plan Advisory Review contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing. Yeas: Shepard, Peel, Connelly, Sass and Stackhouse. Nays: Katz and York. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chair Stackhouse thanked Ms. White for coming forward with comments and asked that the concerns mentioned be taken into consideration. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT a.Chair Stackhouse moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by Krista Kidwell Minutes approved by the Chair and a vote of the Board/Commission on 03/26/25 ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1