Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/17/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z Final Agenda PacketPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSESSION AGENDA Friday, January 11, 2013, noon to 3 pm 281 N. College Conference Room A Consent (20 minutes)  LUC – Election Signs (Barnes)  LUC – Non-native Trees (Buchanan) Discussion (60 minutes)  SHAP (Sowder)  SPAR – PRPA Dixon Substation (Albertson-Clark)  SPAR – PRPA Timberline Substation (Albertson-Clark) Other (15 minutes)  2012 Annual Report Worksession Project Updates:  Affordable Housing Redevelopment Displacement Mitigation Strategies (Waido) – 30 minutes  Citizen Feedback -Development Review Improvements (Burnett) – 45 minutes  CAG Representative – 10 minutes City Council 2/5/13 2/5/13 2/19/13 1st Reading 3/5/13 1st Reading 1 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JANUARY 11, 2013 WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY STAFF Laurie M. Kadrich, Community Development & Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Development Review Liaison SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Planning and Zoning Board review and direction regarding concerns about the development review process EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past several months, issues related to the development review process have been raised by a variety of individuals. One citizen outlined his concerns about the review process at the August 2012 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. At that time, it was suggested that the Planning and Zoning Board hold a work session to discuss these concerns as well as those raised elsewhere. In October, the Neighborhood Development Review Liaison position was filled. A number of unsolicited comments have been received, as well as comments from individuals contacted proactively after appeal hearings were completed. At the December 17, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Work Session, the Board indicated that they would like to review issues that have been raised at their January 11, 2013 Work Session. The Background/Discussion section below includes themes of comments during Planning and Zoning Board and City Council comment periods over the past several months. It should be noted that no formal public engagement process has yet taken place. The issues listed below have been identified through various communications with approximately fifteen individuals, and, as such, may not be complete or representative of the feedback that might be received in a public engagement process. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the Board want staff to use these themes as a basis to move forward with a public engagement process to explore ways to improve the development review process? 2. Of the issues identified to date, are there some that the Board agrees with and would like to handle separately from any public engagement process? 3. Are there other issues to be explored that the Board would like to add to those already identified? 4. What involvement would the Board like to have in following up on these issues? 2 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The comments and concerns may be grouped in general themes, as listed below. These issues could be further examined by staff upon direction of the Board. 1. Lack of Information About Process  Zoning and Land Use Code issues are complex and citizens struggle to know how to participate and to read and understand provisions on their own.  Citizens often do not know there will be a staff report with a recommendation, and what that recommendation will be.  Citizens often do not know that there will be a Planning and Zoning Work Session where staff reviews the project with Board members prior to hearing.  Suggestion: review content of Citizen’s Guide to Development Review, and update as needed. 2. Outreach and Transparency of Public Information  Several have noted that conceptual reviews, neighborhood meetings, staff reviews, hearing agendas, and documents filed by applicants should be available online, and easily accessible.  Some would like to be able to look up project listings by address, or break up listings by quadrants within the city, while other prefer looking up projects by project number or name.  Several have noted a concern that scanned (pdf) documents on website are not searchable.  One resident said she stumbled upon the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) information one day on the website, and believes outreach could be improved.  One citizen believes all meetings with staff and applicant should be public. 3. Neighborhood Meetings  A repeated theme is the residents are concerned that input from neighborhood meetings and citizen comments do not impact proposals, so that citizens are burdened with meetings, but with no actual beneficial outcome. (What is the real purpose of neighborhood meetings?)  Several have noted a need to “close the loop” with neighborhoods regarding questions that were not answered at neighborhood meeting, and possibly to consider a way to give neighborhoods another chance to have more discussion at some point during the review process.  There is a concern that neighborhood meetings are not well documented, and that the documentation is subject to the planner’s discretion. 4. Staff Reports/Recommendations  There is a belief that staff recommendations are a powerful influence on decisionmakers, and that they are written in such a way that it is difficult for the Board to reach a different conclusion. This seems particularly important on issues/projects that could be viewed as close calls by decisionmakers for meeting or not meeting standards.  Why do staff reports not simply state the relevant standards and outline how the developer proposes to meet the standards?  For more subjective standards and/or modifications, could the report provide justifications for decisionmakers to approve OR deny? This would provide decisionmakers with a rationale for a decision in either direction on standards that are more subjective.  Another person suggested that staff should not make recommendations for modifications of standards, but instead to describe the code, the proposed modifications, and requirements that must be met in order to approve them.  Staff not perceived to be neutral given actions and recommendations to approve.  Citizens felt betrayed when staff report came out making recommendations to approve, when at neighborhood meeting, they were told staff was neutral in process. 3 5. Hearing Process Concerns  Citizens report feeling disempowered by process; feel excluded from decision-making process that will impact daily lives.  A concern been expressed about the fairness of staff presentations of projects to Board Members in Work Sessions.  One developer expressed a concern that citizens who may be neutral or supportive may be afraid to speak up if their neighbors are opposed to a project.  The disparity in time between City and applicant (often combined for 90 minutes of organized presentations for a project) as opposed for time for citizens who typically may speak only for three minutes has been noted by several residents.  The current hearing lacks the opportunity for an organized presentation from a group of citizens.  Others have noted that citizens are surprised to learn that a hearing is not a back and forth dialogue and that citizens are likely to have only three minutes to speak.  The Planning and Zoning Board members (in hearings) and City Councilmembers (in appeal hearings) often dialogue freely with staff and applicant, but rarely do decisionmakers ask questions of citizens.  In appeal hearings when the appellants are citizens, City Councilmembers often ask many questions and have dialogue with the developer’s representatives, instead of with the appellants.  During dialogue, promises are sometimes made by developers in order to gain approval in the hearing (or appeal hearing). When these statements are not included in the plan under review or in the motion to approve, the promises are meaningless.  Citizen letters do not allow for dialogue.  More than one citizen involved with more than one project has cited staff and developer conferring to plan rebuttal of citizen comments.  Planning and Zoning Board comments: o There is a need for more neighborhood dialogue before a project reaches its hearing. o There is a need to set expectations prior to hearings so that the public is aware that staff will make recommendations. o Consider adding a pre-hearing meeting with neighborhoods. (A trigger would need to be determined.) o In conduct of the hearing, jargon should not be used. o Consider adding an outline of the hearing process with hearing notices, online, and/or on the screen at the hearing.  A concern has been expressed about the enforceability of conditions of approval and how they are documented to ensure that they are (1) unambiguous, (2) include a remedy, and (3) comply with statutory limitations to vested entitlement. This concern has been forwarded to the City Attorney’s office for review; the City Attorney will advise City Council as needed. 6. Connection of the Development Review Process to Planning Documents  What is the connection of the review process to the relevant planning documents?  How can the variety of uses envisioned in City Plan or in sub-area plans be realized when projects are considered individually? Decisionmakers often cite such plans in their discussions, but final decisions tend to rest only on provisions of the Land Use Code.  How can the cumulative effects of one type of development in an area (often discussed as a negative in planning documents) be addressed when projects are considered individually? Recent examples include (1) high density, short term tenancy housing in areas without grocery retail, (2) multiple Additions of Permitted Uses for offices in single family areas, and (3) auto-related uses on North College Avenue. 4 7. Use of Additions of Permitted Uses  Citizens have expressed concerns about the use of Additions of Permitted Uses (APU), particularly in Low Density Residential (RL) district and Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL) district. Concerns include: o Staff recommends APU instead of rezoning (and that staff asserts it is not spot rezoning) since rezoning is difficult to get through. (In some cases, neighbors prefer APU to rezoning.) o APU grants windfall to property with APU, adversely impacts neighboring property values (citing example of sale of property immediately following APU on Shields/Mulberry). o The permanent nature of the APU leads to future uncertainty after sale of property. o Belief that maintaining low density residential zoning is not a priority of planning staff, and therefore recommendations to decision makers reflect that priority. o Perception that concerns were downplayed or ignored (in APU, alternate development must not create any greater negative impacts than other permitted uses).  In Planning and Zoning Board Work Session discussion, the following questions were raised: o Should APU be allowed in cases of existing development but not for new development? If allowed for new developments, should there be higher standards? o If the approved use is not used for two years or more, should the APU expire and no longer be allowed?  One citizen suggested that City Council examine reasons for establishing APU. This person believes it was added to the code with the intent of allowing minor changes to a zone district, but now that purpose is not being followed. This leads to unpredictability for existing property owners. 8. Specific Land Use Code (LUC) Concerns (in addition to Addition of Permitted Use)  A need for better outreach and citizen participation when potential Land Use Code changes has been noted, particularly by staff and Board members.  Suggestion: when Land Use Code changes are being considered, specific changes should be listed in the agenda, not just “Land Use Code Changes” as an agenda item.  LUC standards in multifamily developments – “if we continue to permit inadequate parking in all of our residential infill on a routine basis, we will no longer look as we do now”  Concern that no parking minimums in new/proposed Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) projects will impact neighboring properties adjacent to the TOD, and that the long term density goals of the City benefit developers while externalizing impacts and harming neighborhoods. (Concern that staff seems to be focused on achieving City Plan goal of increased density while overlooking City Plan goal to preserve neighborhood quality and character.) 9. Precedence  One commenter felt staff doesn’t always consider the reason and extensive thought and review that Land Use Code provisions or changes were implemented (in this case the concern was the lot size minimum of 5,000 square feet in Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (NCM)).  Similarly, another resident felt current practices for proposing Additions of Permitted Use (APU) were very different than what was presented to decisionmakers when the APU provisions were added to the code.  There is a concern that granting modifications will set a precedent for future modifications even though the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size was implemented because it was deemed to be undesirable in the future.  Another resident was also concerned about precedent-setting. This person believed the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) allowing multi-family development in an Residential, 5 Low Density (RL) district would be make it more likely that APU would be approved in more and more circumstances once precedent was set. UPDATE ON EFFORTS TO INCREASE AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY Because of customer feedback and CDNS’s commitment to provide accessible information in a timely way, major efforts to improve the availability of information about development projects took place in 2012. Improvements will continue to be a priority of CDNS staff in 2013. These include:  A weekly development review email and webpage with information on scheduled neighborhood meetings, Type 1 and 2 hearings, and other development-review related board and commission meetings.  Complete Planning and Zoning Board packets and Administrative Hearing packets  Improved and expanded access to documents related to specific projects through a newly- launched current projects webpage.  Updated development review signage, adding a number to facilitate finding more information.  Updated map of current projects, with links to more information about each project.  New index of conceptual review projects to facilitate locating projects. Staff comments will be added starting in 2013. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Citizen Communications AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD -- CITY OF FORT COLLINS Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard at the time and place specified. Please contact the Current Planning Department for further information on any of the agenda items at 221-6750. DATE: Thursday, January 17, 2013 TIME: 6:00 P.M. PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO A. Roll Call B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, January 17, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) D. Election of Officers E. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board, staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda. 1. Minutes from the December 14, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing and the December 20 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 2. Land Use Code (LUC) Amendment Related to the Removal of Election Signs This is a request for a recommendation to City Council on the proposed Amendment to the City’s Land Use Code to change the length of time allowed to remove election signs from four days after an election to five days after an election. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Peter Barnes 3. Land Use Code (LUC) Amendments Related to Ecological Value of Non-Native Trees, Tree Mitigation Radius, and Clerical Changes This is a request for a recommendation to City Council on the proposed Amendments to Section 3.2.1(F), 3.4.1(D)(1), – Non-native Trees and Tree Mitigation Radii so that if such trees are found by an Ecological Characterization Study to have ecological value, they are to be preserved or mitigated. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Lindsay Ex/Tim Buchanan F. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 4. Student Housing Action Plan This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the Student Housing Action Plan scheduled for City Council consideration on February 19, 2013. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Beth Sowder/Laurie Kadrich The Planning and Zoning Board is the final authority on the following items: 5. Site Plan Advisory Review – Platte River Power Authority Dixon Substation Walls, #SPAR120005 This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review for Platte River Power Authority (PRPA). PRPA is proposing to construct a new 12 foot high concrete block wall for security and screening purposes at their Dixon Creek Substation located at 2555 S. Overland Trail. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Lindsay Ex/Sherry Albertson-Clark 6. Site Plan Advisory Review – Platte River Power Authority Timberline Substation Walls, #SPAR120005 This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review for Platte River Power Authority (PRPA). PRPA is proposing to construct a new 12 foot high concrete block wall for security and screening purposes at their Timberline Substation located at 1809 S Timberline Road. Applicant: City of Fort Collins Staff: Lindsay Ex/Sherry Albertson-Clark G. Other Business - 2012 Annual Report H. Adjourn Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing Minutes December 14, 2012 12:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the special meeting to order at 12:10 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Staff Present: Kadrich, Daggett, Albertson-Clark, and Sanchez-Sprague Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Citizen participation: None Consent Agenda: None Discussion Agenda: 1. Proposed Land Use Code Regulation for Local Oil and Gas Development _______ Project: Proposed Land Use Code to Amend Division 2 Project Description: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council to amend Division 2 of the Land Use (LUC) to allow for the processing of applications for development of property that is not yet under the full ownership and control of the applicant or developer. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Director Laurie Kadrich said this LUC amendment has already gone to the City Council on 1stg Reading at their December 14, 2012 meeting. It was brought to her attention during a review of the redevelopment of the Foothills Mall project. Part of their timing for construction would require them to get through a certain part of the process. Right now they do not have ownership of all the land within the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Plan. She said the language of the code is very specific that they must have clear title or ownership of all the properties prior to submitting an application.This change is to allow Planning & Zoning Board Special Hearing December 14, 2012 Page 2 the review process to occur at the same time that an owner or developer may still be working to acquire the land. Kadrich said the more they reviewed it, the more it seemed to be a good idea because of the complications with property acquisition such as bankruptcy, a trust situation, or in this case a URA (Urban Renewal Authority) action. In essence what this amendment would do would allow the process to continue at the risk of the developer. There is nothing to allow a developer to submit a less than adequate application for board review. The developer would have to pay to get all the design work done and to complete the entire submittal process prior to review by the board. They would not, however, be able to do any construction until the ownership was secured. Board Questions Member Schmidt said she’s confused because very often we get applications and in their presentation they say this is their plan and once its approved they will purchase the land. In that case is it the owner of the property making the application or the developer? Director Kadrich said that usually the developer has a contract that states once they receive entitlements they agree to purchase. In that case the property owner agrees the development will occur once they complete the process. Kadrich said if this change is made, the developer would not need that document to make application for development. Member Schmidt asked what type of criteria would be used by the Director. She’s thinking of potential student housing projects. Director Kadrich said the criterion is specifically outlined in the proposed code changes. First, the developer would have to have the majority (51%) of the land under ownership--it could not be an entirely speculative. In addition, there would have to be some community interest to be served in moving forward to complete the application process. The community interest might be new jobs or to fill an affordable housing gap. She said the goal is to have the project process quickened to be able to begin construction. Member Schmidt asked why this particular process would be exempt from the 6 month delay should the proposal be denied. Schmidt stated the proposed ordinance states denial of an incomplete application that has been allowed to proceed to decision maker shall not cause a post denial re-submittal delay under the provisions of Section 2.2.11(D)(9). Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett said the reason for that language is because there’s a limitation on resubmitting. If, in fact, the PDP application was denied and it was an accumulation of parcels but one parcel which was not ultimately acquired, then it theoretically could harm the property owner if they were limited to submitting a proposal on the remaining parcel for 6 months. Schmidt said in that case, the property owner was not a part of the original proposal and the 6 month delay should not apply. Daggett said the problem is the way the code currently reads. That could be refined on Council’s 2nd Reading ordinance version. Member Schmidt asked in the situation where the development proposal moved forward and the last remaining parcel is not ultimately acquired; could the PDP (Project Development Plan) be modified and part of the same submittal. Kadrich said she thinks it could be modified if the majority of the land is acquired. It could be small enough amount that would require a modification but not in the sense of a planning and zoning modification. Member Hatfield asked if on the proposed ordinance under (B) (1) it would be possible to strike the words “the majority and under (B) (3) to add the owner. He said this would give the owner pretty good protection. Director Kadrich said the kinds of suggestions being made are what the code is currently and it’s for that reason we’re asking for an amendment. There are situations where the developer does not have the consent of all property owners and that is in essence the purpose for requesting this amendment. He said he’d like to see more protection for the owner than the developer. Kadrich said the protection for the owner comes in there can be no construction on their property. This change only Planning & Zoning Board Special Hearing December 14, 2012 Page 3 allows the process to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board or a Hearing Officer. It does not allow construction upon land that is not owned. Daggett said not only does it not allow construction, it doesn’t allow recording of the final documents until full ownership is obtained. That means they can get through the process to the point where the plat can be recorded. Hatfield said if the owner is not added to (B) (3) they would not have a say. Kadrich said in this case, the purpose is to allow for someone other than the property owner to take a development application forward with or without the consent of the owner in order to get ready for construction once they secure the property. Public Input None Board Discussion Member Campana said the ordinance is pretty well crafted and covers a gap we have in our Land Use Code (LUC). Member Schmidt said she feels comfortable if the language could be revised before second reading to make clearer the intent about the owner’s ability to submit a development on the remaining parcel that was not a part of the original application. Member Carpenter said she could see a time when an application goes through the development review process and the applicant is not able to secure all the land. They would need to come back to change what they’re doing and you wouldn’t want them to have to wait 6 months to do that. Kadrich said it would depend on the timing of when that information is known. If it’s after the application is submitted but before the board reviews, it could be changed within our internal process. If on the other hand, it’s after the board has taken action, then it may be considered a new application. Member Stockover said he’s on the same page as Member Carpenter. If it’s approved and they cannot proceed or if it’s denied and they cannot proceed, the 6 month delay was put in place to protect the affected neighbors who’ve worked hard to make their case for a different proposal. He thinks it does need a word or two more to clearly state who we’re trying to protect. Member Schmidt said in fairness for how we treat other projects, she doesn’t know why this would be different. Campana said it would be difficult to tie it to the applicant and not the property. Campana said if we’re trying to prevent a constant ‘grind’ on the neighborhood, what’s to prevent someone returning under a new LLC (Limited Liability Corporation). Member Stockover said the gist is we have the mall and one unwilling participant. If denied, will that one unwilling participant going to buy all the property and do the same thing? Member Carpenter said we need to look at this wider than the mall. Deputy Attorney Daggett said she’d like to point out the ordinance has been adopted on 1st Reading. She then noted that the City Council can choose to modify it on 2nd Reading, if it desires. One idea that may go to one point of this discussion would be to add a clause to the effect that states: “The denial of an incomplete application that has been allowed to proceed to the decision maker under the provisions of this Section shall not cause a post denial re- submittal delay under the provisions of Section 2.2.11(D) (9) for property not owned or under the control of the applicant.” Chair Smith thinks the amendment is creative and it affords protection for the property owner, which was his first concern. With that he can be supportive of making that recommendation to City Council. Planning & Zoning Board Special Hearing December 14, 2012 Page 4 Member Schmidt made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council the adoption of Ordinance 149, 2012 with the change that adds language like that suggested regarding post-denial re-submittal delays (add ‘for property not owned or under the control of the applicant’). Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Other Business: None The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair Planning and Zoning Board Special Hearing Minutes December 20, 2012 6:00 p.m. Council Liaison: Mayor Weitkunat Staff Liaison: Laurie Kadrich Chair: Andy Smith Phone: (H) 482-7994 Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call: Campana, Carpenter, Kirkpatrick, Schmidt, Smith, and Stockover Unexcused Absence: Hatfield Staff Present: Kadrich, Daggett, Lorson, Barnes, Holland, and Sanchez-Sprague Agenda Review CDNS Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the agenda and noted the Board has requested that item 2 Hansen Farm Annexation and Zoning, # ANX12007 be moved to the Discussion Agenda. Citizen participation: None Chair Smith said the consent agenda items consist of items with no known opposition or concern. He asked if the board, staff, or audience wanted to pull any items from the discussion agenda. No one did. Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes from the November 1 and November 15, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings 3. Land Use Code (LUC) Amendments Related to Medical Marijuana Businesses Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the minutes from the November 1, 2012 Special Hearing and the November 15, 2012 Hearing, and the Land Use Code Amendments Related to Medical Marijuana Businesses. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Hansen Farm Annexation and Zoning, #ANX120007 4. Discount Tire at North College Marketplace, Lot 7 Addition of Permitted Use and Project Development Plan, #PDP120024 Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 2 _______ Project: Hansen Farm Annexation and Zoning, #ANX120007 Project Description: The applicant and property owner have submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 69.42 acres into the City located on the west side of Timberline Road, approximately 1.5 miles south of Harmony Road. The property, formerly a farm, is primarily vacant with the exception of the farmhouse (single-family dwelling) and some out-buildings. It is in the FA1 – Farming Zone District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is NC – Neighborhood Commercial (6.33 acres), MMN – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (16.69 acres), and LMN – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (46.40 acres). Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in the NC – Neighborhood Commercial (6.33 acres), MMN – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (16.69 acres), and LMN – Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (46.4 acres) zone districts. Staff is also recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary should the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that this property be place on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Seth Lorson said this is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property owned by HTC, LLC (McWhinney) and is located within the Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA), the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State statutes. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the Willow Springs Subdivision (2002) to the north, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. Lorson spoke to some questions raised by the board at their work session on December 14. He said based on the grocery development that has occurred on Harmony Road (King Soopers, Safeway, Sprouts, Super Target), the likelihood of another grocery locating at this site appeared to be diminished. A more logical commercial development at this location would be more in the scale of neighborhood convenience shopping, which is typically 6-10 acres. The proposed zoning request for this annexation is for 6.33 acres of Neighborhood Commercial; 16.69 acres of MMN; and 46.4 acres of LMN whereas the Structure Plan called for 8.4 acres of Neighborhood Commercial; 7.35 acres of MMN; and 53.13 acres of LMN. The Neighborhood Commercial area is about two acres smaller than what is shown on the Structure Plan. It is proposed that it be re-configured and located to the south, farther from the Willow Springs neighborhood. The LMN area will be increased in size. During the development of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, staff received input from the Willow Springs neighborhood (to the north and adjacent to the Hansen Farm) expressing concern about the commercial and medium density/mixed-use areas and asking that the LMN area serve as a transition between these more intense areas to the south. The Hansen Farm has several key opportunities/constraints on the property, including the Mail Creek Ditch (along north side); existing tree groves along the north/northwest area of the property; and the existing farm buildings on the site and the Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 3 existence of these areas was also taken into consideration in evaluating the zoning proposal and its conformance with Structure Plan. Senior Planner Pete Wray provided a policy background for City Plan (1997) and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan (1998-1999). He said each request for an evaluation of a zoning proposal relative to Structure Plan is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by Long Range and Current Planning staff. After meeting with the applicant, the staff team met to analyze and evaluate the Hansen Farm Annexation and Zoning request and consider how the proposal related to Structure Plan. The reduced size of the Neighborhood Commercial area can still provide neighborhood services for the surrounding residential areas at a scale that is more viable, given the Harmony Road development that has occurred. Staff believes the proposed zoning for the Hansen Farm Annexation is consistent with the intent of Structure Plan and is a minor change that would not warrant an amendment to Structure Plan. Lorson reviewed maps that showed existing grocery and commercial zoning for the area that is border by South College, East Horsetooth, I-25, and E. County Road 30. Additionally he noted there are 641 residential units under construction and 805 residential units under review. Staff recommends approval of the annexation and recommends that the property be placed in the NC – Neighborhood Commercial (6.33 acres), MMN – Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (16.69 acres), and LMN – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (46.40 acres) zone districts. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary should the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that this property be place on the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map. Applicant Presentation Linda Ripley of Ripley Design, Inc. said she’s here representing McWhinney. She said Kim Perry is also here and she’ll be addressing the board. She said the Structure Plan (as mentioned by staff member Pete Wray) is really a broad brush. It’s intended to provide a basic framework of land use planning early on to guide future land use designations when properties are annexed. Often times those designations are made long before land owners are aware of what they want to do with their property. City Plan gives us guidance to how to use the Structure Plan – it is a guide for future zoning decisions. It also says specific zoning boundaries will be determined as part of the development review process for annexation that accesses detailed site conditions such as property boundaries, streets right-of-way, drainages, etc. That is what we’re doing here with this annexation and zoning. They took a close look at the proposed zoning on the Structure Plan and what happens as it’s overlaid onto the Hansen property. She reviewed slides that showed that overlay. She said the Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to be a mixed-use commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store and a transit stop. The main purpose of this District is to meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services, with an emphasis on serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods typically including a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. She said in addition to retail and service used, the District may include neighborhood-oriented uses such as schools, employment, day-care, parks, small civic facilities, as well as residential uses. The District is intended to function together with a surrounding Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, which in turn serves as a transition and a link to larger surrounding low density neighborhoods. The intent is for the component zone districts to form an integral, town-like pattern of development with this District as a center and focal point; and not merely a series of individual development projects in separate zone districts. The scale and design of a Neighborhood Commercial District should reinforce the positive identity, character, comfort, and convenience of the surrounding Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. It encourages two- to three-story buildings to establish the District as a focal point of activity and increase the potential for a vertical mix of uses, such as locating dwellings or offices over shops. Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 4 Ripley said you could do about the same sized center whether it was on the north or the south but she thinks there are advantages to putting it on the south. They think it allows for a multi-family project (usually the intent of MMN zoning) and it also allows a significant piece of property yet to the north of MMN. It allows them to go from the single family houses in Willow Springs (north) to a denser single- family project, then transition to a multi-family project, and then transition to a commercial center. It’s a classic land use transition. They believe it’s a better land use pattern. Ripley said City Plan actually stated the maximum size of a neighborhood center should be 7 acres. Since then staff member Pete Wray has indicated that’s incorrect. She believes that’s true as many of our centers are larger than that. It makes the point that a neighborhood center does not have to be 13- 15 acres to be a bona-fide neighborhood center. She showed a variety of slides with neighborhood centers including Beavers Market (7,000 square feet) and Vitamin Cottage (15,000 square feet). She said the center can be large what what’s designated in NC as MMN allows a variety of uses. She said their proposal does a better job of meeting the LUC (Land Use Code) than the Structure Plan initial layout. Kim Perry of McWhinney said she’s like to share some of the due diligence they’ve been doing the past 6-9 months. There have been discussions specifically for that site with retailers and potential tenants. She said they do a lot of retail and commercial development and are in constant contact with retailers and brokers (Sullivan Hayes) who specialize in retail development. Some of the responses have been the major players (such as Safeway and King Soopers) are already located in the Harmony Corridor. They are very concerned about cannibalizing their own stores. They would not build another store within 4 miles of an existing store. Perry said another common theme by the retailers is consumers want to group their trips. The grocery stores located on Harmony really serve that purpose well --there’s a critical mass that allows the consumer to group their trips together. The retailers really look at traffic at the sites where they want to locate. The average daily trip counts on Harmony in 2010 were 45,000 cars per day. Compare that to a 2011 Timberline traffic county of 15,000 average daily trips per day. She asked their traffic engineer where future growth would be. The long range plan for Timberline at their site for 2030 including all the projected growth is projected to be 23,000 vehicles per day. So even at full growth, it’s ½ of what Harmony is today. Perry said if you were to draw a circle with a 1-2 miles radius around their site, they’re looking for population density to be able to support that site. She pointed the southeast quadrant is filled with natural areas. That will never provide the population/density that would support a larger store. They do think there is a viable neighborhood center that can happen there. They are very committed at some point in time to try to bring that to life. They think there is potential for that for the scale they are showing on the plan. Member Schmidt said she liked the applicant’s comments about the uses available in the MMN zone. By moving the district down and having the road separate it, do you see that as feasible to have the commercial on one side and the MMN on the other side. Ripley said they could do other uses in MMN that would be supportive of a neighborhood center but if it’s on the other side of a collector street, how well is that going to work. Their intent would more likely be the 16 acres that sit to the north really would be dedicated to multi-family. If it had some type of commercial component, it would probably be a coffee shop—something used directly by the people living there. The center would more likely grow to the south or west – filling up those areas of MMN. It would not necessarily be constrained by the property line. Schmidt said that adjacent property is not being annexed and she had the impression that if that was a different property owner. Ripley said correct. Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 5 Chair Smith staff member Wray about the reference to an error related to NC is limited to 7 acres. What was it supposed to have been? Wray said typically it would be 10-20 acres. Staff is aware of the error and it will be fixed as soon as they can. Wray said he thinks there’s an opportunity when the property to the south is annexed. They are very unique properties with ditches and ponds all coming together in that area. As we come forward with future annexations there will be opportunities to consider the best use of the land. Public Input Jillian Harrison, 5260 Weeping Way, said her concerns are access and traffic from the development into Willow Springs and Harmony Crossing to the north. Her street is a cul-de-sac. She heard from city staff that when they created a fully formed cul-de-sac, they would not be putting roads through. She was very surprised to learn from neighbors that may not be the case. She asked that there be another alternative to going through their cul-de-sac. Peter Miller, 5521 Weeping Way, said he’s heard little or no mention of the extreme traffic on Timberline. He thinks traffic is exceeding heavy on Timberline. Developers are building a number of apartment complexes north of this particular project. He said Timberline becomes a two-lane road at Battle Creek. He’d like to know how many more people are projected to be living there. He wants to know who will be paying for widening the streets and adding parking lights. He thinks this whole thing needs to be reworked before you create even more traffic. He requests the board reject the plan as currently proposed. Chair noted for the audience that questions will be addressed by staff. Bret Cummock, 5627 Weeping Way, said they obviously don’t have any kind of a proposed layout – all they have is a zoning map. They have heard rumors that eventually they want to connect onto their street (Weeping Way). He said they’re streets/traffic lights are not designed to handle significant traffic volumes. They are concerned about the safety of their children and pets. If there are going to be any connections, they would urge that proposal be rejected. He thinks this development should stand on its own—making i’s own connections to Timberline and established streets. Linda Nelson, 5712 Corona, said she wanted to remind the board that the Mormon temple will be going in on the east side of the referenced intersection near the fire station. She said there will be traffic associated with that building. Patrick Harrison, 5620 Weeping Way, said they’d like to suggest the farm land to the south be used to get egress (versus Willows Springs to the north). Chair Smith asked staff to speak to the traffic connection concerns of the neighbors. Lorson said the current traffic volumes on Timberline at this time are 17,000 vehicles per day. He said this is not a land development proposal. From what he understands, all of Willow Springs are cul-de-sacs and are not ‘stubbed’ out to create continued streets. Lorson said Timberline is classified as a four lane arterial on the Master Street Plan. It will be improved as development comes in. Lorson said when a Project Development Plan is submitted, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required. The TIS gives city traffic engineers what they need to know to determine what improvements will need to be made. Member Schmidt said (for the benefit of neighbors) that when a development proposal comes in, there would be an opportunity for neighbors to provide feedback. Linda Ripley said they are here tonight requesting annexation and initial zoning. At this stage, they do not have a development plan. She said as they move forward with the proposed development, they will Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 6 be developing concepts that will be covered at a neighborhood meeting. They definitely want to allow the surrounding neighborhoods a chance to weigh in. Ripley said right now access is intended to come from Timberline Road and possibly extend to the south. She said this site is cut off from the west by the railroad tracks. Ripley said in the future McWhinney will be working on a small neighborhood center with a specialty grocery store. Chair Smith asked about the reference to the Environmental Impact Study. Ripley said the next phase is an ODP (Overall Development Plan) along with a PDP (Project Development Plan). At that point, an Environmental Characterization Study will be required. Chair Smith asked Ripley to comment on a traffic study. She said she knows the developer hires a traffic engineer to prepare a traffic study. Before he prepares the report, he meets with the City Traffic Engineer to determine what exactly he wants the consultant to analyze --do they have good traffic counts or do they need to acquire new ones. The report is reviewed by city staff. They make certain that all projections are from sources that are appropriate and professional. Chair Smith asked staff to speak to oversizing fees. Lorson said the traffic study looks at the individual vehicle trips generated per day. That is then put into the greater street system to see if it meets the city’s level of service criteria. If it fails level of service, additional improvements such as street widening and turn lanes are required. Member Campana said he’d like to offer a little more clarity for the neighbors. Tonight the board is making a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not we should annex this property and what the zoning should be. An ODP (Overall Development Plan) would be a great time for the neighbors to provide feedback. Campana said the ODP lays out the uses and where the major access points will be. At the PDP (Project Development Plan) stage there will be even more detail. As that information becomes available, neighbors’ feedback will be sought. Board Questions Member Schmidt asked if a park is required for an MMN proposal of this size. Lorson said the zone district states there should be access to a park or a gathering place within a quarter mile. Member Campana made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council to approve the Hansen Farm Annexation and Zoning, # ANX120007 based on the findings included on page 4 of the staff report. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Chair Smith said at work session he was concerned about the plans for neighborhood centers in this area. He thanked Ms. Ripley for providing the rationale for the proposed zoning. It seems appropriate and meets the objectives of City Plan. He will be supporting the annexation and zoning. Member Campana said at work session he said if he had a magic wand, he’d have Zephyr coming through the NC Zone but he likes what’s being proposed better. He said he’ll retract his magic wand. The motion passed 6:0. Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 7 _______ Project: Discount Tire at North College Marketplace Lot 7 Addition of Permitted Use and Project Development Plan, # PDP120024 Project Description: This is a request for a retail store with vehicle servicing on a 1.19 acre site located approximately at the northeast corner of North College Avenue and East Willox Lane. The project is within the North College Marketplace shopping center, with approximately 220 feet of frontage along North College Avenue. The proposed building will be one story, 33 feet in maximum height, and will contain approximately 6,947 square feet. The property is zoned C-C-N, Community Commercial – North College District. Because the proposed use, Retail Store with Vehicle Servicing, is not permitted in the zone district an Addition of Permitted Use is required and is requested in conjunction with the Project Development Plan. Recommendation: Approval with Condition Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Jason Holland reviewed the proposal and the mission of the North College Corridor Plan which is to upgrade the image of North College and enhance the corridor – make it more like downtown in a supportive and complementary fashion. He noted after reviewing the Discount Tire at North College Marketplace Lot 7 Project Development Plan, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions. 1. The proposed project has been evaluated and been found to be in compliance with all applicable criteria in Section 1.3.4. Addition of Permitted Use (APU); 2. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code and; 3. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards located in Division 4.19 Community Commercial – North College District (C-C-N) of Article 4 – Districts. Staff recommends approval of the Discount Tire at North College Marketplace, Lot 7 Addition of Permitted Use and Project Development Plan, PDP120024 with the following condition: The applicant shall provide an updated acoustical study by a qualified consultant that demonstrates a maximum level of 60 dB (A) is maintained in conformance with all requirements of the Fort Collins Municipal Code, Chapter 20, Article 2, Noise. If warranted to achieve compliance, a decorative masonry sound wall shall be constructed within the property adjacent to the southern property boundary. The masonry wall shall be in conformance with all applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards. Applicants’ Presentation Nathan Klein of Loveland Commercial, LLC (owners of North College Marketplace (NCM)) presented a history of entitlements/zoning, a discussion of use of the Addition of Permitted Use (APU) process, and a Project Development Plan overview. He referenced the July 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning minutes relative to a re-zone of the site. He quoted, ‘The Board feels that using the addition of a permitted use option would keep things more in the spirit of the intended zoning and comprehensive plans.’ He thinks the APU process is a more appropriate way to review specific uses and proposals in the NCM Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 8 development. He thinks blanket re-zoning would allow a host of uses not intended for the site or the NCM development. He thinks APU when accompanied by a Project Development Plan is site specific and allows for customization and conditioning to maintain appropriate compatibility. It is most restrictive, with the most controls and protections for the city. Unlike the two prior APUs for NCM, this APU request is Lot Specific (Lot 7) assuring compliance with the ODP and project compatibility. Klein requested the addition of a retail store with vehicle servicing on Lot 7 of the North College Marketplace for Discount Tire. He thinks it is consistent use with similar grocery anchored developments and a compatible use for a neighborhood shopping center. He thinks it’ll help support continued North College redevelopment. Gabe Krell of Kimley-Horn and Associates represents Discount Tire. He said he’s here tonight seeking approval of the APU and the PDP. He provided a history of Discount Tire. He spoke to how their proposal meets the specific requirements of the APU: 1. Such use is appropriate in the Zone District to which it is added; 2. 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; 3. 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; 4. Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the Zone District to which it is added; 5. Compliance with Fort Collins LUC Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility In summary, Krell said they think they are an active participant of the North College Corridor and that they’re viable and sustainable in the North College Marketplace. Their customers will provide a benefit to Fort Collins as well as the center itself. He thanked staff for their assistance. Chair Smith asked if Discount Tires safety requirements which require honking prior to pulling in or backing out was factored into the noise analysis. Krell said it was not considered an operational piece of equipment when evaluating noise sources because they have the ability to control that safety operation. Their analysis took into consideration averages. Smith asked at what frequency horns would be honked. Smith said he’d like to think about that a little more because approved use should not create offensive noise, etc. Member Stockover asked if there were any spiked noise levels. Krell said noise modeling results are averages. He spoke of results from the air guns, the ratchet, the wheel buffer, and the occasion burst of air. Stockover asked for the maximum level. Krell said he does not know the maximum but he does know it all testing remained within the allowed 60 decibel level. Stockover asked if the noise modeling was conducted during warm weather when doors may remain up. Krell said testing was done on December 14. Public Input None Chair Smith asked for applicant response. Rich Sommer is an Assistant Vice President for Discount Tire. He said they would not jeopardize safety but they can take beeping horns out of the process – they can use an individual rather than a horn to Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 9 ensure safety. He knows that noise is a problem and that’s the reason for this new Colorado study. He said they worked hard to become a part of the community. Staff member Holland said this has been somewhat of a long process. They’ve really focused on emphasizing the retail components and their impacts. He thinks there has been a lot of collaboration with a lot of debate and discussion to make sure we made this project as good as they could to fit into the center. They’ve worked to make the architecture and landscaping good for the North College Corridor. Board Questions Member Schmidt asked why the applicant chose this particular lot and not the parcel close to Grape Street and King Soopers. Klein said it was all related to their size/parking requirements. Member Stockover asked staff to clarify what we’re being asked to do – is it retail store with vehicle servicing and would that differ from a quick lube. Holland said correct. Stockover said his concerns are if this store went out of business that a minor vehicle repair could go in. Is that correct? Stockover would like to know that we would not morph into something we do not want there. What are the protections? Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett said the Land Use Code (LUC) does define retail stores with vehicle servicing as an establishment in which vehicle parts are sold and are ordinarily installed on the premises and where the majority of the area of the floor area of the establishment is devoted to the installation and maintenance of such parts, for example, tire shops and muffler shops. That does leave some room for variation. One suggestion she has if there are concerns about that, it might be something that would be the subject matter of a condition the board may want to impose. Member Schmidt said she appreciates the history materials provided. She said on the north part of Fort Collins for 30 years and she’s been involved with urban renewal on North College since it first got started. That’s why she can put some perspective on comments in the North College Corridor Plan. They were very committed to businesses that have been there for some time. They believe that vehicle uses will remain a part of the corridor because they didn’t want to get rid of the businesses that were there. The concern has always been about adding more to what are there currently. Schmidt said the minutes referenced in the applicant’s presentation had to do with there will be no North College Marketplace King Soopers if the gas station and drive through restaurants were not allowed. That is why we went with the permitted use route. She thought the market study was very interesting because it made some economic points like we’re losing $43 million in sales each year because we don’t have any apparel retail in the north part of town. At the end they noted that several types of businesses (auto related sales and services and open and outdoor storage) should NOT be considered for expansion directly on the North College Corridor. Those uses are allowed in the NC zones. She said both the North College Corridor Plan and the Market Study state we need to create a better image for North College to attract people from the south. Schmidt said in the North College Marketplace presentation they spoke of how this would be a great gateway. The presentation showed small shops on either side – it was very inviting. The board felt by creative design you could put a super market there that did look like a big box. The gateway would change the feel of that shopping center. As much as she gives credit to Discount Tire for working with staff because of the nature of the business; you still have a large front that has no windows and not something she would consider a gateway feature for North College. From her standpoint, the number one thing you have to do to approve an APU is show that it is not detrimental to the public good. She personally feels for the benefit of North College and for everything that people are trying to achieve for that area that this is detrimental to the public good. Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 10 Member Carpenter said she’d like to commend the applicant for the heroic job. The building was made much better than it could have been. She still thinks they are trying to disguise the use. The first thing we need to do is make sure this does fit into the policy and mission of the North College Corridor Plan. On that very basic level, this fails the test. It doesn’t enhance North College. It is not supportive and complementary to Old Town. For those reasons, she’s not going to be able to support the APU. Member Stockover said he comes from an automotive background. He discussed the process he used to consider restaurant, automotive servicing, and design. He thinks that if the board makes a condition that this use cannot morph into what he deems as more maintenance and repair, he’s good with it. Member Schmidt said her concern if when you have this kind of use here, you will not want to sit at a restaurant near the hustle that takes place at a busy establishment. She thinks if you have more stores with outdoor supplies (like JAX); it would support the gateway image of outdoor activities. There are other spaces on Conifer and Blue Spruce where these uses would fit better into the corridor. Member Campana said he understands why Discount Tire wants to be in this site – it’s a well-designed site front and center on College Avenue. He said it’s a tough market and developers like it when the phone rings with a fantastic tenant such as Discount Tire. He said he’s wrestling with it. He said North College is transitioning. We’re spending so much money to enhance it. He hesitates to say it is one pad because it does start to creep after a while. If there was a condition for tires/wheels and a box around the practices there, it’s probably not detrimental to the design of North College. Member Kirkpatrick said when she initially reviewed it; it made a lot of sense. She said Member Schmidt does make a persuasive argument and she does think it is not necessarily in line with the vision we have for North College. It’s difficult to look at something and say they did a fantastic job. With some exceptions it’s beautifully designed but it does not support what we’re trying to see along the corridor. She does have concern about the 128 feet of wall space on the west side. She thinks it would be fairly uninviting to a pedestrian despite all their efforts to enhance the corridor. She said she hasn’t made a decision either way. Member Stockover asked the Board to consider the high quality in finishing up an unfinished center as opposed to having it in some other location on the corridor. He thinks we’re doing the right thing for the general public. Member Schmidt said you’re not going to have your smaller shops unless someone does another shopping center. She said this infrastructure has already been paid for here with the URA (Urban Renewal Authority) TIF (Tax Incremental Financing). It would be hard to create a new, like situation. Member Carpenter said she’s having trouble seeing the struggle when we have a very clear mission and policy statement for North College. It specifically says we don’t want to continue vehicle type businesses. It’s so against what the vision and mission is for North College. Granted they are good corporate citizens this is just not the right place for them. Member Campana asked if the issue was more around this particular pad site. Could smaller businesses be located in the area proposed for Discount Tire? Applicant Rich Sommer said they’d bring a lot of people to the center. He said they are open to changing the design on the west side. Member Stockover said there’s no neighborhood opposition to this proposal. Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 11 Chair Smith said from a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan/Corridor Plan perspective, these uses are not specifically prohibited. The Corridor Plan specifically discourages them in the long term. He thinks as an area is revitalizing they are still in a transition period. To spark the revitalization of North College, there has been some considerable flexibility in the granting of uses at that ‘bookend’ of North College. Can we continue to provide that flexibility with the granting of an APU? Chair Smith said we try to be data driven but there’re still some fuzzy components such as detrimental to the public good. Ultimately is the public served by upholding the Comp Plan? On the other side, we clearly gain a lot of use compatibility by good design and that is a little bit of the hybrid nature of our LUC. We could have a very good looking building – it forms well and fits. He said the building as designed now fits. He’s still not sure if he’s convinced about use and whether the public good is being upheld in light of what the Corridor Plan says about auto uses. He also wonders when we’re past the point of stimulating revitalization and when we should have some courage and say we’ve done “80%” and now let’s start to hold out for those non-automotive uses. He hasn’t made up his mind—he just wanted to articulate his thoughts for the board. Member Schmidt said she appreciates the applicants’ efforts. She still doesn’t think it’s up to gateway standards. If it were on some other parcel in the shopping center, she would not have any concerns about it. Member Schmidt said she truly feels for the applicant’s situation, she thinks they’ve tried to do an excellent job of working with a team and putting together something that looks all right. She, however, did not think it was up to gateway standards. If the project were on another parcel, she would not have had as much concern. Her issue is it is on North College. She thinks as we keep adding automotive uses, we are not going to get out of the cycle we have there. Chair Smith said the economics of a proposal is one thing. He’d like to bring the board’s conversations back to the narrow purview that we’re allowed – LUC (Land Use Code) limitations. The last thing he’d want to do is approve or deny a request that cannot be defended by the LUC. Member Campana said the level of detail the applicant is adding sets new standards. He’s going to support the proposal. He thinks they’re going to do a good job with the architecture and the use. It will probably drive additional business into the center. We’ll get a higher standard of architecture on this project whereas if they went across the street, we wouldn’t necessarily be able to get that. He thinks it’s a benefit to our community. Member Kirkpatrick asked Member Schmidt if the she thinks the lack of willingness to see additional auto related uses on North College is more of a design issue rather than an actual use issue. Schmidt said she thinks it’s a use issue from the standpoint that businesses such as car dealers and furniture stores like to be grouped together. Stockover said the reason there’s a proliferation is due to affordability. He thinks when overall property values go up, business owners will build equity and have options for growth and upgrades. Chair Smith said as he’s evaluated the proposal against the LUC and the criteria for Addition of a Permitted Use (APU). He asked where we stand in the whole revitalization process. Are we to the point where we no longer need to grant APUs or be flexible? Is it time to hold the line? Smith said auto uses are discouraged by the North College Corridor Plan but he’s not convinced we’re there yet. He thinks There is a lot of work to be done on North College. He doesn’t think we’re at a place where we should hold the line. Smith referred to the corridor update and its concern about the proliferation of vehicle related uses. It emphasized that such uses could remain and contribute positively to the corridor. Smith said that based on the criteria of an APU he could support this proposal. Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 12 Member Carpenter said this is a very prominent piece of North College and this is the place where the kind of redevelopment we’d want would gravitate. She said if we continue to chip away – and this is not a chip, it’s a chunk -- what is left for the vision? Chair Smith said there are opportunities between the ‘bookends’ – this property and the bridge. He thinks we’ll say ‘no more’ once we’re successful along that whole corridor. He said he’d like to see a condition that it’s for Discount Tire and this use. He’d not like to open it up to further interpretation of other uses. Member Schmidt asked if the board approved the APU, they would still be able to review the PDP. Member Kirkpatrick said she thought it was great they were debating the economic generation and the vision for the corridor. She said we have five findings that need to be met and she does think this project fits within those findings. She thinks it’s an appropriate use for the zone district and she thinks it conforms to the basic characteristics. She thinks they’ve addressed the noise concerns. She thinks it’s compatible with the other listed permitted uses and is in compliance with LUC Section 3.5.1. She does think we’re approving a new design standard by approving the APU for this project. Member Campana made a motion that we approve the Addition of Permitted Use for Discount Tire North College Marketplace Lot 7 subject to the condition that the use is limited to the sale of tires, wheels, and related products installation and service based on the findings and facts on page 18 of the staff report. Chair Smith asked if it could be condition on the Project Development Plan (PDP) by establishment name. Deputy City Attorney Daggett said it would not be appropriate to limit it by name of establishment. The name Discount Tire could be different 5 years from now but it would be appropriate to limit the nature of the use to tires, wheels, and related products installation and services. Daggett said you might also want to state your finding that the applicable criteria in Section 1.3.4 have been met. Member Stockover seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4:2 with Members Schmidt and Carpenter dissenting. Member Campana said that before he made a motion related to the PDP, he said there may be some interest in adding windows along the west side but not knowing what would be seen; we may not want the windows added. Member Kirkpatrick said we have a lot of examples of pedestrian scale downtown where you have an alley with no windows but there are interesting plantings or art – something that makes you feel you’re not against a brick wall for 128 feet. Member Schmidt said she’s not really keen on the faux window look because it looks like it’s been abandoned and ‘boarded up’. She recommended they do something decorative with the brick or have benches. Member Campana said he’d not like to get into a situation where we’re redesigning this building. Is there a way we can just add a condition? Chair Smith said he’s getting nods from staff and the applicant that they understand where we’re going with this. He recommends they leave it to staff discretion. Deputy City Attorney Daggett said if this is going to be a condition of approval, it would be helpful to try and articulate what type of improvement you’re looking for. Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 13 Chair Smith said the west elevation blank wall with the faux windows does not achieve the pedestrian scale and interest that we’d like to see. They’d like to see an enhanced treatment of that wall to create windows or some other creative architectural features. Member Stockover said personally he’d be opposed to see through windows. Member Carpenter agreed. Member Campana said they’ve met code and anything they do above and beyond the elevation is better than they would have gotten. Member Carpenter said even a couple of benches would be good – something that breaks it up and makes it feel more like not just one big expanse. Member Campana made a motion they approve the Discount Tire at North College Marketplace Lot 7 Project Development Plan #120024 subject to the condition that the west elevation includes a change to a more substantial pedestrian oriented retail detailing with glazing and based on the findings of fact included page 18 of the staff report. Member Stockover seconded the motion. Chair Smith proposed a friendly amendment that as a condition of approval that the applicant would present to staff a modified west elevation plan that is much more interesting and pedestrian friendly than what’s been presented. It will feature enhanced architectural design above and beyond brick on brick. Deputy City Attorney Daggett said what that amendment does is put it on staff to decide if that condition has been met when they’re reviewing the final plan so to the extent you can make it as concrete as possible, it would probably be helpful for staff. Chair Smith said to continue – it would have materials other than brick incorporated. Some suggested split faced block. Member Schmidt said if there’s a way to make it look like a series of stores (similar to the North College Marketplace PDP). It would look different than one big wall. Member Kirkpatrick said possibly paint and landscaping. Member Carpenter asked if a higher window would work. Chair Smith asked the applicant if they had any suggestions on how they’d want to accomplish what’s been suggested. The applicant said first thing, there are racks and tires on the other side of the wall so you may not want windows that you can see through. He’s got a great team of architects. He could make windows that look like windows and not see through. They’ve done things all over the country including some of the nicest neighborhoods in California. They do things with cornice coping stone. If you want it to look like a window with blacked out panes that looks like glass, they can do it. He said he thinks he has an idea of what they want. He will get the results to staff. Member Carpenter asked staff if they were comfortable with where we’re going. Director Kadrich said we have had enough discussion. We will be able to use the information they’ve heard. She said if she has any questions at all, we can circulate what’s been submitted to get a check in from the board. Chair Smith asked if they had any suggestions for the motion. Holland suggested “substantial, pedestrian oriented, retail detailing with glazing”. Member Campana agreed with the language and said he didn’t think there should be any condition. He appreciates they’ll see the changes but if he were in their shoes, he does not think we need a condition the board would have to reevaluate. Deputy City Attorney Daggett suggested that if the maker of the motion does not want a friendly amendment, this could be made as a motion and voted on as an amendment. Member Campana said he’d accept it as an amendment to the motion. Member Stockover (2nd) accepted the amendment. (Note from recorder, the language was incorporated in the motion shown above.) Planning & Zoning Board December 20, 2012 Page 14 Member Kirkpatrick said she appreciated the applicant’s willingness to go above and beyond to respect the intent of what we’re hoping to see in the corridor recognizing it’s more than what’s required in the LUC. Member Campana said he appreciates they have 800 stores and he hopes the applicant does not feel unwelcomed. He said the city has invested through TIF (Tax Increment Financing) and other means and we feel a very strong responsibility to try to see that through. The motion passed 6:0. Other Chair Smith said that tonight is the last night that we have two of our long standing members – some of the best he’s had the opportunity to work with. He said Member Schmidt has been on the board for 9 years and Member Stockover has been on the board for 8 years and 8 years on the Zoning Board of Appeals. All is in a volunteer capacity. He appreciates being mentored the past 7 years by them. He said they’re very grateful for the service they’ve provided. Member Carpenter said they will be missed. Member Schmidt said thank you and she appreciates staff. They’ve been great to work with and it’s been a wonderful experience. Deputy Kadrich said she’d like to concur with his comments relative to Members Schmidt and Stockover’s work. They will be missed. Member Stockover said thank you. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Andy Smith, Chair PROJECT: Land Use Code text amendment extending the length of time allowed to remove election signs. APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a recommendation to City Council on the proposed Amendment to the City’s Land Use Code to extend the length of time allowed to remove election signs from four days after an election to five days after an election. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the Land Use Code (LUC) requires that all election signs must be removed from private property within four days after an election. Elections normally occur on a Tuesday, which means that signs must be removed by 12:01 a.m. on the Sunday after the election. City staff does not work on Sundays, so enforcement of the regulation doesn’t begin until the Monday after the election. The proposed change to a five day removal period is intended to have the removal date coincide with a normal work day when staff is on duty. BACKGROUND: Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the LUC states that all election signs must be removed four days after an election. After the four days, the City can notify property owners who still have election signs on their private property that they must remove the signs. Unlike for signs in the public right-of-way, City staff cannot go onto private property and remove the signs. If the property owner does not remove the signs after being notified, then the City would need to issue a Municipal Court summons for the violation. Staff currently begins inspecting for remaining signs and notifying property owners on the Monday after the election even though such signs are currently required to be removed by Sunday. Amending the code to extend the time limit for the removal of election signs to a normal work day will bring the code in line with actual practice and will alleviate the concern that staff should be inspecting for violations on a Sunday. This housekeeping code amendment for the proposed one day extension will have no practical adverse effect on the appearance of the city’s streets. LUC Amendment related to Election Signs January 17, 2013 Planning and Zoning Hearing Page 2 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Amend Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the LUC as follows: (L) Election Signs. (1) Election signs authorized by Section 3.8.7(C)(1)(g) or 3.8.7(D)(2) shall be allowed on a lot at any time prior to the election day to which the sign relates and shall be removed within four (4) five (5) days after the election day. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Land Use Code Amendment. PROJECT: 2013 Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code – Section 3.2.1(F), 3.4.1(D)(1), – Non-native Trees and Tree Mitigation Radii so that if such trees are found by an Ecological Characterization Study to have ecological value, they are to be preserved or mitigated, and Amend Sections 3.2.1(M) and 4.17(D)(1)(a) to reference the correct subsection of the Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council to update the Land Use Code, with the following objectives: 1. Explicitly require mitigation for Russian olive and Siberian elms that have been documented to provide ecological value, e.g., through a project’s Ecological Characterization Study. 2. Allow mitigation for Russian olive and Siberian elms to be governed by site-specific restoration methods, e.g., a more diverse range of species and caliper/height sizes, instead of requiring that trees be upsized, 3. Amend Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code to specifically include non-native trees in the Ecological Characterization Study requirements; this would require new developments to evaluate the ecological value of non-native trees. 4. Amend the tree mitigation radii for mitigation trees to the following tiered approach: a. Prioritize planting mitigation trees within ½ mile radius of the project site; b. If suitable mitigation sites cannot be found within ½ mile, increase the radius to 1 mile; c. If sites for a project’s mitigation trees cannot be found within 1 mile, then the City Forester shall determine the most suitable location for tree mitigation. 5. Require mitigation for cotton bearing cottonwood and female box elder trees. 6. Apply the correct section references from Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code in two locations. RECOMMENDATION: Approval Land Use Code Revisions – Non-native Trees and Tree Mitigation Radius January 17, 2013 P & Z Meeting Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Non-Native Trees In July of 2012, members of City Council requested that staff evaluate whether or not the current regulations surrounding non-native trees, specifically Siberian elm and Russian olives, adequately addressed the ecological value these trees can provide. Currently, Siberian elm and Russian olives are classified as nuisance species, are exempt from the tree mitigation requirement, and are prohibited from being planted in the City. In addition, if located within a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone, staff has often required the removal of Russian olive trees to prevent their proliferation in proximity to natural habitats and features. Staff acknowledges these tree species can provide ecological value (see attached memo to Council for more details) and based on feedback from the City’s Park and Recreation Board and the Natural Resources Advisory Board, staff is proposing to update the Land Use Code to acknowledge and require mitigation for the value these species provide. Tree Mitigation Radius In addition, staff is proposing to change the requirement that mitigation trees must be planted within ¼ mile radius of the project site. The ¼ mile radius requirement has proved a challenge to meet, especially with infill development. Increasing the types of trees that will be required to be mitigated for could exacerbate this existing challenge. The ¼ mile radius was originally included to place off site mitigation trees close to the project and not to overly favor planting trees on City land. Most developments have preferred placing off site mitigation trees on City land due to the ease of coordination and have been constrained in placing mitigation trees on any property within the ¼ mile radius. Based on discussions with Planning and Zoning Board members during the October Work Session, a tiered approach is being proposed that requires mitigation to first take place within ½ mile of the project site, then 1 mile from the site project site. If a suitable site cannot be found within 1 mile from the project site, then the closest, suitable site within the City’s boundaries will be selected. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Item 929 Problem Statement – This attachment includes the problem statement and proposed code language for the non-native trees and tree mitigation radius elements. 3. Item 923 Summary Report – This attachment includes the clerical changes needed in the Land Use Code to correctly reference certain sections of the Land Use Code. 4. Draft Minutes from the Parks and Recreation Board meeting held on December 5th, in which the Board unanimously supported the proposed changes. 5. Draft Minutes from the Natural Resources Advisory Board meeting held on December 17th, in which the Board supported the proposed changes by a vote of 8-0. One member of the Board abstained from voting, as he was concerned that the existing mitigation radius standard should remain. DATE: January 17, 2013 PROJECT: Student Housing Action Plan APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Recommendation to City Council regarding the Student Housing Action Plan scheduled for City Council consideration on February 19, 2013. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the direction of City Council and the adoption of City Plan, the Student Housing Action Plan project has involved working with Colorado State University (CSU), Front Range Community College (FRCC), neighbors, students, developers, and other stakeholders to identify strategies and recommend action items to address the increasing need for multi-family student housing and the potential negative impacts and compatibility concerns to existing neighborhoods. Feedback received through the public engagement process has driven the proposed action items within the Student Housing Action Plan. This topic was discussed at the City Council Work Session on December 11, 2012. Council gave staff direction to bring the Student Housing Action Plan to City Council for formal consideration on February 19, 2013, and to move forward with the identified action items. Updates have been provided to the Planning & Zoning Board throughout the process. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Board regarding the Student Housing Action Plan prior to bringing it to City Council for formal consideration on February 19, 2013. BACKGROUND: The mission of the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is to develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility. The City, through the City Plan process, identified a need to address student housing now and into the future. Fort Collins is and has been experiencing an increase in population and student enrollment, a limited supply of multi-family housing, very low vacancy rates, and challenges with addressing neighborhood concerns with new multi-family development projects. These factors are driving the need for the development of strategies and action items to help facilitate housing supplies while addressing negative impacts upon existing neighborhoods now and into the future. Student Housing Action Plan January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 2 The Student Housing Action Plan provides background information and data including:  Applicable City Plan policies  Land Supply and Growth policies for Fort Collins  Student Enrollment Data and Projections  Multi-family Vacancy Rates in Fort Collins  Multi-family Average Rents in Fort Collins  CSU On-Campus Housing Supplies (now and into the future)  Off Campus Housing Supplies  Student Housing Preferences The Student Housing Action Plan project has been diverse and in-depth and included a heavy emphasis on stakeholder engagement, background research, data collection, and action item development and implementation timeframes. The primary working group included CSU and City staff, stakeholders from CSU, FRCC, student government, students/tenants, neighbors, property owners, property managers, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, developers/designers, and more. The Center for Public Deliberation assisted with much of the public engagement process which included several focus groups (both with individual stakeholder groups and combined), surveys, and a large group deliberative dialogue. Additional engagement methods included a webpage with current information, presentations, important dates, and an on-line survey; social media; public open house; and meetings with Boards & Commissions and professional groups. Feedback received through the engagement process drove the development of the action items for this project. Council Action During the SHAP process, City Council directed staff to bring some action items for consideration on a fast track rather than wait for the Student Housing Action Plan process. This was done in an effort to more quickly address concerns raised by residents about the adverse impacts of larger multi-family developments that were occurring near existing single-family neighborhoods. As a result of this, the following items have already been adopted by City Council through the Land Use Code (LUC) Changes Phase 1and 2: Action Item Process Date Adopted Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zone standards – apply to all multi-family projects outside of the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone requiring mix of housing, larger setback, building variation and articulation, park or gathering space. LUC Code Changes Phase 1 9/18/12 Modify Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone to ensure commercial component. LUC Code Changes Phase 1 9/18/12 Student Housing Action Plan January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 3 Type II Hearing for multi-family developments with 50 units or 75 bedrooms LUC Code Changes Phase 2 11/20/12 During the LUC Code Change Phase 1 & 2 discussions, Council directed staff not to define “student housing” or to change the Transportation Overlay District (TOD) boundary. Council did refer three items back to the SHAP process for further discussion: Operations, Security & Management Plan; Limit 4+ bedroom units in multi-family developments; and University District or Overlay. The SHAP stakeholders discussed these three items. Some of their recommendations are included in the identified action items. Future Action Items The following action items are included in the Student Housing Action Plan. Action Items for Near-term (spring 2013) The following action items will be brought to City Council and the Planning & Zoning Board for formal consideration during the spring of 2013. The first three can be prepared relatively quickly and will be brought to City Council in March 2013 per Council request. These items will be brought to the Planning & Zoning Board in February 2013. The last two items need more time to fully develop. An update will be provided in February/March and formal consideration will occur later in the spring. Action Item Concern Addressed Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones. Compatibility Amend MMN district development standards and LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback from single- and two-family dwellings. Also, consider landscape requirements for this setback. Compatibility Confirm that the uses, development standards and density allowances in the NCB district are consistent with the intent and purpose of the district appropriate sub-area plans in that it provides a transition between residential neighborhoods and commercial-use areas. Compatibility Define different multi-family housing types (rather than just the broad multi-family definition). The requirement for multiple housing types could be used as a gradient of development between proposed multi- family and existing single-family. Compatibility Better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that 4+ bedroom developments need to provide additional open space, recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the development and excepting the TOD Overlay Zone. Intensity of 4+ bedroom units, compatibility Student Housing Action Plan January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 4 Action Items for Longer-term (2014 and beyond) The following items need further development before bringing them to City Council for formal consideration. Action Item Concern Addressed Build an above- or below- grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing at or near Shields and Elizabeth Streets.  This item would need 2-3 years to develop and fund – it would require further involvement and development from Transportation Planning & Engineering and coordination with CSU. Traffic and Safety Consider requiring property managers/owners to provide City ordinance information to their tenants at lease signing.  This could be accomplished relatively quickly (1 year) – it would require additional public outreach. Accountability Form an on-going advisory committee made up of City, CSU, FRCC, neighbors, students, property managers, Police, and ASCSU to guide City Council on student housing issues.  This could be accomplished relatively quickly (1 year) – it would require staff support. Accountability and Education Consider a Rental Licensing Program to ensure health/safety of units, data regarding rentals, increased accountability of the rental business. Require all landlords to take the Landlord Training provided by the City.  Council has considered Rental Licensing and Registration Programs in the past.  This could be re-visited if Council supports.  Would require 1-2 years for further research and significant public outreach. Accountability and Education Action Items that do not need Formal Council Consideration The following action items do not need formal approval by City Council. Staff is planning to move forward with these items. Action Item Concern Addressed Increase enforcement of nuisance and noise ordinances in areas with a high concentration of complaints. Increased enforcement on repeat nuisance violations (requires code amendment – planned for March 2013) Accountability Increase education about enforcement so the community is more aware of the enforcement process and data related to enforcement. Education and Accountability Consider increasing proactive enforcement on noise and occupancy Accountability Student Housing Action Plan January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 5 violations. Increase education efforts about Party Registration program and ensure it creates benefits to neighborhoods. Education Increase education to students based on current needs/concerns – students both on and off campus – include realistic information about what it means to move off campus and into a neighborhood. Education Provide information to parents of students so they are aware of local codes, ordinances, and responsibilities. Repeat messages often especially during peak housing decision times. Education Provide incentives for students to take Renting 101, an existing class that could offer a “preferred tenant” certificate that landlords could recognize. Education and Accountability Action Items Proceeding in other Processes The following action items are either moving forward in a separate process or are the responsibility of CSU. CSU has discussed and agreed with the CSU items below. Action Item Concern Addressed CSU parking fees – CSU will assess as the academic year moves forward. CSU has not seen any downward trend in permit sales which indicates no increased impact on surrounding neighborhoods. CSU will conduct a parking and transportation study this fall. Spill-over parking City Parking Plan implementation – adopted in 2013 budget and proceeding in separate process Parking Update West Central Neighborhoods Plan – adopted in 2013 budget and proceeding in separate process Compatibility, housing, parking, transportation Work with CSU to develop enhanced transit service to surrounding neighborhoods with connection to MAX. Parking and Traffic Phase 3 of the Transit Plan - implementation Parking and Traffic CSU will strive to provide enough on-campus housing (either in halls or apartments) for all first year and international students as well as 25% of returning students, based on projections and actual CSU enrollment numbers. CSU On-Campus Housing Supply CSU will continue to explore options for public/private partnerships to provide student housing and to look at other examples and best practices. CSU On-Campus Housing CSU will continue to look at alternate sites for student housing as they refine their Master Plan. CSU On-Campus Housing CSU will present on-campus housing updates annually to the City/CSU Liaison committee and seek other opportunities to share this information with the community. CSU On-Campus Housing Student Housing Action Plan January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 6 Council Direction City Council discussed the Student Housing Action Plan at their Work Session on December 11, 2012. Council discussion focused on data that was provided and the need to gather more data on FRCC students in the future. There was a desire to bring the near-term action items to Council in March 2013, ensure landscaping requirements are addressed, and there was general agreement with the education and enforcement improvements. Suggestions included removing the word “adequate” from the SHAP mission and utilizing a new/more dynamic model for the proposed Advisory Committee. There was also a request to provide data regarding a proposed above- or below-grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing at Shields & Elizabeth Streets. Council directed staff to:  Bring the Student Housing Action Plan to City Council for formal consideration on February 19, 2013.  Move forward with the proposed action items identified for near and long term processes including Land Use Code changes improving compatibility, research and development of a Rental Licensing Program, development of an Advisory Committee, etc. (one Councilmember stated opposition to Rental Licensing and another stated opposition to forming an Advisory Committee).  Move forward with the proposed action items that do not need formal Council consideration (education and enforcement improvements).  Continue to work with stakeholders to identify ways to incentivize on-site management and a thorough Operations, Security, and Management Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Student Housing Action Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Student Housing Action Plan CITY OF FORT COLLINS Student Housing Action Plan Draft Report Beth Sowder 12/31/2012 Student Housing Action Plan Mission: To develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility. Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 1 Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 2-5 Section 1: Introduction 6 Purpose of the Student Housing Action Plan 6 Purpose of the Report 6 Process and Public Engagement 6-7 Section 2: Plan Fort Collins and The West Central Neighborhoods Plan 7 City Plan/Plan Fort Collins 7 West Central Neighborhoods Plan Summary 8 Section 3: Existing Conditions 8 Land Supply and Growth 8 Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District 9 Student Enrollment Data and Projections 9 Multi-Family Demand and Vacancy Rates 9 Multi-Family Supply and Development 10 Student Preferences 10 Section 4: Action Items and Implementation 12 Adopted Action Items 12 Referred Action Items 13 Future Action Items 14 Near-Term Action Items 14 Longer-Term Action Items 15 Action Items – Do Not Need Formal Council Consideration 15 Action Items Proceeding in Other Processes 16 Section 5: Monitoring and Review 17 Section 6: Financial and Resource Implications 17-18 Appendix A: Public Survey Results and Comments of Draft Action Items Appendix B: Boards & Commissions Meeting Minutes Appendix C: Multi-Family List of Projects and Map Appendix D: SHAP Data Snapshot Appendix E: CSU On-Campus Master Plan Projections 2012-2020 Appendix F: Student Housing Preferences Survey Summary Appendix G: SHAP Outreach Meetings Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 2 Executive Summary Introduction During the Plan Fort Collins process in 2010, City staff heard and identified a need to address the student/multi-family housing supply. Fort Collins has and is experiencing an increase in population, a limited supply of multi-family housing, very low vacancy rates, and challenges with addressing neighborhood concerns with potential development projects. These factors drove the need for the development of strategies to help facilitate adequate housing supplies while identifying the infill issues upon existing neighborhoods. Mission Staff and stakeholders developed the mission for this project which states: “The Student Housing Action Plan strives to develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility.” Purpose of the Student Housing Action Plan The purpose of this project was to work with Colorado State University (CSU), Front Range Community College (FRCC), neighbors, students, property owners, developers, and other stakeholders to identify strategies to address the increasing need for multi- family student housing, identify key issues for development or redevelopment, and identity potential impacts and compatibility issues. Feedback received through the community engagement process drove the development and specific recommendations of draft action items of this project. Community Engagement Process City and CSU staff primarily made up the working group, and the identified stakeholders included: Associated Students of CSU (ASCSU), FRCC Student Council and administration, CSU and FRCC students at large, Neighbors, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, Developers and Designers, Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association, Property Managers/Landlords, and more. A student survey of rental housing preferences was conducted in 2011 and 2012 with updates planned each year. Identified stakeholders have participated in numerous focus groups, surveys, and were part of a larger deliberative dialogue process. Several Boards and Commissions as well as professional organizations have been updated and their feedback sought on this project at their business meetings. City Council has received two written update memos and discussed this item at their February 14, 2012 work session. A website was developed specifically for this topic to provide detailed information, provide updates, and seek input. After the action items were drafted, a Public Open House was held to gather more general public feedback on the draft action items. Additionally, a survey was put onto the website as a more convenient way for the general Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 3 public to provide feedback about the draft action items. Social media tools were used to generate interest and direct people to the website. Ultimately, everyone in Fort Collins could be a part of this conversation. Existing Conditions The total population in Fort Collins is 144,880 which include students who live in the City Limits. CSU enrollment is currently around 27,000 (approximately 23% are housed on campus) with a future enrollment projection of 35,000. FRCC has approximately 6,500 students with no on-campus housing. According to Colorado’s Division of Housing, the vacancy rate for the Fort Collins area during the first quarter of 2012 was 2.6%, one of the lowest in the state. A healthy vacancy rate is around 5%. With such a low vacancy rate, average rents have continued to increase reaching $1,010 for the 1 st quarter of 2012. CSU is currently building more on-campus beds, and there are plans to build more in the future. They are committed to providing on-campus housing for all freshmen and international students as well as 25% of returning students. Additionally, off-campus multi-family student housing projects have increased and there are currently large projects under construction and several more are in the development process. Some of the housing needs will be met by the current and proposed development projects, particularly in the next 5 years or so. However, a plan is needed to ensure quality housing is available, and that new developments are compatible with existing neighborhoods. City Plan/Plan Fort Collins City Plan is the comprehensive plan for the City of Fort Collins, and illustrates how Fort Collins is envisioned over the next 25 years and beyond. Plan Fort Collins was the 2010 update to City Plan. The structure is fundamentally based on the City’s Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) organizing framework. The BFO process and organization is designed to be simple and easily understood by a variety of audiences. The new City Plan structure is also aligned with the City’s vision to become a world-class community, with supporting principles and policies within the following seven chapters: Economic Health; Environmental Health; Community and Neighborhood Livability; Safety and Wellness; Culture, Parks and Recreation; High Performing Community; and Transportation. City Plan identified a high priority action item called Student Housing Plan – Coordinate with Colorado State University, Front Range Community College, and others to develop a plan that identifies future locations and other desirable characteristics of future student housing development. Other policies in City Plan that directly support the Student Housing Action Plan are: Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing – Encourage public and private for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single- and multi-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 4 Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population – Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods – Encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not me uniformity. Policy LIV 6.3 – Encourage Introduction of Neighborhood-Related, Non-Residential Development – Encourage the addition of new services, conveniences, and/or gathering places in existing neighborhoods that lack such facilities, provided they meet performance and architectural standards respecting the neighborhood’s positive characteristics, level of activity, and parking and traffic conditions. West Central Neighborhoods Plan The West Central Neighborhoods Plan was developed in the late 1990s and focused on neighborhoods in close proximity to CSU. It is important to refer to and incorporate this plan. An update to the West Central Neighborhoods Plan will occur in 2013. The vision of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan: Maintain and enhance the diverse character of the West Central Neighborhoods, comprised of long- and short-term residents such as families, senior citizens, and students, as well as small businesses, schools, and public/private institutions and facilities. Strengthen the collaboration between the City, Colorado State University, and the West Central Neighborhoods. Continue to provide housing opportunities, infrastructure, and lifestyle options to meet the needs of this diverse group of neighborhoods. Facilitate and improve existing transportation systems to allow all residents to have good, safe, convenient and multi-modal transportation options. Adapt to meet the needs of the dynamic and ever- changing West Central Neighborhoods and provide balanced opportunities in development, redevelopment, and maintenance. Action Items Feedback received through the public engagement process drove the draft action items to be considered by City Council. Draft action items fall into 4 specific categories: 1. Near Term – Spring 2013 2. Longer Term – 2014 and beyond 3. Items that do not need formal Council consideration 4. Items proceeding in other processes Additionally, City Council directed staff to bring some action items to them for consideration on a faster pace than the Student Housing Action Plan in an effort to address concerns about the increasingly adverse impacts of larger multi-family developments near existing single family residential neighborhoods. As a result of this, the following items have already been adopted by City Council: Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 5 1. Require Land Use and Development Standards for the Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood zone district to apply to all multi-family projects outside of the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone by incorporating those requirements into the General Standards of the Land Use Code. Adopted by City Council September 18, 2012 2. Modify requirements in the Neighborhood Conservation zone district to restrict 100% secondary uses such as residential development on land parcels of 5 acres or less, rather than the previous allowance of 10 acres or less. Adopted by City Council on September 18, 2012 3. Require any multi-family project with greater than 50 units or 75 bedrooms must have a Type 2 Hearing. Adopted by City Council on November 20, 2012 Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 6 Student Housing Action Plan Draft Report Section 1: Introduction Purpose of the Student Housing Action Plan During the Plan Fort Collins process in 2010, City staff heard and identified a need to address the student/multi-family housing supply. Fort Collins has and is experiencing an increase in population, a limited supply of multi-family housing, very low vacancy rates, and challenges with addressing neighborhood concerns with potential development projects. These factors drove the need for the development of strategies to help facilitate adequate housing supplies while identifying the infill issues upon existing neighborhoods. The purpose of this project was to work with Colorado State University (CSU), Front Range Community College (FRCC), neighbors, students, property owners, developers, and other stakeholders to identify strategies to address the increasing need for multi- family student housing, identify key issues for development or redevelopment, and identity potential impacts and compatibility issues. Feedback received through the community engagement process drove the development and specific recommendations of draft action items of this project. Staff and stakeholders developed the mission for this project which states: “The Student Housing Action Plan strives to develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide an adequate supply of quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility.” Purpose of the Report The purpose of this report is to describe the Student Housing Action Plan process and suggested action items. This was a comprehensive and collaborative process including many stakeholders, and the suggested action items are the result of this work. This report builds on the principles of Plan Fort Collins and the West Central Neighborhood Plan. Primarily, this report focuses on the input, feedback, and information received during numerous focus groups, large group dialogue, Public Open House, surveys, and other correspondence. Process and Public Engagement The Student Housing Action Plan employs a process similar to other policy development in the past and currently underway with a heavy emphasis on stakeholder engagement, and consists of the following components: i. Research ii. Data collection iii. Background information iv. Stakeholder engagement Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 7 v. Public engagement vi. Action item development vii. Implementation Identified stakeholders included CSU, FRCC, student government, students/tenants, neighbors, property owners, property managers, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, developers/designers, and more. The Center for Public Deliberation assisted with the public engagement process which included several focus groups (both with individual stakeholder groups and combined), surveys, and a large group deliberative dialogue. Additional engagement methods included a webpage with on-going information, presentations, important dates, etc.; online surveys; social media; public open house; update meetings to Boards & Commissions and professional groups. Feedback received through the community engagement process drove the development and specific recommendations of draft action items of this project. (See Appendix A and G) Section 2: Plan Fort Collins and West Central Neighborhoods Plan City Plan/Plan Fort Collins (found on fcgov.com//planfortcollins) The name Plan Fort Collins refers to the process to prepare major updates to two key documents: City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. City Plan is the comprehensive plan for the City of Fort Collins and illustrates how we envision Fort Collins in the next twenty-five years and beyond, showing us how we can get there step by step. The Transportation Master Plan is a long-term vision document that defines the long-term multi-modal transportation system that Fort Collins desires in the future, and also serves as a comprehensive reference guide regarding transportation issues. Both documents provide policy directions for decision-making and set forth priority actions to make the vision a reality. The 2010 update to City Plan took the spirit of collaboration to the next level, integrating both planning projects into one unified process: Plan Fort Collins. As with earlier collaborations, this integrated process allowed the City to maximize efficiency and share resources. In this update, many of the ideas, principles, and policies from previous versions of City Plan are carried forward, but enhanced to reflect current conditions, new trends, community input, and innovations since the plans were first adopted. City Plan identified a high priority action item called Student Housing Plan – Coordinate with Colorado State University, Front Range Community College, and others to develop a plan that identifies future locations and other desirable characteristics of future student housing development. Other policies in City Plan that directly support the Student Housing Action Plan are: Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing – Encourage public and private for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 8 adequate supply of single- and multi-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population – Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Policy LIV 6.2 – Seek Compatibility with Neighborhoods – Encourage design that complements and extends the positive qualities of surrounding development and adjacent buildings in terms of general intensity and use, street pattern, and any identifiable style, proportions, shapes, relationship to the street, pattern of buildings and yards, and patterns created by doors, windows, projections and recesses. Compatibility with these existing elements does not me uniformity. Policy LIV 6.3 – Encourage Introduction of Neighborhood-Related, Non-Residential Development – Encourage the addition of new services, conveniences, and/or gathering places in existing neighborhoods that lack such facilities, provided they meet performance and architectural standards respecting the neighborhood’s positive characteristics, level of activity, and parking and traffic conditions. West Central Neighborhoods Plan The West Central Neighborhoods Plan was developed in the late 1990s and focused on neighborhoods in close proximity to CSU. It is important to refer to and incorporate this plan. An update to the West Central Neighborhoods Plan will occur in 2013. The vision of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan: Maintain and enhance the diverse character of the West Central Neighborhoods, comprised of long- and short-term residents such as families, senior citizens, and students, as well as small businesses, schools, and public/private institutions and facilities. Strengthen the collaboration between the City, Colorado State University, and the West Central Neighborhoods. Continue to provide housing opportunities, infrastructure, and lifestyle options to meet the needs of this diverse group of neighborhoods. Facilitate and improve existing transportation systems to allow all residents to have good, safe, convenient and multi-modal transportation options. Adapt to meet the needs of the dynamic and ever- changing West Central Neighborhoods and provide balanced opportunities in development, redevelopment, and maintenance. The West Central Neighborhoods Plan developed goals that were presented in three main categories: Character of the Neighborhoods, Housing, and Transportation. Many of the goals within this plan coincide with the draft action items that have been identified in the Student Housing Action Plan. These goals and action items pertain to Land Use, Neighborhood Appearance and Design, Sense of Community, Housing, Traffic, Transit, and Parking. Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 9 Section 3: Existing Conditions Land Supply & Growth According to City Plan growth within the city will be focused to promote a compact development pattern, by directing urban development to well-defined areas within the Growth Management Area (GMA). The compact form of the city will also contribute to preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural lands, efficiently providing public services, and encouraging infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas. An expanded public transit system is an integral component of this plan. The system is designed to provide for high-frequency transit service along major arterials and Enhanced Travel Corridors. Feeder transit lines will provide connections from all major districts within the city. The City’s compact form will help make comprehensive, convenient, and efficient transit service possible. The City’s form and structure will facilitate pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, as well as cars and trucks. New development will be organized and woven into a compact pattern that is conducive to automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit travel. Street standards and site planning requirements for new development and redevelopment will ensure that neighborhoods and districts throughout the city will be connected and accessible by all travel modes. Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District The City adopted the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD) in 2007 after significant public debate and input. The TOD is aimed at reducing sprawl by incentivizing infill development in central areas of town near transit, particularly the Mason Corridor, and frequent destinations. The provisions of the TOD allow for a mix of goods and services within convenient walking distance of transit stations, encourage the creation of stable and attractive residential and commercial environments, and provide for a desirable transition to the surrounding existing neighborhoods. Student Enrollment Data and Projections The total population in Fort Collins is 144,880 which include students who live in the City Limits. In the fall of 2000, CSU had approximately 23,000 students. The total enrollment for fall 2012 is 26,769. Approximately, 74% are undergraduate (traditional) students, 9% are undergraduate (non-traditional), and 16% are graduate and professional students. Approximately, 23% of students live on campus in the 6,300 beds owned and operated by CSU; 77% require housing off campus. Assuming that same rate, and with a continued strong market position for CSU in Colorado and around the nation, CSU projects enrollment that could be as high as 35,000 in the future (10 – 20 plus years). This would include graduate and undergraduate enrollment (does not include on-line enrollment), and will continually evolve based on funding levels, market conditions and other factors. (See Appendix E) Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 10 Front Range Community College (FRCC) total enrollment for spring 2012 was 6,320. FRCC does not provide any on-campus housing, so all of their students live off-campus. Multi-Family Demand and Vacancy Rates According to the Colorado Division of Housing, the vacancy rate for the Fort Collins area during the first quarter of 2012 was 2.6%, one of the lowest in the state. With such a low vacancy rate, average rents have continued to increase reaching $1,010 for the 1 st quarter of 2012. The history of vacancy rates and average rents are: Year-Quarter Vacancy Rate Average Rent 2012 – 1st 2.6% $1,010 2011-3 rd 2.2% $946.73 2011-1 st 4.0% $902.87 2010-3 rd 2.8% $868.36 2010-1 st 5.2% $837.15 2009-3 rd 5.5% $846.37 2009-1 st 4.0% $860.81 2008-3 rd 4.2% $854.38 2008-1 st 4.8% $760.21 2007-3 rd 4.9% $757.17 2007-1 st 7.0% $758.27 2006-3 rd 8.9% $766.14 2006-1 st 8.8% $748.88 2005-3 rd 9.5% $730.27 2005-1 st 12.9% $739.79 2004-3 rd 11.0% $722.65 2004-1 st 13.9% $725.90 Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 11 SHAP mission – to ensure an adequate supply of quality student housing. Much of the SHAP stakeholder discussions have concentrated on the second part of the mission – to maintain neighborhood quality and compatibility. (See Appendix C) Student Preferences In 2011 and 2012, a rental housing preference survey was given to CSU students. The results from these surveys show that CSU students have the following preferences regarding rental housing (See Appendix F): Living Arrangement 84% currently rent 38% live in an apartment 34% live in a house 49% live within a mile from campus 42% live between 1-4 miles from campus Transportation 82% brought a car to campus/community when they moved here Method for daily commuting to campus: 25% drive their car to campus 24% bike to campus 23% walk to campus 15% ride the bus to campus Important Factors in Choosing a Rental 1. Price 96% 2. On-site parking 85% 3. Quality property management 81% 4. Number of bedrooms 80% 5. Type of amenities 79% 6. Proximity to campus 75% 7. Size of unit 63% 8. On-site bike parking 56% 9. Proximity to public transportation 53% Important Amenities 1. Full kitchen 82% 2. Closet/storage space 77% 3. Washer/dryer in unit 76% 4. Wi-Fi 58% 5. Large living room 56% 6. Large bedroom 54% Rent/Pets/Utilities 41% would pay more to have certain amenities Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 12 31% prefer to live with 2 roommates; 28% prefer to live with 1 roommate 67% prefer to have utilities included in the rent 68% believe that living with a pet is important Number of bedrooms preferred: One 12% Two 38% Three 37% Four+ 22% Housing Preferences House in a neighborhood – number 1 choice for type of residence 63% would pay more to live near campus 69% stay in Fort Collins during summer months 94% feel comfortable living in a building with 1-3 floors 74% are willing to live in a larger, high-density complex if there are adequate sound barriers Section 4: Action Items and Implementation Feedback received through the public engagement process drove the draft action items to be considered by City Council. Draft action items fall into 4 specific categories: 1. Near Term – Spring 2013 2. Longer Term – 2014 and beyond 3. Items that do not need formal Council consideration 4. Items proceeding in other processes Adopted Action Items During the SHAP process, City Council directed staff to bring some action items forward for consideration on a faster track than the Student Housing Action Plan process in an effort to quickly address concerns raised by residents about the increasingly adverse impacts of larger multi-family developments that were occurring near existing single- family residential neighborhoods. As a result of this, the following items have already been adopted by City Council through the Land Use Code (LUC) Changes Phase 1 & 2: The other draft action items in this category that came out of the public engagement process include: Action Item Process Date Adopted Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zone standards – apply to all multi-family projects outside of the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone requiring mix of housing, larger setback, building variation and articulation, park or gathering space. LUC Code Changes Phase 1 September 18, 2012 Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 13 Modify Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone to ensure commercial component. LUC Code Changes Phase 1 September 18, 2012 Type II Hearing for multi-family developments with 50 units or 75 bedrooms LUC Code Changes Phase 2 November 20, 2012 The benefit of the action items above relate directly to compatibility concerns. These changes provide the public the opportunity to give input on a project while it is still in the early stages of development, better design compatibility and a proper mix of housing and commercial uses. Referred Items During the LUC Code Change Phase 1 & 2 discussions, Council directed staff not to define “student housing” or change the TOD boundary. Council did refer three items back to the SHAP process for further discussion: Operations, Security & Management Plan; Limit 4+ bedroom units in multi-family developments; and University District or Overlay. The SHAP stakeholders discussed these three items in detail and provide the following for Council consideration: Operations, Security & Management Plan Amongst stakeholders there was general agreement that the City should not try to regulate business models or items that have limited enforcement effectiveness. The group suggested trying to find ways to incentivize multi-family complexes to have on-site management and a thorough management plan. Suggested ideas included reduced fines for owners with on-site management and possibly increased fines to owners when they do not have professional on-site management. Staff will continue to work with stakeholders to develop methods to encourage the use of thorough Operations, Security and Management Plans. Limit 4+ Bedroom Units in Multi-family Developments During this discussion, it became clear that a limit or percentage restriction is not the best way to address concerns. Instead, stakeholders felt that directly tying mitigation factors to 4-bedroom units would be more beneficial. Examples include greater buffering and providing more parking. Current code requires 2.5 parking spaces for one 4-bedroom unit; however, it requires 1.75 spaces for each 2-bedroom unit (total of 3.5 spaces for two 2-bedroom units but only 2.5 spaces for one 4-bedroom unit). These mitigation requirements would be based on a combination of the number of units, number of bedrooms, or number of 4+ bedroom units and the proximity to single-family residential neighborhoods. This issue is addressed in the near-term action items. University District In talking with stakeholders there was no clear benefit of establishing a University District, although the discussion included the following distinctions: Option 1: Non-Regulatory University District Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 14 This could highlight the uniqueness and qualities of the area – it could be similar to UniverCity Connections or the University District recently created in Greeley. Option 2: Regulatory University District Many of the regulations discussed seemed appropriate city-wide rather than just in a certain geographic area. The City currently focuses resources where they are needed so the areas around campus currently receive greater attention from both Police Services and Code Compliance; however there is a desire to better address repeat violations and exterior property maintenance (these items are being brought to City Council for consideration through a separate process in March 2013). At this time, adding a University District is not suggested. Future Action Items The Plan is based on the feedback received throughout the SHAP process, and the following action items have been developed for implementation through the adoption of the Plan. Action Items for Near-term (March - Spring 2013) The following action items will be brought to City Council Spring 2013 for formal Council consideration. The first three items will be fully developed and brought to City Council for consideration in March 2013. The last two items need more time to fully develop and will be brought to Council for consideration later in the spring 2013. Action Item Concern Addressed Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones. Compatibility Amend MMN district development standards and LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback from single- and two- family dwellings. Also, consider landscape requirements for this setback. Compatibility Confirm that the uses, development standards and density allowances in the NCB district are consistent with the intent and purpose of the district appropriate sub-area plans in that it provides a transition between residential neighborhoods and commercial-use areas. Compatibility Define different multi-family housing types (rather than just the broad multi-family definition). The requirement for multiple housing types could be used as a gradient of development between proposed multi-family and existing single-family. Compatibility Better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that 4+ bedroom developments need to provide additional open space, recreation areas, parking areas and public Intensity of 4+ bedroom units, compatibility Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 15 facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the development and excepting the TOD Overlay Zone. Action Items for Council Consideration – Longer Term (2014 and beyond) The following action items would need further development if Council supports them. Action Item Concern Addressed Build an above- or below- grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing at or near Shields and Elizabeth Streets. • This item would need 2-3 years to develop and fund – it would require further involvement and development from Transportation Planning & Engineering and coordination with CSU. Traffic and Safety Consider requiring property managers/owners to provide City ordinance information to their tenants at lease signing. • This could be accomplished relatively quickly (1 year) – it would require additional public outreach. Accountability Form an on-going advisory committee made up of City, CSU, FRCC, neighbors, students, property managers, Police, and ASCSU to guide City Council on student housing issues. • This could be accomplished relatively quickly (1 year) – it would require staff support. Accountability and Education Consider a Rental Licensing Program to ensure health/safety of units, data regarding rentals, increased accountability of the rental business. Require all landlords to take the Landlord Training provided by the City. • Council has considered Rental Licensing and Registration Programs in the past. • This could be re-visited if Council supports. • Would require 1-2 years for further research and significant public outreach. Accountability and Education Action Items that do not need Formal Council Consideration The following action items do not need formal approval by City Council. Staff is planning to move forward with these items unless we hear differently from Council. Action Item Concern Addressed Increase enforcement of nuisance and noise ordinances in areas with a high concentration of complaints. Increased enforcement on repeat nuisance violations (requires code amendment – planned for March 2013) Accountability Increase education about enforcement so the community is more aware of the enforcement process and data related to Education and Accountability Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 16 enforcement. Consider increasing proactive enforcement on noise and occupancy violations. Accountability Increase education efforts about Party Registration program and ensure it creates benefits to neighborhoods. Education Increase education to students based on current needs/concerns – students both on and off campus – include realistic information about what it means to move off campus and into a neighborhood. Education Provide information to parents of students so they are aware of local codes, ordinances, and responsibilities. Repeat messages often especially during peak housing decision times. Education Provide incentives for students to take Renting 101, an existing class that could offer a “preferred tenant” certificate that landlords could recognize. Education and Accountability Action Items Proceeding in other Processes The following action items are either moving forward in a separate process, or are the responsibility of CSU. CSU has discussed and agreed with the CSU-specific items below. No Council action is required. Action Item Concern Addressed CSU parking fees – CSU will assess as the academic year moves forward. CSU has not seen any downward trend in permit sales which indicates no increased impact on surrounding neighborhoods. CSU will conduct a parking and transportation study this fall. Spill-over parking City Parking Plan implementation – adopted in 2013 budget and proceeding in separate process Parking Update West Central Neighborhoods Plan – adopted in 2013 budget and proceeding in separate process Compatibility, housing, parking, transportation Work with CSU to develop enhanced transit service to surrounding neighborhoods with connection to MAX. Parking and Traffic Phase 3 of the Transit Plan - implementation Parking and Traffic CSU will strive to provide enough on-campus housing (either in halls or apartments) for all first year and international students as well as 25% of returning students, based on projections and actual CSU enrollment numbers. CSU On-Campus Housing Supply CSU will continue to explore options for public/private partnerships to provide student housing and to look at other examples and best practices. CSU On-Campus Housing CSU will continue to look at alternate sites for student housing as they refine their Master Plan. CSU On-Campus Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 17 CSU will present on-campus housing updates annually to the City/CSU Liaison committee and seek other opportunities to share this information with the community. CSU On-Campus Housing Section 5: Monitoring and Review Implementation of this Plan will occur as indicated in Section 4: Action Items and Implementation: • Near-Term Action Items Spring 2013 • Longer-Term Action Items 2014 and beyond • Action Items – No Council Action 2013 • Action Items In Other Processes 2013 and beyond Some of the Land Use Code changes will impact new development as it occurs. Others are new initiatives that will need to be accommodated in future work plans and, if necessary, accommodated in future capital and/or operating budgets. Most of them are recommended to be implemented as soon as possible, and some will be implemented immediately. The Action Items will be monitored regularly to ensure they are meeting the desired outcomes and to recommend any needed changes. Section 6: Financial and Resource Implications Full implementation of the action items in this Plan will have a cost. A cost in terms of expenditures from the City’s Operating Budget or Capital Budget or costs in terms of staff time or need for additional staff. The action items fall into three categories with respect to the need for resources. Existing Resources Some of the action items can be accomplished with existing resources and will not add costs to the City. These items include all of the Near-term Action Items. They are all recommended Land Use Code changes in an effort to better ensure compatibility of new projects with existing neighborhoods. Additionally, all of the educational program improvements outlined in the Action Items that do not need Formal Council Consideration will be implemented using existing resources. Additional Resources Needed Some of the action items will need additional resources to be implemented. All of the Longer-Term Action Items will need some level of additional resources (including a Capital Budget for a pedestrian bridge and an operating budget for a Rental Licensing Program). The details for the costs of these items will be included in the materials provided to Council when these items are brought forward for formal Council consideration. Student Housing Action Plan – draft report Page 18 Resources Identified in other Processes The action items that are proceeding in other processes will identify funding needs within the process they are moving forward in. For example, the City Parking Plan will identify the funding needs for implementation of that plan. Additionally, the items that are the responsibility of CSU will use CSU resources for implementation. PROJECT: Dixon Creek - Wall Project, Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 APPLICANT: Platte River Power Authority c/o Scott Rowley 2000 E Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: Platte River Power Authority c/o Scott Rowley 2000 E Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review for Platte River Power Authority (PRPA). PRPA is proposing to construct a new 12 foot high concrete block wall for security and screening purposes at their Dixon Creek Substation located at 2555 S. Overland Trail. The new walls would be placed in the same location as the existing chain link fences. After the construction of the concrete walls, the chain link fences would be removed. Improvements to the Dixon Creek Substation include landscaping around the wall on the north, east, and south sides to help break up the mass of the wall and to avoid creating a tunnel effect along Overland Trail. All wall construction will take place from within the site’s boundaries. No lighting is proposed with the wall’s construction. The site is zoned Public Open Lands (P-O-L) and contains 6.723 acres. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since Platte River Power Authority is a public utility, the project is governed by the Site Plan Advisory Review process in accordance with the pertinent State Statutes. The project’s location, character and extent are found to be in compliance with the City’s comprehensive plan. Platte River Power Authority – Dixon Creek Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: P-O-L, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, Pineridge Natural Area S: P-O-L, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, Pineridge Natural Area E: RL, Quail Hollow Subdivision (to the southeast) and FA1 (in Larimer County), vacant land (to the northeast) W: P-O-L, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, Pineridge Natural Area 2. Zoning History: The property was annexed in January of 1999 as part of the Pineridge Third Annexation. Dixon Creek was built by Platte River in 1982 as a 115Kv yard. They expanded the yard to 115Kv/230Kv in 2006. The original chain link fence was installed in 1982 and expanded in 2006 to accommodate the new 230Kv yard. There is a small area (0.079 acres) on the east side of the Substation that is owned by the City of Fort Collins. The City property purchase was made in the 1960’s to allow a City owned transmission line to connect with the then US Bureau of Reclamation 115kV transmission line. That federally owned 115kV line is now owned and operated by a different federal agency, the Western Area Power Administration. Since that time, Platte River has taken over operational responsibility for this City owned transmission line and the line’s connection is now connected into the substation equipment system rather than being connected to just one transmission line. 3. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public facilities shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the Platte River Power Authority Board. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Platte River Power Authority Board by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. Platte River Power Authority – Dixon Creek Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 3 Under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., the Planning and Zoning Board should make a finding as to the location, character, and extent of the public building relative to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City. Such findings help ensure that the proposed project conforms to the adopted plan of the City of Fort Collins. 4. Compliance with Applicable Zone District Standards: The Dixon Creek substation is located entirely within the P-O-L (Public Open Lands) zone district. While there are no specific zone district standards in the P-O-L zone district, a review of the applicable Article Three general standards are offered in Section 5 of this report for fulfilling the requirement for compliance with the location, character and extent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(D) – Tree Planting Standards The Land Use Code requires “full tree stocking” in all landscape areas within 50’ of any building or structure; this means formal or informal groupings of trees planted in accordance with the spacing requirements outlined in the Land Use Code. Nine trees already exist on the substation site, and 15 additional trees are proposed. The provided landscaping plan is currently being revised and will meet the minimum diversity standards of the 50% maximum percentage of one species. The revised landscaping plan will be provided to the Board prior to the Work Session. B. Section 3.2.1(F) – Tree Protection and Replacement All significant trees on the site will be preserved. Some tree removal will occur through the project, including three stumps and one dead spruce tree. C. Section 3.2.1(K) – Utilities and Traffic This standard requires that landscape, utility and traffic plans shall be coordinated. As illustrated on the plans, there are two, 70’ wide transmission line easements that cross the property. In these areas, the proposed vegetation must meet the requirements of Platte River Power Authority’s Vegetation Management Policy, which means no large trees can be placed within these easements. Platte River Power Authority – Dixon Creek Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 4 D. Section 3.4.1(L) – Compatibility with Public Natural Areas or Conserved Land As the site is surrounded on three sites by the Pineridge Natural Area, all proposed landscaping is native and in accordance with the Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan (adopted in 2007), including Ponderosa Pine, Pinyon Pine, and a mix of native rose, chokecherry and plum. The area adjacent to the Dixon Substation site is dominated by a mixed-grass prairie, and thus, as the site transitions from a largely public view on the south, east, and north sides of the wall, to a private view on the west, the proposed landscaping also transitions from dense plantings on the east (along Overland Trail) and in the northeast and southeast corners to the mixed grass prairie on the west. Though these species are all native, the City Forester has expressed some concern that the selected species are susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle. Final species selection will occur through final plan approval and will be coordinated with the City Forester and the Natural Areas Department. F. Section 3.8.11 – Fences and Walls This standard requires that walls shall be made visually interesting and avoid creating a “tunnel” effect. This proposal complies with the standard by providing columns throughout the proposed wall to break up the wall face, alternating the height of the wall from 12 feet to 10 feet in every wall section, and by softening the appearance of the fence line with plantings. As the proposed wall is surrounding a built-out substation, it is not feasible to vary the alignment or setback of the wall. 6. Location, Character and Extent: A. Location The location of the proposed wall replaces an existing chain link fence and does not trigger any concerns in regard to the City’s ability to execute its adopted plans including City Plan and various subarea and master plans. The proposed wall is located within the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area. It is not in any proposed or adopted subarea plan. B. Character As addressed above, the proposed wall complies with the Fences and Walls standards in Section 3.8.11 of the Land Use Code by providing columns throughout Platte River Power Authority – Dixon Creek Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 5 the proposed wall, alternating the height of the wall every 10 feet (one wall section), and by softening the appearance of the fence line with increased landscaping. In addition, staff and residents have worked with the applicant to create a distinguishable base, middle and top to the proposed wall and varying the colors of the wall to add interest. C. Extent The extent to which this proposal affects the City’s ability to carry out City Plan and other adopted plans is minimal. No existing buildings are impacted by this proposal, and the proposed wall replaces an existing chain link fence. Wall construction is expected to occur in one phase, last for four months, and begin in the fall of 2013 (note that the Timberline Substation is proposed to be installed in the spring of 2013). All work will be constructed from within the Substation property. 7. Neighborhood Meeting and Public Comments: Two neighborhood meetings were held for the Dixon and Timberline Substations (the neighborhood meetings were combined). The first neighborhood meeting was held on March 21, 2012, while the second meeting was held on August 29, 2012. At the first neighborhood meeting, one individual attended and presented no objection to the proposed wall. At the second meeting, two individuals attended. Their concerns included how the wall would be screened with the landscaping especially on the east, and northeast and southeast corners, the color of the proposed walls, and if other options besides a concrete wall were available. As the designs have evolved, staff has shared the revised designs with the individuals who attended the neighborhood meeting and those who have submitted written comments. One neighbor suggested the ornamental design should continue all the way around the wall. Another suggested the landscaping should continue on the west side of the proposed wall. Another citizen expressed that the money proposed to be spent on the wall would be better expended on additional landscaping and to leave the chain link wall in place. Platte River Power Authority installed a sample of the wall at the Dixon Substation site to help illustrate what the wall would look like. Staff notified all neighbors who expressed comments about the proposal that the sample wall had been erected. Staff will also notify all neighbors about the sample wall in the notice for the January 17 hearing. Platte River Power Authority – Dixon Creek Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 6 8. Findings of Fact and Conclusion: In reviewing the request for the Dixon Creek Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statute Section 31-23- 209, C.R.S., in that the location, character, and extent of the proposed wall conform to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City of Fort Collins. B. The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three and the zone district standards of Article Four. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Advisory Review for the Dixon Creek Substation Wall, #SPA120005. 9. Attachments: 1. Applicant submittal including the following: a. Project statement for the Dixon and Timberline Substation Walls b. Combined site, landscape and utility plans for the Dixon Substation Wall, and a simulation from the east and west portion of the sites viewing the wall. 2. Public comments on the wall, including the following: a. Eric Sutherland, received December 10, 2012 b. Margaret Lindstrom, received December 11, 2012. Platte River Power Authority – Site Plan Advisory Review Description of the Substation Wall Project Platte River is proposing to install 12 foot Allen Block Fence Systems at our Dixon Creek Substation located at the west end of Drake Road on the west side of Overland Trail and the Timberline Substation located in the southwest corner of Prospect Street and Timberline Road in east central Fort Collins. Both of these substations have been in operation for many years and are surrounded by a chain link fence for safety and security. The installation of Allen Block Fence Systems and internal security system additions are intended to improve and enhance the security of these two substations that are vital to the supply of reliable electricity not only to Fort Collins but also the Northern Colorado region. Platte River has completed this type of wall installation at three substations in Longmont, two substations in Loveland, and one substation in Laporte to date. One of Platte River Power Authority’s prime responsibilities is to deliver sufficient electricity to Fort Collins to meet the needs of the residents and businesses of the community. Platte River’s 230 kV substations contain many of the fundamental assets, such as, transformers, breakers, busses, switches, capacitor banks, Remote Terminal Units (RTUs), and communication systems necessary for the transmission and distribution of electric power to customers. If any of these assets were to be severely damaged or destroyed, it could have a detrimental impact on the reliability or operability of the electric grid, and/or cause significant risk to public health and safety. The proposed walls are a key aspect of Platte River’s 230Kv Substation Physical Security policy intended to provide safeguards for personnel and physical security requirements to prevent unauthorized access to assets, control systems, equipment, and information in 230 kV substations owned and maintained by Platte River Power Authority. Below are aerial photos of the Dixon Creek and Timberline Substations ATTACHMENT 1A Dixon Creek Substation - Looking Northeast Timberline Substation Looking South Platte River’s proposal is to replace the existing chain link fence with a 12 foot high wall constructed of colored specially designed concrete blocks and to install new 12 foot high rolling gates at access locations at the substation. The wall would be located along the same alignment as the existing chain link fence, so existing set backs from the street to the wall would stay the same as they exist today. Technical information about the wall installation process – • The 12 foot high concrete block wall will be built primarily to improve security for the substations that are vital in serving the electric energy needs of the City of Fort Collins. The secondary value of the wall is to reduce the view of the equipment in the substation. • The wall will be constructed of colored concrete blocks manufactured in Denver that interlock to form a wall that is designed to withstand 105 mph wind loads. • The wall will be constructed along the alignment of the existing chain link fence around the substation. No substation expansion or additional property acquisition is needed for this project. The existing chain link fence would be retained during the block installation process for substation safety and security. As the wall is installed the chain link fence is removed. • It will take about four months to construct the wall around each substation. • Platte River has used the same type of wall system to construct walls around six other substation sites in Longmont, Loveland, and Laporte. ATTACHMENT 1A • There will be an additional security system installed inside each substation that will be monitored 24/7 to further enhance security of the substations. • There are existing City of Fort Collins electric distribution facilities inside the Dixon Creek and Timberline Substations that will be enclosed by the wall. • Substantial metal gates will be installed at current gate locations. The gates are designed to block views into the substation. There will not be any changes to the existing access routes into the substations. • Delivery trucks would deliver the block needed for the wall installation early in the project and concrete trucks would deliver the concrete needed for the wall foundations. The blocks delivered to the substation for the wall would be stored inside the substation. The installation contractor's staff would work and park inside the existing substation fenced area during the wall installation process. All construction equipment would be parked at night and weekends inside the existing fenced substation area. • The construction staff will consist of 6-8 people. • The wall will be designed to maintain existing drainage patterns across the substations. Landscaping plan at Dixon Creek City Land Use Code Section 3.8.11 (A) requires walls if used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect. The Dixon Creek site has mature landscaping in place on the east, north, and south sides of the substation adjacent to Overland Trail Road planted originally to soften the appearance of the existing chain link fence line and substation equipment. Platte River plans to remove and replace three dead and dying trees or stumps on the east side and add landscape boulders in two areas to further soften the tunnel effect. In addition dense foliage including trees and shrubs will be added to the Northeast and Southeast corners to provide passing pedestrian and vehicle traffic added screening from the wall and substation. New trees and shrubs will also be added along the north and south boundaries of the substation to cover approximately ¾ of each fence line. Platte River is not proposing to add landscaping past this point or along the outside of the west fence line because the soil to the west of the substation is primarily shale rock and vegetation stands little to no chance of survival. In addition the east wall will incorporate architectural elements such as color variation, columns and articulation as shown on drawing number LS204. Photo simulations Platte River hired a consultant to complete photo simulations of the proposed walls for the two substations. Below is a current view of the substation followed by a simulated view with the proposed wall around the substation. The color of the wall shown in the simulation is the color selection Platte River would use for the actual wall. The simulation provides an idea of the amount of substation equipment that becomes hidden from view at the distance of the picture taker. The final picture is of a completed wall at a substation in Loveland. ATTACHMENT 1A Current View of Dixon Creek Substation Looking Northwest Simulated View of Completed Wall at Dixon Creek ATTACHMENT 1A Current View of Timberline Substation Looking Northeast Simulated View of Completed Wall at Timberline ATTACHMENT 1A View Of The Completed Wall At A Substation In Loveland If approved, Platte River would start construction of the wall at the Timberline Substation during the spring of 2013. The installation of the wall around Dixon Creek Substation would start in the fall of 2013. Following the Spring Creek flood in 1997 the City installed a significant berm system around portions of the Timberline Substation to prevent future flooding in the Substation. City staff then submitted a revised floodplain map for the area to FEMA for approval that showed that the berm system would protect the substation from future flooding at least up to a 100 year event. FEMA has now approved the revised floodplain map for this area and Timberline Substation is now deemed to be out of the Spring Creek flood plain area near Prospect and Timberline Roads. The majority of the property at Dixon Creek Substation is owned by Platte River. There is a small area on the east side of the Substation that is owned by the City of Fort Collins. The City property purchase was made in the 1960’s to allow a City owned transmission line to connect with the then US Bureau of Reclamation 115kV transmission line. That federally owned 115kV line is now owned and operated by a different federal agency, the Western Area Power Administration. Since the 1960’s Platte River has taken over operational responsibility for this City owned transmission line and the line’s connection is now connected into the substation equipment system rather than being connected to just to one transmission line. But there does remain a small parcel of City property near the east fence of the substation. The property at Timberline Substation is owned by the City of Fort Collins and leased to Platte River through 2050 as part of the Power Supply Agreement between the two entities. Platte River will request permission from the City to replace the chain link fencing at Timberline in accordance with a provision in the 2050 Power Supply Agreement which requires such approval. ATTACHMENT 1A ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 2A ATTACHMENT 2A ATTACHMENT 2A ATTACHMENT 2A ATTACHMENT 2A ATTACHMENT 2A ATTACHMENT 2A 1 Lindsay Ex From: Peggy Lindstrom <plind@lamar.colostate.edu> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:34 AM To: Lindsay Ex Subject: Re: PRPA wall update Many colors would indeed be intrusive but I think the use of a couple of colors more closely mimics a natural landscape. I'll look forward to seeing landscaping plans. Peggy On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote: Good morning Peggy, Thanks for your feedback – I will add it to the record and share it with PRPA (cc’d here). Regarding the landscaping plan, you are right – that is crucial. I am awaiting a landscape plan resubmittal and a review of the landscape plan to ensure alignment with what we’ve heard from the community (landscaping along the east being critical, as well as the southeast and northeast corners) and what we’ve heard from PRPA regarding their own limitations (they cannot place significant landscaping material in the area that is traversed by the transmission lines). In other words, yes, there is still more work to do on the landscaping plan and I will plan on sharing that with you when it is received. Regarding the wall, thanks for your feedback on that as well. The feedback to better blend in with the native grassland of the Natural Area by not having so many different colors was expressed at both the neighborhood meeting and by Natural Areas staff. I know PRPA is trying to balance a lot of folks’ preferences on the wall, and many have expressed that such an ornate wall would detract from the native landscape that the Natural Areas currently expresses. Let me know how you feel about that perspective – there is a lot to balance! Thanks again for keeping in touch with your thoughts on the project – and again, I’ll share the complete package with everyone before it goes to hearing. Have a happy holiday as well! Cheers, Lindsay From: Peggy Lindstrom [mailto:plind@lamar.colostate.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:13 AM To: Lindsay Ex Cc: Lindstrom David Subject: Re: PRPA wall update Thanks, Lindsay, for keeping us informed on this project. ATTACHMENT 2B 2 The wall looks OK. I like the mix of colors on the real thing. The lack of a lower dark band makes the wall for other sides look a lot more institutional. I'd prefer a mix of color on all walls. I also feel landscaping is crucial. I assume the completed proposal will include landscaping plans? I hope to be able to attend the next hearing but we will be away for much of January. Please feel free to share my comments with the PRPA. And have a happy holiday. Peggy LIndstrom On Dec 10, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Lindsay Ex <lex@fcgov.com> wrote: Good afternoon everyone, As you may have noticed, Platte River Power Authority has erected a scaled‐down sample of the wall they are proposing to construct at the Dixon substation. As you’ve expressed an interest in the project, I’m sending on a note from PRPA staff regarding the wall, see below: Note from PRPA: Taking into account, engineering and aesthetic considerations as well as input from the public and City of Fort Collins staff, Platte River Power Authority has selected a proposed design for a security wall at the Dixon Creek Substation. A photo of the proposal for the east side of the wall is attached. The model wall in the photo is located on the northeast corner of the substation property. Keep in mind this is a scaled down model. The actual wall panels will be 11 to 12 feet tall. The north, south and west wall panels will all be 12’. They will not alternate between 11’ and 12’ as on the east wall. There will, however, be some natural articulation as the north and south wall follow the natural contour of the ground. Also, as the north and south walls progress west from the east wall, the dark block at the bottom of the panels will be phased out gradually in the first five panels. The dark rows nearer the top and the top cap will remain dark block (See the attached illustration). The columns will be the same color as the wall panels (tan blend) with a dark cap. The substation’s gate will be painted to match the dark block. At this time, PRPA has indicated they will resubmit a revised plan set quite soon and they are tentatively hoping to go to hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board in January. Thanks for your feedback to date on this project, and let us know if you have any comments on the proposed design. Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Ex, LEED G.A. Environmental Planner CDNS | City of Fort Collins lex@fcgov.com 970.224.6143 ATTACHMENT 2B 1 Lindsay Ex From: Peggy Lindstrom [plind@lamar.colostate.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 3:20 PM To: Lindsay Ex Subject: PRPA Dixon Creek substation Attention Lindsay Ex: Dear Lindsay, Thank you for talking with me this morning. I would appreciate your conveying my concerns to the PRPA board relative to the construction of a wall surrounding the Dixon Creek substation located at the end of Drake Road. You may remember that I had a couple of general questions only indirectly connected to this specific development. 1. What has led to the dramatic increase in size of both the power stations? Where is that power coming from? 2. Where is that power going? And here is my brief note to the board: PRPA Board Members: As residents of Quail Hollow, my husband and I enjoy our proximity to Pine Ridge and the natural beauty that so enhances the city. The large Dixon Creek power station has a visual impact on that area--even more so since the recent construction of the power line. I understand such a large power station requires a protective barrier and a wall of concrete is probably necessary. My concern is how the impact of that wall will be softened by effective landscaping. I urge the board to consider using large trees appropriate to the area. Evergreens such as pine or spruce will soften the bleakness of a concrete wall year-round. I would not consider shrubs to be sufficient given the length and height of the wall. I understand the wall will entirely surround the station. While I would hope the impact on all four sides is taken into consideration, the west side has less visual impact and could blend into the surrounding open space with lower natural barriers. I encourage the board to let this development enhance the area rather than create a bleak concrete monolith. Thank you for your consideration. Margaret W. Lindstrom 2948 Garrett Drive Fort Collins, CO 970-484-9891 ATTACHMENT 2B PROJECT: Timberline Substation - Wall Project, Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 APPLICANT: Platte River Power Authority c/o Scott Rowley 2000 E Horsetooth Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNER: City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Site Plan Advisory Review for Platte River Power Authority (PRPA). PRPA is proposing to construct a new 12 foot high concrete block wall for security and screening purposes at their Timberline Substation located at 1809 S Timberline Road. The new walls would be placed in the same location as the existing chain link fences. After the construction of the concrete walls, the chain link fences would be removed. As the Timberline Substation is over 200 feet from Timberline Road and has significant vegetation screening from existing evergreen trees, no additional landscaping is proposed. All wall construction will take place from within the site’s boundaries. No lighting is proposed with the wall’s construction. The site is zoned Industrial (I) and contains 28.080 acres. The property at Timberline Substation is owned by the City of Fort Collins and leased to Platte River through 2050 as part of the Power Supply Agreement between the two entities. Platte River will request permission from the City to replace the chain link fencing at Timberline in accordance with a provision in the 2050 Power Supply Agreement which requires such approval. RECOMMENDATION: Approval Platte River Power Authority – Timberline Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Since Platte River Power Authority is a public utility, the project is governed by the Site Plan Advisory Review process in accordance with the pertinent State Statutes. The project’s location, character and extent are found to be in compliance with the City’s comprehensive plan. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: I, Front Range Community College and E, Bath Nursery S: I, Community Automotive Center, Timberline Star, Rocky Mountain Truck and Trailer and Crossroads Towing E: E, City of Fort Collins (to the northeast) and I, Buckinghorse Filing No. 1 (to the southeast) W: P-O-L, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, Pineridge Natural Area 2. Zoning History: The property was annexed in September of 1973 as part of the East Prospect Street 1st Annexation. The Timberline Substation was originally built by the City of Fort Collins in 1976 as a 115Kv yard. Platte River took over operation on the Substation in 1982 and expanded it to a 115/230Kv yard. The chain link fence was installed in 1976 by the City of Fort Collins. 3. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public facilities shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the “location, character and extent thereof” has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to the Platte River Power Authority Board. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Platte River Power Authority Board by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. Platte River Power Authority – Timberline Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 3 Under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., the Planning and Zoning Board should make a finding as to the location, character, and extent of the public building relative to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City. Such findings help ensure that the proposed project conforms to the adopted plan of the City of Fort Collins. 4. Compliance with Applicable Zone District Standards: The Timberline Substation is located entirely within the I (Industrial) zone district. In fulfilling the requirement for compliance with the location, character and extent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, a review of the applicable Article Four standards are offered. A. Section 4.28(E)(1) - Prospect Road Streetscape Program The Substation does not have any land fronting on or adjoining East Prospect Road so the standards do not apply. B. Section 4.28(E)(3)(a) - Screening Along Timberline Road, a dense screen of evergreen trees exists in front (east) of the Timberline Substation. The only residential use adjacent to the site is the recently approved Buckinghorse Filing No. 1, which is currently under construction. 5. Compliance with Applicable General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1(C)(D) – Landscaping and Tree Protection All existing site trees will be preserved. B. Section 3.4.1(I)(1) – Project Design This standard requires that projects in the Spring Creek Corridor be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat. This proposal complies with that standard through the neutral, muted colors chosen for the wall. In addition, the site’s existing screening will assist in screening the wall and Substation from a user’s view when traveling on Spring Creek Trail. C. Section 3.8.11 – Fences and Walls As the Timberline Substation wall is over 200 feet setback from Timberline Road, this standard does not apply. However, the site has extensive screening via Platte River Power Authority – Timberline Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 4 evergreen trees that buffer the Substation from Timberline Road to the east and the Spring Creek Trail to the east. 6. Location, Character and Extent: A. Location The location of the proposed wall replaces an existing chain link fence and does not trigger any concerns in regard to the City’s ability to execute its adopted plans including City Plan and various subarea and master plans. The proposed wall is located within the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area. It is located within the Prospect Road Streetscape Plan, but the Substation does not have any land fronting on or adjoining East Prospect Road so the standards do not apply. B. Character Staff and residents have worked with the applicant to create a distinguishable base, middle and top to the proposed wall and varying the colors of the wall to add interest. In addition, the wall has columns to break up the wall’s mass and the height alternates every 10 feet (one wall section). The existing screening from the evergreen trees will also soften the appearance of the wall, both from Timberline Road and from the Spring Creek Trail. C. Extent The extent to which this proposal affects the City’s ability to carry out City Plan and other adopted plans is minimal. No existing buildings are impacted by this proposal, and the proposed wall replaces an existing chain link fence. Wall construction is expected to occur in one phase, last for four months, and begin in the spring of 2013 (note that the Dixon Substation is proposed to be installed in the fall of 2013). All work will be constructed from within the Substation property. The property at Timberline Substation is owned by the City of Fort Collins and leased to Platte River through 2050 as part of the Power Supply Agreement between the two entities. Platte River will request permission from the City to replace the chain link fencing at Timberline in accordance with a provision in the 2050 Power Supply Agreement which requires such approval. Platte River Power Authority – Timberline Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA120005 January 17, 2013 P & Z Hearing Page 5 7. Neighborhood Meeting and Public Comments: Two neighborhood meetings were held for the Dixon and Timberline Substations (the neighborhood meetings were combined). The first neighborhood meeting was held on March 21, 2012, while the second meeting was held on August 29, 2012. At both neighborhood meetings, the discussion emphasized the Dixon Creek Substation. Staff has not received any comments on the Timberline Substation. 8. Findings of Fact and Conclusion: In reviewing the request for the Timberline Substation Wall Site Plan Advisory Review, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statute Section 31-23- 209, C.R.S., in that the location, character, and extent of the proposed wall conform to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City of Fort Collins. B. The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with the applicable General Development Standards of Article Three and the zone district standards of Article Four. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Advisory Review for the Timberline Substation Wall, #SPA120005. 9. Attachments: 1. Applicant submittal including the following: a. Project statement for the Dixon and Timberline Substation Walls b. Combined site, landscape and utility plans for the Dixon Substation Wall, and a simulation from the east and west portion of the sites viewing the wall. Platte River Power Authority – Site Plan Advisory Review Description of the Substation Wall Project Platte River is proposing to install 12 foot Allen Block Fence Systems at our Dixon Creek Substation located at the west end of Drake Road on the west side of Overland Trail and the Timberline Substation located in the southwest corner of Prospect Street and Timberline Road in east central Fort Collins. Both of these substations have been in operation for many years and are surrounded by a chain link fence for safety and security. The installation of Allen Block Fence Systems and internal security system additions are intended to improve and enhance the security of these two substations that are vital to the supply of reliable electricity not only to Fort Collins but also the Northern Colorado region. Platte River has completed this type of wall installation at three substations in Longmont, two substations in Loveland, and one substation in Laporte to date. One of Platte River Power Authority’s prime responsibilities is to deliver sufficient electricity to Fort Collins to meet the needs of the residents and businesses of the community. Platte River’s 230 kV substations contain many of the fundamental assets, such as, transformers, breakers, busses, switches, capacitor banks, Remote Terminal Units (RTUs), and communication systems necessary for the transmission and distribution of electric power to customers. If any of these assets were to be severely damaged or destroyed, it could have a detrimental impact on the reliability or operability of the electric grid, and/or cause significant risk to public health and safety. The proposed walls are a key aspect of Platte River’s 230Kv Substation Physical Security policy intended to provide safeguards for personnel and physical security requirements to prevent unauthorized access to assets, control systems, equipment, and information in 230 kV substations owned and maintained by Platte River Power Authority. Below are aerial photos of the Dixon Creek and Timberline Substations ATTACHMENT 1A Dixon Creek Substation - Looking Northeast Timberline Substation Looking South Platte River’s proposal is to replace the existing chain link fence with a 12 foot high wall constructed of colored specially designed concrete blocks and to install new 12 foot high rolling gates at access locations at the substation. The wall would be located along the same alignment as the existing chain link fence, so existing set backs from the street to the wall would stay the same as they exist today. Technical information about the wall installation process – • The 12 foot high concrete block wall will be built primarily to improve security for the substations that are vital in serving the electric energy needs of the City of Fort Collins. The secondary value of the wall is to reduce the view of the equipment in the substation. • The wall will be constructed of colored concrete blocks manufactured in Denver that interlock to form a wall that is designed to withstand 105 mph wind loads. • The wall will be constructed along the alignment of the existing chain link fence around the substation. No substation expansion or additional property acquisition is needed for this project. The existing chain link fence would be retained during the block installation process for substation safety and security. As the wall is installed the chain link fence is removed. • It will take about four months to construct the wall around each substation. • Platte River has used the same type of wall system to construct walls around six other substation sites in Longmont, Loveland, and Laporte. ATTACHMENT 1A • There will be an additional security system installed inside each substation that will be monitored 24/7 to further enhance security of the substations. • There are existing City of Fort Collins electric distribution facilities inside the Dixon Creek and Timberline Substations that will be enclosed by the wall. • Substantial metal gates will be installed at current gate locations. The gates are designed to block views into the substation. There will not be any changes to the existing access routes into the substations. • Delivery trucks would deliver the block needed for the wall installation early in the project and concrete trucks would deliver the concrete needed for the wall foundations. The blocks delivered to the substation for the wall would be stored inside the substation. The installation contractor's staff would work and park inside the existing substation fenced area during the wall installation process. All construction equipment would be parked at night and weekends inside the existing fenced substation area. • The construction staff will consist of 6-8 people. • The wall will be designed to maintain existing drainage patterns across the substations. Landscaping plan at Dixon Creek City Land Use Code Section 3.8.11 (A) requires walls if used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect. The Dixon Creek site has mature landscaping in place on the east, north, and south sides of the substation adjacent to Overland Trail Road planted originally to soften the appearance of the existing chain link fence line and substation equipment. Platte River plans to remove and replace three dead and dying trees or stumps on the east side and add landscape boulders in two areas to further soften the tunnel effect. In addition dense foliage including trees and shrubs will be added to the Northeast and Southeast corners to provide passing pedestrian and vehicle traffic added screening from the wall and substation. New trees and shrubs will also be added along the north and south boundaries of the substation to cover approximately ¾ of each fence line. Platte River is not proposing to add landscaping past this point or along the outside of the west fence line because the soil to the west of the substation is primarily shale rock and vegetation stands little to no chance of survival. In addition the east wall will incorporate architectural elements such as color variation, columns and articulation as shown on drawing number LS204. Photo simulations Platte River hired a consultant to complete photo simulations of the proposed walls for the two substations. Below is a current view of the substation followed by a simulated view with the proposed wall around the substation. The color of the wall shown in the simulation is the color selection Platte River would use for the actual wall. The simulation provides an idea of the amount of substation equipment that becomes hidden from view at the distance of the picture taker. The final picture is of a completed wall at a substation in Loveland. ATTACHMENT 1A Current View of Dixon Creek Substation Looking Northwest Simulated View of Completed Wall at Dixon Creek ATTACHMENT 1A Current View of Timberline Substation Looking Northeast Simulated View of Completed Wall at Timberline ATTACHMENT 1A View Of The Completed Wall At A Substation In Loveland If approved, Platte River would start construction of the wall at the Timberline Substation during the spring of 2013. The installation of the wall around Dixon Creek Substation would start in the fall of 2013. Following the Spring Creek flood in 1997 the City installed a significant berm system around portions of the Timberline Substation to prevent future flooding in the Substation. City staff then submitted a revised floodplain map for the area to FEMA for approval that showed that the berm system would protect the substation from future flooding at least up to a 100 year event. FEMA has now approved the revised floodplain map for this area and Timberline Substation is now deemed to be out of the Spring Creek flood plain area near Prospect and Timberline Roads. The majority of the property at Dixon Creek Substation is owned by Platte River. There is a small area on the east side of the Substation that is owned by the City of Fort Collins. The City property purchase was made in the 1960’s to allow a City owned transmission line to connect with the then US Bureau of Reclamation 115kV transmission line. That federally owned 115kV line is now owned and operated by a different federal agency, the Western Area Power Administration. Since the 1960’s Platte River has taken over operational responsibility for this City owned transmission line and the line’s connection is now connected into the substation equipment system rather than being connected to just to one transmission line. But there does remain a small parcel of City property near the east fence of the substation. The property at Timberline Substation is owned by the City of Fort Collins and leased to Platte River through 2050 as part of the Power Supply Agreement between the two entities. Platte River will request permission from the City to replace the chain link fencing at Timberline in accordance with a provision in the 2050 Power Supply Agreement which requires such approval. ATTACHMENT 1A ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B ATTACHMENT 1B Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services MEMORANDUM To: Molly Wendell, Boards and Commissions Coordinator From: Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager Date: January 31, 2013 Re: 2012 Annual Report: Planning & Zoning Board New officers (Chair Andy Smith and Vice-Chair Gino Campana) were elected in January. In 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board held 11 regular and 3 special hearings, taking action on an average of 5 items per meeting. The agenda ranged from one to seven items. The Board also held 14 work sessions. In addition to reviewing upcoming hearing topics, staff used work sessions to provide policy updates on a variety of topics including the East Side/West Side Character Study, Oil and Gas Development Local Regulations, Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines, Parking Plan for Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods, Student Housing Action Plan, Urban Agriculture, Affordable Housing Redevelopment Relocation Mitigation Strategies, and Non-Native Trees. There was one Board retreat in 2012. The Development Review agenda items for the year totaled: 3 Overall Development Plans (including amended plans); 4 Project Development Plans; 10 Additions of Permitted Use; 8 Modification of Standard (Stand-alone request); 0 Re-zonings; 7 Annexations totaling approximately 144.879 acres; 1 Major Amendments; 4 Site Plan Advisory Reviews; 5 Extension of Final Plan. The Board provided recommendations to the City Council on the following items:  3 Mile Plan Update  Oil and Gas Regulations  PDOD General Statements and PDOD Pilot  Downtown Parking Plan  Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines  Land Use Code - 2012 Annual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions P&Z 2010 Annual Report January 31, 2013 Page 2 - 2 -  Land Use Code Amendment(s) – Medical Marijuana (consistent with former Municipal Code Provisions)  Land Use Code Amendment(s) – How Appeals are handled (LPC, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council)  Land Use Code Amendment(s) – Outdoor Vendors  Land Use Code Amendment(s) – Multi-Family  Land Use Code Amendment(s) – Division 2 – Director discretion as relates to applications/land ownership  Wild Plum Farm 1 and 2 Annexation and Zoning  Wood Street (formerly Benson Mobile Home Park) Annexation and Zoning  Forney Annexation and Zoning  Kechter Annexation and Zoning  Kechter Crossing Annexation and Zoning  Hansen Farm Annexation and Zoning Planning and Zoning Board Decisions appealed to City Council:  1305 S. Shields (Carriage House Apartments) – Decision Upheld  705, 711, 715 Remington (Remington Annex) – Decision Upheld  Regency Lakeview Addition of Permitted Use and Project Development Plan – Staff is now reviewing the Land Use Code in the context of the feedback provided by City Council. cc: Planning & Zoning Board members Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Council Liaison Darin Atteberry, City Manager Karen Cumbo, PDT Director Mark Jackson, Deputy PDT Director Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Housing Multi-Family Supply and Development According to a rental listing provided by CSU, we know that there are approximately 57 off campus complexes that rent to students that provide around 13,000 bedrooms. In addition to this, many students choose to rent single-family homes. CSU has approximately 6,300 beds provided on campus. CSU is currently building more on-campus beds, and they have plans to build more in the future. They are committed to providing on-campus housing for all freshmen and international students as well as 25% of returning students. The private market has also responded to the demand for off-campus multi-family student housing projects; there are currently two large projects under construction and several more are either approved or in the development process. Most, if not all, of the housing needs will be met in the next five to seven years by the increase in on-campus housing and the approximately 3,500 student-oriented multi- family bedrooms currently under construction or in the development process. (See Appendix C) This housing supply helps meet the need presented in the first part of the